Slash Boxes

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
1 | 2 | (3)
  • 150,000 deaths per year

    (Score:2, Insightful)
    by timmarhy (659436) on Saturday June 30, @06:41PM (#19702109)
    That is such a load of bullshit, i hardly know where to start.

    how about, that even IF climate change is man made (that's a big IF) there is NO CREDIBLE way to link someone dieing in a storm to exxon. The storm could have happened without climate change, the person could have not walked into that torrent of water, there's no way to trace emissions to a specific company as the cause for a storm or any kind of weather.

    It just shows the absurd claims global warming cult members will make in order to feel self righteous.

    • by tgatliff (311583) on Saturday June 30, @06:55PM (#19702169)
      Keep in mind that groups like this try to make their way to the top of the news by making outlandish statements... The bolder the statements, the easier it is to get people to listen to them... Statements like these are nothing new...

      With that being said, on the political side, I clearly see a shift coming at some point... Meaning, more people are feeling that their lives are being actively manipulated by corporations, and manytimes they are probably right. Actually, the original 1960's "movement" was to combat exactly this, meaning a focus on self-reliance. Unfortunately, though, all of this has been lost thru time with the only things remembered now being drugs and free love crap..
    • Re:150,000 deaths per year

      (Score:2, Troll)
      by canUbeleiveIT (787307) on Saturday June 30, @07:02PM (#19702201)
      The "Health and climate scientists at the University of Wisconsin at Madison" say so, so it must be true. Heaven knows that UW Madison isn't as left-wing, America-hating, and socialist as a university can get. Oh wait, maybe it is...

      Oh well, this is slashdot, so the cultists modded you down for not subscribing to the hive mentality.
      • Re:150,000 deaths per year

        (Score:1, Troll)
        by timmarhy (659436) on Saturday June 30, @07:09PM (#19702241)
        yep, that's about it. ever notice that stats like that are nice round numbers. if they had actual facts, wouldn't the figure be 150,001, not a neat 150,000? oh thats because they don't really know THEY ARE JUST MAKING SHIT UP.
        • by pjabardo (977600) on Saturday June 30, @10:08PM (#19702893)
          Not saying that I agree with those numbers but you don't know much about statistics or uncertainties. You don't even know much about significant figures! Every measurement has an uncertainty. Sometimes this uncertainty is small and sometimes it is large. If you go to the butcher and ask for 1kg of meat, The guy will charge you for 1kg but you won't get 1kg, probably something like 1.002 (probably worse). Governments regulate this sort of thing and that's why there are large and costly institutions like NIST (in the USA). I did not read the paper that was mentioned but if it was published in a scientific journal it will probably mention somewhere the uncertainty value. So the actual number is something like 150.000 +/- 50.000 with a probability of 90% (there are other ways to declare the uncertainty). Now these hypothetical numbers mean that the actual number of deaths could be larger than 200.000 or lower than 100.000 but the probability of the number being outside the given range is close to 10%. 150.000 is just the "nice" number closest most likely number. If you want to question the numbers, the way to go about it is to question the sampling techniques. That's how polls and research is usually manipulated. They certainly didn't go around the world determining what cause each death. The sample used to get these numbers could be biased (counting only the deaths near some sort of disaster for instance). Good sampling is *really* hard if not impossible. To get a good sample it takes a lot of experience, deep knowledge of the subject under study and a lot of honesty. BTW, didn't your high school physics teacher tell you to drop all those digits of the calculator display?
        • by ZorroXXX (610877) <> on Saturday June 30, @10:39PM (#19703061)
          Have you hear the story about this fellow that was working in a museum with dinosaurs and fossils. One day while showing a group of visitors around he explains "This item is 50 million years and 6 months old". "Wow, so you can determine age that accurate!". "Yes, because when I started here it was 50 million years old, and that is half a year ago".

          150,000 absolutely sounds like a number of proper accuracy in this case. If 150,000 is a correct number is another matter (I do not know).

          Remember, 68.42% of all statistics express a higher degree of accuracy than there actually is.

        • by gilroy (155262) on Saturday June 30, @11:31PM (#19703313)
          ( | Last Journal: Saturday August 24, @12:47AM)
          Are you really quibbling with sig figs?

