I might be among the few but I really enjoy a good quality hard-copy of a manual. It's one reason I buy a game rather than just download it. And lets face it, sometimes a flip through a book is just easier than poking through a poorly made in-game help system.

As much as we don't like paying for content, someone has to pay for for the journalist to do their job. If that can be done through ad money, great. These big mega news corps have found that putting content online ain't cheap. Adding any channel costs money and if the ROI isn't there the channel dies.

I would be interested in the number of *journalists* the sites above have employed. Some do I am sure, but news usually has to bubble up to these purely online news sites which usually comes from places like the NYT (think slashdot).

I'm not saying money can't be made via free online content, but having close ties to the news world, I can say with confidence that they are hurting. It's an industry shift that started with the Internet and will continue until most content is purely online. How much will this content cost? I have no idea, but someone will pay for it.

Isn't it also possible that viruses come from 8% of our DNA rather than contributing to it? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Origins "Cellular origin hypothesis" sub section...

A lot of companies will also use a single employee for all of their commits too. I know the company I used to work for made one man look like a code factory to a certain open source project, but, in fact, it was a team of 20 or so devs behind him doing the real work.

Wow, never thought I would see that again. I actually used this for a web site in high school several years ago and it did very well. I am actually the one that ended up making the little logo that's at the bottom of that page so I could advertise it on our site in the "powered by/this-site-uses" section. Don't go bashing my artistic abilities from the 9th grade :)

Building the structure of the brain is vastly different from the uses of the brain. The human brain develops over time in ways that would be very difficult to reproduce. That, mixed with the fact that learning takes place during this development makes the puzzle even more difficult. Remember too, that it takes our brains 10+ years, at the earliest, to produce thought patterns complex enough to solve modestly difficult logic problems (and in some cases it never happens). So, if man managed to build a brain like structure, we would probably spend several years just training it.

I use Code::Blocks quit a bit on Linux and Windows and love it. Just don't get the "stable" package and opt for compiling it from svn or grabbing a nightly build from the forum since the official package builds are years behind the trunk (or was last time I checked).

I am no expert here, but when I look at this I don't see any -Ox and I am pretty sure the default is -O0...

Most encrypted data looks random right? How is one to know if the data is a meaningful arrangements of bits hidden behind a key? I am thinking in terms of truecrypt where you don't even know if the file is a truecrypt file or not without poking it with the correct password first.

So *my* defense would be to be silent about the file(s) in the first place (since that seems to be an option in this case). If they can't tell it's even encrypted then they certainly can't accuse me of not handing over a key.