http://gigaom.com/cloud/lexisnexis-open-sources-code-for-hadoop-alternative/
WikiLeaks Cable Offers New Insights into Oracle-Sun Deal (PC World)
http://www.moserware.com/2009/09/stick-figure-guide-to-advanced.html
Update: Jeff Preshing has written an xkcd password generator. Users probably should choose their own four words, but it’s a nice example and a similar method could be used by an app to give “password suggestions” that are still safe. 
I find that the real world provides plenty of fun and unbelievable yet true tidbits, so why bother making up nonsense! # This file started by setting a SQL_MODE. That doesn't exist in # drizzle, so we comment it out sed -i "s/^SET SQL_MODE/#SET SQL_MODE/g" mysqldump.sql # The create database statement set a default character set. # Everything in drizzle is UTF8, so let's lose it! sed -i "s/DEFAULT CHARACTER SET utf8 COLLATE utf8_general_ci//g" mysqldump.sql # The table definitions mentioned a default character set. # Everything in drizzle is UTF8, so let's lose it! sed -i 's/DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8//g' mysqldump.sql # No MyISAM except for temporary tables, so away with it. sed -i 's/ENGINE=MyISAM//g' mysqldump.sql # Invalid timestamps are not accepted in drizzle, so this should be a null # value. Since some of the columns in this file are actually NOT NULL defined, # for now I just set those dates to 1970. UGLY, but works for me. Don't do this # on anything that will ever go anywhere near production though! sed -i "s/'0000-00-00/'1970-01-01/g" mysqldump.sql # tinyint doesn't exist anymore, so just replace with integer. Note that you'll # have to do this for all data types that no longer exist in drizzle sed -i "s/tinyint(.*)/integer/g" mysqldump.sql
Thank you for contacting PayPal in regards to our acceptable use policy and our decision made on the account for WikiLeaks. For security reasons we cannot discuss any details of a PayPal account with a third party. The status of a PayPal account can only be discussed with the account holder to ensure that sensitive account information is not disclosed. For more information regarding WikiLeaks donations, we advise you to contact the organization called Wau Holland used to raise funds for WikiLeaks. To learn more about the Acceptable Use Policy, please refer to our Help Centre and the Legal Agreements section on the PayPal website.=== My reply Thank you for your reply. The documents you’re referring to explicitly do not answer my question, which is why I asked. I am inquiring about other publically available information, from you, and asking for clarification: PayPal made a public statement about cancelling Wau Holland’s PayPal service, quoting a specific sentence from the acceptable use policy. It’s at https://www.thepaypalblog.com/2010/12/paypal-statement-regarding-wikileaks/ So, both the fact that an account was cancelled and some aspect of the reasoning was made public by you. So all I am asking is clarification of your own this public statement, as it affects me as a PayPal client. The sentence you refer to in the publication is “… payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity.” and such matters are, by nature, a matter of public record also. Therefore, it should be no problem at all for you to simply tell me what illegal activity you are referring to. Did they promote, facilitate or instruct? Which one is it? And which illegal activity? As you’ll be aware, what is “illegal” is defined by law; if the law has been broken, charges can be filed – then of course there is a presumption of innocence, but if a case is proven and a conviction is made, then naturally action is taken. No charges have been filed against Wau Holland, thus PayPal appears to have no legal basis for its action – it amounts to arbitrary choice and not actually based on the stated Acceptable Use clause. As I mentioned in my original question, of course a company has the right to choose its customers – that’s why it has terms, conditions, acceptable use policies, etc. It makes it clear to would-be-customers what can be expected. If you put in a clause “we reserve the right to cancel any client’s service at any point at our discretion” then indeed you can do what you like, and clients know what to expect. It’s clear. However, that’s not what you did. In this case your actions don’t appear to jive with your own published policies, and your initial response to me does not inspire any more. The issue in a way has nothing to do with WikiLeaks or Wau Holland and whether their actions are likable or not. But what it appears to mean for PayPal clients: if a malicious third party contacts PayPal or PayPal itself “feels like it”, my account may be suspended even if I did not break any stated PayPal policy. As a person, and entrepreneur, this worries me greatly. It becomes a matter of PayPal being predictable and trustworthy as a business partner. I think that is quite worthy of a more constructive and comprehensive response from the side of PayPal. thanks Regards, Arjen. === Their reply (9 Dec) Thanks for contacting PayPal. I appreciate the opportunity to assist you with your questions. (yes that was the entire reply) === My reply (9 Dec) yes? I too would appreciate that [assisting me with my questions], but you haven’t so far. The above text was the only bit in your email, not actually addressing my questions. Looking forward to your proper reply. thanks === No further correspondence was received. On the same day though, this appeared in the press: Caving to pressure from supporters, PayPal releases WikiLeaks’ funds Well, that’s something, But doesn’t actually address the questions I raised, which were of a generic business nature and not restricted to the WikiLeaks issue. The issue is that PayPal appears to be an unpredictable business partner, not adhering to its own terms of service when (for whatever reason) it sees fit. That is a serious problem.