          The 150,000 is not an indicator that they're "making stuff up". In fact, if anything, it's an indicator that they're not. As a general rule, it's the whackos and crazies who claim to measure huge system effects to absurdly high resolution.

          Clearly, for this number, it is a statistical estimate, the grungy output of which is then rounded to a convenient near number.
    • The Darfur conflict is largely fueled by desertification brought on partly by climate change. Here are some 2005 estimates: 85-2005Apr23.html []. Things have not gotten any better since then, but the deaths have become harder to count.

      Their are deaths that can be even more directly tied to warming: [] as well. You should look into things a little more closely I think.
      Get affordable solar power: -selling-solar.html []
    • by Wister285 (185087) on Saturday June 30, @07:54PM (#19702489)
      You bring up a good point and I would like to add to it. Don't complain that ExxonMobil is satisfying a demand that it has not created. It's like trying to blame companies in the automotive industries for automobile accidents. It's not their fault that some people use their products improperly. If any of the oil companies scaled back production or stopped, a global depression would most likely be created and we would see the beginnings of a new Dark Age. If you don't like oil, move to a city and start walking or using public transportation. Centralization both limits destruction of open space and the energy that is required to move people to where they have to be. I know that might be beyond what some people are willing to do, but it's the only real solution.

      On a somewhat related note, I think it's ironic that many of the environmentalists that I have met also use drugs. I have absolutely no problem with drugs fundamentally since I think people should be allowed to do what they wish, but I do have a problem when they are illegal and their illegal distribution fuels crime and terrorism. It's pretty hypocritical to blame companies for altering the environment when illegal drug trafficking causes millions of people to suffer everyday.
    • Re:150,000 deaths per year

      (Score:3, Insightful)
      by jollyreaper (513215) on Saturday June 30, @10:10PM (#19702899)

      That is such a load of bullshit, i hardly know where to start.

      how about, that even IF climate change is man made (that's a big IF) there is NO CREDIBLE way to link someone dieing in a storm to exxon. The storm could have happened without climate change, the person could have not walked into that torrent of water, there's no way to trace emissions to a specific company as the cause for a storm or any kind of weather.

      It just shows the absurd claims global warming cult members will make in order to feel self righteous.
      You weren't modded down for disbelieving in global warming, you were modded down for being dickish about it. Global warming cult members? Fine, I'll give you that, only so long as you concede membership in the Flat Earth Society.

      You know why people get pissed off with positions such as yours? Because there's a long history of the pro-corporate or pro-money side of the argument being utter bullshit. This can lead to some mistakes of bias such as automatically assuming the government is lying whenever a claim is made. But consider the history of lies we've seen. The air at Ground Zero is perfectly safe...except people are dying now. The Iraq WMD intel was a slam dunk, only we now have 100% proven fact that it was all fabricated in support of a war Bush already planned to fight back when he said he was still gathering evidence. Tobacco companies insisted for years that cigarettes were neither addictive nor harmful. Free markets and deregulation work except for rare instances like Enron and everything else where they don't.

      When it comes right down to it, we're not talking about a complicated issue where honest people fall into two different camps and are interested solely in discovering the truth of the matter. Global warming is just another issue where 99.9% of apolitical experts find themselves on one side of the issue and the corporate-sponsored .1% find themselves on the other side. Then you end up with conservative flacks taking up the banner of the corporations as if that's the patriotic thing to do.

      I have no idea what your opinion on health care is but I bet you hate France and think Michael Moore's SiCKO is just a bunch of hippie propaganda. I'm not going to try and convince you that France's health care system is perfect, I'm sure there are flaws. But is it working better than ours at this point? More importantly, if we're the best fucking country on the planet, shouldn't we be able to provide the best fucking health care on the planet? And don't even try to tell me what we have is good right now, that just means you're divorced from reality. Even the staunchest conservative should be able to agree with that point, "we should be able to do better than France."
    • by The_mad_linguist (1019680) on Saturday June 30, @10:15PM (#19702935)
      Chaos effect.

