Kainaw writes: For well over a week, I have not been able to access FedoraProject.org from home (where I use Comcast high-speed Internet). I can access it from work easily. I thought it was a blip for a few days, but then started asking around. Nobody here can access FedoraProject.org through Comcast. I've called and emailed them in the morning and evening for the last three days and I haven't received any worthwhile response. They just tell me to unplug my modem and plug it back in. So, now I'm thinking about the current push by companies like Comcast to charge for preferred Internet service. Is this the first step — blocking Linux sites to push out those "free software" freaks who demand an equal Internet for all?
joabj writes: "Did you know your typing style can serve as a globally unique identifier? Science News reports on how researchers are starting to use people's "clickprints" as digital forms of identification. "It's a bit scary," says Jaideep Srivastava, a Web researcher at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. "The privacy implications are huge.""
Watson Ladd writes: Microsoft research has created the Joins Concurrency Library for C#. This library uses the join calculus to model concurrency. No locks or condition variables are required, eliminating a lot of errors. A paper exists.
An anonymous reader writes: Extensive coverage of the DRM in Vista and its effect
on the hardware industry. He calls Vista 'the longest
suicide note in history'
Some of the stuff actually made me laugh out loud, I think some of this stuff is new too.
Anonymous Coward writes: "I used to work at an electronics recycling warehouse somewhere in the United States. My responsibility was initially to evaluate everything that came in on a pallet or in a gaylord box and take all of the "goodies" upstairs for testing and resale. This eventually expanded to include maintaining and installing the company servers, but in any case, I must have wiped hundreds of terabytes of 10/20/40GB HDDs while I was there.
Anyway, towards the end of my employment, I happened upon a few pallets of old computers from various departments of XYZ County. Items of note included a pair of Gateway servers (the first I'd ever seen in person, I almost didn't believe Gateway made them!) from the ABC wastewater treatment plant and a black ATX full tower case with no sides and evidence tape all over it. I pulled it upstairs because it had some very very nice components in it, top of the line in late 2002 (a typical computer to get on a pallet is a beige box from 1996, PC or Mac). Supplied with monitor, mouse, keyboard, and power, it booted into Windows 2000, automatically logged in, and in general seemed to be in very good working order. I used Google to search the rather unique surname that was markered on the 'seized as evidence' label and found some correlations with business documents on the PC itself. The contents of the computer were the usual mix of pornography, cracked video games, and IT deployment and migration plans that you'd expect from a feisty little dotcom specialising in media streaming technologies. I had initially assumed that the computer was seized as evidence of naughtiness by the company itself, but it turned out after contacting the original owner of the PC that it was evidence in a case against his father and they promised him that they'd return the PC eventually. Well as it turned out, there was no evidence on the computer's hard drive anyways, as his father had never used it, and they never returned the guy his PC and dumped it at our recycling plant, consigning his hardware and data to the trash heap. I did not think that was a very good ending to the situation, so I bought the drive from my company and mailed it to the original owner (I believe his dad was convicted of whatever and went to jail).
What is ethical in this situation? Obviously I violated the expectation of XYZ County that my company would wipe all of the data, but was it really theirs? Aren't they supposed to return evidence that wasn't even used, and obtained from people who weren't even defendants? I understand the owner was insistent for quite a while that his system be returned and promises were made but nothing came of it. I also feel bad about having snooped on the guy's computer, but he was quite understanding and pretty relieved in the e-mails I received from him."
Spinnerbait writes: "Dell's UltraSharp 3007WFP has historically earned high marks as a high-end 30" panel but recently Dell has made some upgrades to the big, beautiful beast. If you're in the market for something huge, this article at HotHardware that shows Dell's new UltraSharp 3007WFP-HC
might be of interest. Not only does this monitor feature a
gigantic 30" panel with a native resolution of 2560x1600, but it also features ultra high 92% color gamut
capability based on new backlighting technology that is currently one of the industry's best. Most other desktop LCD monitors feature a 72% to 76% color gamut. TheUltraSharp 3007WFP-HC is going to be somewhat expensive, and at first will
only be available with the purchase of an XPS system. Word is general availability will come in February. Drool...."