RuadhanMc

Well in the 80's and 90's when Assange did the illegal hacking, that we're aware of, hackers weren't what we call hackers today.

So a reformed hacker in my books is someone who no longer illegally hacks into property that is not theirs.

In "Hacker News" existed a decade+ ago then it would have been filled with black-hats.

The boring, mundane stuff should absolutely be released... invaluable stuff for the historical record.

They have to check the leaks to make sure that they aren't putting any ones life in danger (when they haven't done this in the past their enemies have used it against them in the ongoing PR battle). That takes time.

It also means that they do cherry pick because they have to prioritize what leaks they will check and release first.

They've got 250,000 cables. A small team is going to take a long time to check 250,000 cables.

No doubt they do keyword searches of the cables to find the juicy ones and release those first, but, what you gonna do... release the boring, mundane stuff first? No one would pay attention to you.

Someone, somewhere, screwed up.

It's quite odd. Certainly Assange is quite technically savvy -- he's a reformed (genuine) hacker -- after all. So I just can't imagine him re-using passwords. Similarly, I would have thought that he'd be enough of a control freak to, you know, check this stuff out himself.

I haven't had a landline since 2007. Mobile phone, Internet and Skype more than meets all of my requirements.

$500m would be more than sufficient to do all of those things you've outlined. If you can put up 25% (random percent) of the money then you'd be able to get investors to put in the rest. Only a nut would invest the entire amount themselves.

But that aside, we're talking here about quality of life which does not equal being able to pay for the craziest most expensive ideas that you can come up with.

Yes, but you see, in order for him to actually get the gig as an Apple intern he'll have to sign his soul away and the consequences of leaking any information after he's signed those papers will be draconian.

It's vague cause that's the way he wants it.

For once I'd like to see a little more honesty... you know: "we did it for the money" rather than "we did it for the users". Liars.

--------------------

2. Why is CNET Download.com making this change?

The same reason you have your applications on Download.com – for the users. The CNET Download.com Installer ensures a safe and improved download experience by making it easier for Download.com users to complete downloads and launch the software’s installer.

--------------------

There is too much negativity on the Internet, but there's also too much of just about everything else. The ease of publishing on the Internet means that people don't think too critically about their work prior to publishing it.

For example, if these guys were publishing this benchmark as part of a study or argument in a quarterly magazine -- and this was there only opportunity to publish it for the next year or so -- then they would have been far more critical of their own work prior to publishing it. Instead they've quickly thrown together something and pushed it onto the Internet without too much further thought.

So long as it is civil, criticism is fine.

Why should they?

Just because someone posts a benchmark that is obviously flawed, doesn't mean that someone else should be obligated to do their own benchmark as a counter.

These guys didn't ask for node.js to be used in any benchmark.

The onus is on the person who chooses to do a benchmark, and publish the results, to get it right. If they don't get it right, then they are in the wrong and deserve the criticism that they get as a result.

Overall value of one person to a company is hard to measure. Yes, they might write great code, but if their abrasive and asshole personality bring down the productivity of the other five developers on the team, is it worth it?