      Hey, you, the guy reading this. If you hadn't been born, hurricane Katrina wouldn't have happened. Thanks a lot!
    • by Blakey Rat (99501) on Sunday July 01, @01:21AM (#19704019)
      I haven't done the research, but 150,000 climate change related deaths a year just triggers my bullshit sensor. It's like those anti-smoking ads which say that smoking causes asthma... uh, yeah, that explains why there are so many asthma cases now (when people don't smoke) as opposed to decades past (when many, many more people smoked.) I think my bullshit sensor is pretty well-tuned.
    • by Guuge (719028) on Sunday July 01, @01:32AM (#19704085)

      Is that any worse than posting rants on slashdot to feel self-righteous? Just curious.

    • by zahl2 (821572) on Sunday July 01, @08:21AM (#19705929)
      (Last Journal: Tuesday October 12, @05:33PM)
      Massachusetts et al. v EPA:

        "Based on respected scientific opinion that a well-documented rise in global temperatures and attendant climatological and environmental changes have resulted from a significant increase in the atmospheric concentration of "greenhouse gases" ..."

      Apparently our conservative, let's overturn Roe vs. Wade and Brown vs.Board of Education, actually thinks climate change is real. But then they read their science briefs.

      (I'll agree that pinning numbers of deaths to it is all going to be in how you bother to count. But I'm really surprised you aren't modded as flamebait.)

    • by Ambitwistor (1041236) on Sunday July 01, @09:58AM (#19706579)

      how about, that even IF climate change is man made (that's a big IF)
      It's not really that big of an "if" anymore. The big "if" is how much of it will occur in the future.

      how about, that even IF climate change is man made (that's a big IF) there is NO CREDIBLE way to link someone dieing in a storm to exxon.
      No one is linking any particular storm to climate change. You can, however, link changes in storm, crop growth, precipitation, etc. trends to climate change, and you can link storms, crop growth, and precipitation statistics to deaths.
    • Re:150,000 deaths per year

      (Score:5, Informative)
      by Khaed (544779) on Saturday June 30, @07:34PM (#19702381)
      yeah, welcome to /. moderators: They think "Troll" is the same as "person who I disagree with."

      Trolling is generally defined as saying something assholish to get replies ("why the fuck would anyone use vi?" or "why the fuck would anyone use emacs" for examples). While flamebait is trying to instigate a flamewar, like: "vi is clearly better than emacs because it has a simpler interface" or "emacs is better because it has more features." Off-topic -- well, if you can't figure that one out, you ought not be moderating, or even on slashdot. The closest to "-1 I disagree" is Overrated.

      This works both ways; there are also moderations in the UPWARD direction that make no sense. This article has a few already. Generally, saying bad things about corporations (unless you're twitter) or Bush can get you moderated up unless you have zero tact. (Seriously, we all know Bush is a fucking moron. Just a year and a half left, and he's gone.)

      Sometimes saying *good* things about people we *really hate*, like the RIAA, gets you moderated up. I think this is because mods just get so shocked their brains cease to function correctly.

      Also, there are six billion people on this planet. 150,000 people die about every twenty-four hours. It's not going to affect us. Human beings like to reproduce. We're in no danger of dying off with such a small number of deaths. You want to impress me? Add three zeroes to that number. Then I'll concede we're in trouble. Maybe I'm just jaded, but people die every day for stupid reasons. People have been dying since there were people. All this hand wringing and fretting isn't doing any good -- either work to solve problems, or shut up. But don't be an asshole about it. Besides, if you want to be really cynical, eventually, the universe will reach maximum entropy (if you believe the Heat Death theory).
      • Re:150,000 deaths per year

        (Score:3, Informative)
        by Gord (23773) on Saturday June 30, @09:05PM (#19702571)
        Also, there are six billion people on this planet.

        6 billion in 1999, 6.7 billion now, scary isn't it. []
        • It's only scary if you have accurate data about the carrying capacity of Earth, and if you're sure it's less than that. Or if you're fear-mongering.
          • by Khaed (544779) on Sunday July 01, @12:53AM (#19703855)
            Or if 700 million net new people in eight years just frightens you.

            I don't like the rate at which our population is growing. There's no political reasoning behind it. No global warming fear or anything. I just wish people would fuck less.

