Similar systems are actually being build, but with a bigger scale (like big office buildings). There is no freezing involved, just heating the office space with warm water in the winter (cooling the water to ~10°C) and cooling it in the summer (heating the water to about 40°C).
During the rebuild of Christchurch, NZ they used this technique for a number of buildings, basically pumping out water with one well, then re-injecting it with another as I understand.
Essentially exploits the ground water remaining a constant temperature year around, warmer than the surface in winter and colder in summer
They recently shut down all the servers of a Chinese reseller with 45 servers after a lot of their servers were the target of a DDOS. It's of course understandable to disable those servers in case of a big DDOS, but the problem was that they gave the reseller 24 hours (during the weekend) to backup the data.
It's pretty much impossible to do this in the weekend without even the passwords of the customers. Imagine receiving this email when you wake up (probably some time after it was sent) and having to get new servers immediately somewhere, emailing/phoning customers for their passwords and then also having to transfer potential TB's per server in the small remaining time frame. After posting on WHT (meaning after a PR disaster), 100TB did extend the deadline.
It could very well be that the only civilizations that still exist are the ones that are good at hiding. All the others (even if they are the big majority) might have been destroyed after giving a signal of life/existence.
The placebo is actually there in double-blinded tests to remove any bias and other factors related to the experiment. And no matter how good/legitimate the experiment, any measurement pretty much always causes changes.
The actual effect of the placebo is usually at most a small portion of all the factors that are measured by it. Of course this depends heavily on the experiment in question and some drugs (like psychological ones) have a higher placebo effect than others.
A lot of people seem to have the idea that the placebo effect is very big for medication outside of experiments - but most of the time it's very small to non-existing.
There are complex interactions between the nervous and immune systems.
I don't think that anything has been demonstrated regarding allergies, but I wouldn't rule out a therapeutic effect in this case. The absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.
I must say I honestly don't know if they were allergies in the medical way. For quite some time I couldn't drink large (>1L/week) of milk while milk products were fine. I always called that an allergy and only learned much later that it's not;)
Are you sure this is the case? From the Adobe article it seems that after a certain date they will disable hardware rendering for flash games that use both domainMemory and stage3D.
In that case it appears to be that you would only need to sign the swf in case you use/need both of these features. If you do use them both without the signed license it will display a watermark on the debug player and disable hardware (switch to software) rendering on the normal player (an only after a certain date).
Protecting the interests of RIAA and MPAA is one thing. China, Russia and a lot of other countries want a complete different level of censorship and the current USA actions will look quite benign compared to what other countries want. Let me put it this way: things are bad, but they can become orders of magnitude worse.
That's great, except China and Russia can't impose anything. As the article says, the UN body is representative, every of the 190-sth members has a vote, and only some of them are despotic autocracies that will align themselves with China and Russia.
I would much rather have Brazil come up with some other ideas and instead of regulating the Internet, simply deny control to anyone, including the US.
[I recently read an article by Peter Sunde of The Pirate Bay fame, and he said that President (now former) Lula of Brazil personally encouraged Peter to move to Brazil, because it has no extradition treaty with Sweden. How can you not love that?)
I am Brazilian and although I believe a international administration of the Internet would be better than what we have now, I would hate if it came in Brazilian hands.
There in too much legalese running in my country and sometimes the judges are not reasonable in their decisions, if this same framework is applied to the internet things for me would be worse than they are now.
No one is suggesting that Brazil should run the Internet.
I'm just saying that Brazil is capable of independent thinking and could be a force for positive change in Internet governance.
And, personally, I would be even more hopeful for EU influence, which would be even more positive in terms of values, but I'm afraid the EU isn't vocal and active enough to be an effective change agent. (Well, maybe at least we'll kill ACTA. :)
> As the article says, the UN body is representative, every of the 190-sth members has a vote and only some of them are despotic autocracies
Only some?
> that will align themselves with China and Russia.
That's your argument? That commie bastards aren't a majority?
The vast majority of world govts are bastards, even if they're not commie bastards. They will happily cooperate to screw other people's residents if doing so helps them screw theirs.
And no, I'm not saying that the US is kittens and unicorns, except by comparison.
This is speculation, but I would be unsurprised if China and Russia (the current bogeymen) are able to buy votes from other countries using other tactics. The Great and Glorious Nation of Trashcanistan supports freedoom for her citizens...but she also supports access to cheap oil and rare earths.
As much as everyone might bitch about the missteps in US management of things, we've done a (mostly) excellent job--for example, I don't think that the EU would have anything useful to say about allowing hate speech on the 'net, while we tend to allow that sort of thing.
We are talking about phishing here. Don't you think they have access to a lot of recently-phished credit cards they could use to buy the forms? They would probably choose for a free competitor most likely since that is easier to automate and you don't need the hassle to try out the credit cards. I'm pretty sure web hosting companies already get a lot of phishers paying for an account with a phished credit card, though.
By the way, the scammers on dating sites use a lot of paid accounts (and pay for them themselves most likely) considering they get a lot more money out of it and a paid account seems more legitimate. Just to say that making something paid does not necessarily remove all the abuse.
Although this might prevent (a bit) that the phishers get the actual data and hence protect the victims, I am pretty sure that it won't cause any drop in phishing attempts. However for the legitimate users it will probably have a huge negative impact.
It's comparable to trying to stop spam in forums/blogs by disabling url's in posts. Usually you'll get the same number of spam posts, but the url's will be plain text.
It might actually be a good thing commercially. It gives them something to upsell. If you have a paid account, you get instant access to your form data. Free accounts have to wait.
