DW100 writes: Google's privacy policies continue to draw heat as the UK data watchdog the ICO tells the firm it must change them to adhere to UK law, or face the threat of a £500,000 fine (although this hardly likely to have the bean counters at the firm worried)
Attila Dimedici writes: The House Appropriations Committee is considering a draft report that would forbid the Library of Congress to allow bulk downloads of bills pending before Congress. The Library of Congress currently has an online database called THOMAS (for Thomas Jefferson) that allows people to look up bills pending before Congress. The problem is that THOMAS is somewhat clunky and it is difficult to extract data from it. This draft report would forbid the Library of Congress from modernizing THOMAS until a task force reports back. I am sorry that I cannot write a better summary of these articles, but I think this is an important issue about improving the ability of people to understand what Congress is doing. I am pretty sure that the majority of people on slashdot agree that being able to better understand how the various bills being considered by Congress interact would be good for this country.
Bill Gates is a geek, Steve Balmer is a salesman. Microsoft (a technology company) is tanking because it's being run by middle management now, while previously it was run by geeks.
Expect the same thing from Google eventually, and Apple when Steve Jobs leaves.
Avoid the latest technology, use languages/tools/etc with a proven mainstream history. This might mean you need to skip having the fastest and flashiest, but in return you'll have code that people will know how to maintain five years from now.
WerewolfOfVulcan writes: Wired reports that researcher Neal Krawetz revealed some veeeeeery interesting things about the Al-Qaeda images that our government loves to show off.
From the article:
"Krawetz was also able to determine that the writing on the banner behind al-Zawahiri's head was added to the image afterward. In the second picture above showing the results of the error level analysis, the light clusters on the image indicate areas of the image that were added or changed. The subtitles and logos in the upper right and lower left corners (IntelCenter is an organization that monitors terrorist activity and As-Sahab is the video production branch of al Qaeda) were all added at the same time, while the banner writing was added at a different time, likely around the same time that al-Zawahiri was added, Krawetz says."
Why would Al-Qaeda add an IntelCenter logo to their video? Why would IntelCenter add an Al-Qaeda logo?
Methinks we have bigger fish to fry than Gonzo and his fired attorneys... }:-)
The article contains links to Krawetz's presentation and the source code he used to analyze the photos.