            Or video tape it more. Either way...
            • But the growth rate is only a concern if we're near carrying capacity, or are in danger of reaching it soon. Are we? I've heard hysterical shouting to that effect, but seen little hard evidence. Or are we just superstitious enough to get frightened by large numbers?
              • by Khaed (544779) on Sunday July 01, @02:20AM (#19704335)
                It's more that the rate itself is growing, and speeding up, not that we're reaching a capacity. I'm not really worried, I'm just not all that fond of people. ;)

                All of the following assumes my late-night-math hasn't been affected by alcohol:

                700 million net gain in eight years with 6 billion is 11.67% gain in population. That's 1.46% growth a year. That's not so bad, really. If it keeps up, and the rate of increase doesn't change per year, that means once we reach 10 billion, in two years we will have a net gain nearly equal to the population of the United States at present. That's a little bit scary to think about. I'm not about to do the math to figure out when we'll hit 10 billion, but it will most likely be in my life time.
                • The interesting thing is, if you look at population growth rates from around the world, wealthier and more advanced countries have lower (and by lower I mean zero or negative) rates. Does this mean that if we develop the entire world to a first-world standard of living, world population will stop growing or go down? Yes, and since we should develop the entire world to that state anyway, it's only more reason to try it and find out. With luck, the world population will diminish in the far future, we may never reach 10 billion, and we might end up in a steady state of oscillation--when resources are so plentiful that we can have tons of kids on the cheap, we will, and then our children won't afford to have as many children. Or, we could find that some currently-impoverished culture is an exception to the "prosperity = low birth rate" theory, and they will take over the world.
              • by aepervius (535155) on Sunday July 01, @09:53AM (#19706537)
                Not for food, but for fuel and water, *IF* the whole world would ahve a first world standard of living and particulary all sort of fuel consumption the US have. If you do not believe me compare per-head US consumption, with the whole world production, the multiply by 6 billion. Sorry. 6.7 Nillion now. And for some stuff (like crude) the production is growing slowlier (or even going down) quicker than human grwoth so it ain't going to be better.

                Now if you take the average 3rd world consumption and make it stay constant per head, then I agree with you this is scare mongering. But such an hypothese seems to be completly belied by the fact that two of the most populated country on earth are making stride toward MROE consumption, not less. But feel free not to be concerned. I bet you live in a first world country.
      • Re:150,000 deaths per year

        (Score:3, Informative)
        by Guuge (719028) on Sunday July 01, @01:39AM (#19704117)

        Trolling is generally defined as saying something assholish to get replies ("why the fuck would anyone use vi?" or "why the fuck would anyone use emacs" for examples).

        Here's another example: "It just shows the absurd claims emacs cult members will make in order to feel self righteous."

        Hmmm... that looks somehow familiar.

      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Nice headline, guys!

    (Score:5, Insightful)
    by SEE (7681) on Saturday June 30, @06:48PM (#19702143)
    First, we don't actually know that Exxon complained to the ISP, because the ISP did the takedown "in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify." You can argue that it's likely to be Exxon, but the fact is nobody knows.

    Second, filing a complaint with an ISP is not the sort of action one implied by "Brute Squad".

    Third, there was no hacking involved.

    You know, the only way to improve this headline would have been to name a group other than the Yes Men as the ones who were cut off.
    • Re:Nice headline, guys!

      (Score:5, Funny)
      by SEE (7681) on Saturday June 30, @06:53PM (#19702165)
      Yes, bad form replying to myself here. But!

      1) We know the Yes Men have previously masqueraded as ExxonMobil executives.
      2) This takedown has generated additional publicity for the Yes Men.

      Wouldn't it have been a master stroke by the Yes Men if they had faked their own ISP into taking them down by making the complaint themselves?
    • by Khaed (544779) on Saturday June 30, @07:12PM (#19702259)
      Yeah, but if they didn't use such an inflammatory title, we wouldn't get 200+ posts (pageviews, baby!) of people bitching about the loss of free speech, "only in America!", and due to the "climate change" part, we get to have YET ANOTHER global warming thread on /.!

      Really, it's gold all around for people who want to bitch about America/Bush/global warming.

      I'm more interested in naming and shaming the shit ISP who simply collapsed after one threat. Their name isn't even in the summary (as of the time of this posting). That should be the headline:

      "Broadview Networks a bunch of pussies, shut down website after complaint made."

      Or we could go with something less inflammatory (although with "Brute Squad" and "Hacks" in the title of this one...):

      "Yes Men bash Exxon; Broadbiew Networks shut them down and refuse to reveal source of complaint."

