It is important to move all urls to google.com, facebook.com, or amazon.com. Because soon, these will be the only 3 websites. GOOG and FB already account for 70% of internet traffic, with AMZN in much of the remainder. This is why all three corporations have mobile apps - so that you don't need that pesky browser that can access other sites. So much angst over DNS and ICANN - but soon DNS will be irrelevant. You'll need a Google or Facebook group. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstaltz.com%2Fthe-web-beg...

Police are not thinking on all cylinders. Anonymity works both ways. They need some undercover agents on Tor joining (and reporting on) plans ASAP (at least to the extent they are leaked to new recruits). I suspect, however, that ISIS recruits have to meet physically with handlers at some point - and at that point the undercover work becomes exceedingly dangerous.

Our small software company had a customer that would often complain, "The computer is sticking it's tongue out at me again!" For a custom module, I installed an error dialog for one particular error that displayed an animated face sticking it's tongue out. When she finally ran into this error, she was so tongue tied, she for the first time did *not* say "The computer is sticking it's tongue out at me!"

Well, how long did the Afghanistan militia hold out against the might of the Soviet military, followed by the might (not to mention "shock and awe") of the US military? Or do you think that we are pulling out because we "won"?

A slashdot friendly answer to silly magazine restrictions (annoying ad before article view):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/01/14/gunsmiths-3d-print-high-capacity-ammo-clips-to-thwart-proposed-gun-laws/

Only when no one else has firearms.

Actually, I showed gnome3 to a Mac user from Ecuador (legal immigrant, but low on funds) who can't afford the required upgrade to his MacOSX. He was totally sold. So at least a few masses are flocking away. On the other hand, gnome2 users are a harder sell.

A lot of the task of using fresh ingredients has to do with "cutting out the bad spots". I'm pretty sure robotics will eventually be up to this, but at the present it can only recognize bad items in a collection (on a conveyor belt, for instance). I wouldn't trust a robot to cut up my tomatoes and onions. Now I'm wondering how many "bad spots" are in canned pumpkin...

For every commercial success, there are ten projects that just die from lack of funding / lack of sales / patent trolls.

While robotic chefs aren't very good at final prep, they do great on processing a great many ingredients. For instance, are you going to cut up, boil, strain, and puree pumpkins, or are you going to take a can of pumpkin from the pantry? Is your homemade pumpkin puree really better than the factory? If its got to be cooked and processed anyway, the factory does a good job. If it ought to be fresh, e.g. salsa, the factory does a lousy job. There is simply no canned salsa that can hold a candle to real fresh salsa.

So robotic chef is out, but robotic kitchen assistant is in.

The key is to have any easy way for users to monitor usage, so they can cut back, or get ready to pay more. Also important, is making the process of paying more a pleasant experience. No, you are not "punishing" the customer for using your service too much. In fact, you want to reward them by offering them an upgrade to a plan with a higher allowance, at a substantial discount over the "a la carte" overlimit charge. And, you should find the increased gross revenue rewarding enough to invest in equipment, cables, and peering to keep customers ever expanding bandwidth hunger fed, and your cash flow flowing.

Less important, but nice, is to honor QoS tags from the customer, not you, so that with a smart router (or linux box), they can watch a high def movie (high bandwidth), while chatting on VOIP (low latency), and downloading the entire 50G Fedora distro (batch).

When the civil rights act, written to explicitly prevent discrimination based on skin color, is used to justify federal discrimination based on skin color (with similar backward applications of the 1st and 2nd ammendments), it is somewhat justified (if cynical) to expect that a regulation written to explicitly prohibit internet censorship based on content, will be used to justify federal internet censorship based on content.

I find putting "Mao eyes" is more appropriate.