      Too long?

      "Broadview Networks shut down YesMen after single mystery complaint."

      Seriously -- headlines like this article's are not good for Slashdot. It's inflammatory, and it's stupid.
  • nature of satire

    (Score:5, Interesting)
    by fermion (181285) on Saturday June 30, @07:18PM (#19702289)
    (Last Journal: Thursday May 03, @12:34PM)
    I do believe that corporations in the US expect to be treated as a "person" under national and international law. The problem with this assumption is that if a person, even a head of state, murders 100 people, or even destroys massive property, such in the case Exxon Valdez, that person can be significantly inconvenienced, while corporation can evade punishment for ever. And if the corporation is given the ultimate punishment, as in the case of Arthur Anderson, the political reprecusions tend to much more significant than when the equivalent human thug is punished by state sponsored killing.

    On the other side of the argument there are persons who believe corporations should have no rights at all. These people believe that they can say the Microsoft sponsors the mass killing of anyone who disagrees with them. This is ok a the accusation is so extreme that no one would believe, so it is clearly satire. The problem, of course, is where to draw the line. Is it ok to say that MS regularly sanctions threats of any medium ranking figure who threatens their monopoly? Where does satire end and stock manipulation begin?

    Ultimately, I think we get into the nature of satire, and the death of the art form. Traditional satire abstracts some tyranical figure that is simply to dangerous to attack directly, and cleverly illustrates the tyranny and negative impact of the figure. Or satire highlights some social policy, and then proposes a ridiculous solution to it. Satire is useless when launched at figures that can be attacked directly or when is simply attributes characteristics that the figure probably does not possess.

    It saddens me that meaningless verbal attack is put forth as satire. In this case the article could have proposed that ExxonMobile convert the people into a product. Such a modest proposal would not be original, but at least would be an attempt at satire, rather than just the ranting of thugs. Or they could have attributed the action to Butthole Petrol Incompentated(BPI), or EXpat Oil Nation MOBlized , or whatever. Just make it interesting satire, not school house insults.

    • Oh Wait...


      In this case the article could have proposed that ExxonMobile convert the people into a product.

      How about Vivoleum(TM)?
      Turning sunlight(TM) into a product: -selling-solar.html []
    • Re:nature of satire

      (Score:1, Informative)
      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 30, @09:27PM (#19702669)
      So you think Exxon didn't get punished for the Valdez accident? You're a lying sack of shit. It cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in direct costs, and billions (yes, with a "B") in indirect costs; thing about the legislative changes that doubled the cost of production on the north slope. And, by the way, wasn't the accident the fault of the ship's captain, who's responsibility is the ship, crew and cargo? Yes, he was accused of being an alcoholic. Guess what, in the US, you can't fire someone for being accused of having a disease. That's the law. You go shut up and play with your crayons.
    • by obi (118631) on Sunday July 01, @02:49AM (#19704479)
      I think the point of the Yes Men's "performances" is to make the people present realize that they can easily go over their own ethical boundaries. Maybe they'll pay more attention to their own ethics after that.
    • Re:nature of satire

      (Score:3, Insightful)
      by Tom (822) on Sunday July 01, @06:16AM (#19705373)

      I do believe that corporations in the US expect to be treated as a "person" under national and international law.
      You start your argument with a wrong assumption.

      Corporations (in the US and elsewhere) employ entire squads of lawyers whose sole job it is to navigate the most profitable path through the jungle of laws. That includes demanding to be treated as a "person" whenever it is profitable to do so, and on the other hand demanding to be treated as a purely legal entity whenever that is more profitable.
  • by MSTCrow5429 (642744) on Saturday June 30, @07:57PM (#19702505)
    One day after the Yes Men made a joke announcement of ExxonMobil's plans to turn billions of climate-change victims (hypothetical, unlikely premise, original research) into a brand-new fuel called Vivoleum, the Yes Men's upstream internet service provider shut down and cut off the Yes Men's email service, in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify. 'Since parody is protected under US law, Exxon must think that people seeing the site will think Vivoleum's a real Exxon product, not just a parody,' said Yes Man Mike Bonanno (conjecture). Exxon's policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths each year,' (highly suspect claim, no evidence given to support) added Yes Man Andy Bichlbaum. 'So maybe it really is credible. What a resource!'
  • Did the ISP do the right thing

    (Score:3, Interesting)
    by jonwil (467024) on Saturday June 30, @10:04PM (#19702875)
    Firstly, if the ISP received a DMCA section 512 take down notice for the content, they should give the customer the full details of that notice.

    Secondly, if they didn't receive a section 512 take down notice, they should have asked for one (thats assuming that the ISP was told to take the content down for copyright reasons, if it was for other reasons, there are other procedures to be followed)
  • Whoever spoke to your ISP has committed an actionable offence - and they both owe you for making your reputation on slashdot.

    IANAL and therefore do not deserve to be shot, but here is the wikipedia entry. []
  • grass--greener

    (Score:3, Informative)
    by nanosquid (1074949) on Sunday July 01, @07:01AM (#19705579)
    At the end of July, will terminate its contract with Broadview and move its operations to Germany, where internet
    expression currently benefits from a friendlier legal climate than in the US,

    I think these people are in for a rude awakening. AFAIK, Germany doesn't even have a parody exemption, and mere mention of a corporate trademark on your web site can make you subject to large fines.

    If you want to get this kind of message out, don't introduce a single point of failure (web hosting). Instead, make it funny, put it in the form of a press release, make it easy to cut-and-paste, and people will be mailing it around widely. Bonus points if you can get various news wires to pick it up. If you need pictures, make them free of any trademarks, potential copyright issues, or other obstacles and you can host them on Flickr.
  • let us know that so we will warn our clients not to hire boxes from there out of stupidity.
  • by rdean400 (322321) on Sunday July 01, @10:38AM (#19706905)
    The speed of the takedown has more to do with the power of lawyers than the power of corporations. If the ISP wants to take advantage of the "CYA" safe harbor afforded them by the DMCA and other similar laws, they have to comply with takedown notices without delay.

    If the notice came from a credible lawyer for an individual, it would still have to be honored.
  • From the article: "Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and his colleagues question whether polar bear populations really are declining and if sea ice, on which the animals hunt, will actually disappear as quickly as climate models predict" Climate change sceptics criticise polar bear science []
  • Re:News For Nerds How??!!

    (Score:2, Insightful)
    by maynard (3337) <maynard@jm g . c om> on Saturday June 30, @06:38PM (#19702091)
    ( | Last Journal: Thursday April 26, @05:25PM)
    Oh, fuck all the politics. These guys are funny! I mean, from giving a presentation to a food service industry convenstion about McDonald's making their new hamburgers from the shit of their customers' to this... Come on! It's FUNNY!!!
  • i dont like the yes men either. i tend to agree with their positions, but i feel like they ultimately hurt their cause because they wind up looking like idiots and don't change any minds but just serve as entertainment for the most die hard of leftists.

    nevertheless, their internet connection was turned off because exxon didnt like what they were saying. it's kind of disconcerting. had this been any group conservative, liberal or otherwise it is troubling that they can be wiped off the face of the internet.

    that's why it's news for nerds and why you're flamebait.
  • I just love how the three UK terror attacks (well, two were *attempted* attacks) have received ABSOLUTELY ZERO coverage on Slashdot, but this small story is front-page news here.
    I'm sure that if the two cars loaded with explosives would have had WiFi triggers rather than plain old cell phone triggers it would have shown up on /. Better yet, if those cars were full of Vivoleum instead of gasoline Exxon could have sent their Brute Squad after the bastards that planted those bombs.

    Of course, it would be horribly ironic if they came forward and claimed they did it as retaliation against their ISP.
  • Re:News For Nerds How??!!

    (Score:1, Insightful)
    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 30, @07:32PM (#19702369)
    Those stories are sufficiently covered in other Media. If you want to read about those stories you can go there. Not all news stories need be covered in all types of media.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Saturday June 30, @09:14PM (#19702599)

    big bad, evil corporations that have no tech connection

    Get this guy: "Exxon=no tech connection". I guess he's using solar power to run his WebTV. He must be so hi-tech he's running his Amigo on Brylcreem.
  • Re:News For Nerds How??!!

    (Score:3, Funny)
    by Trailwalker (648636) on Saturday June 30, @09:29PM (#19702685)

    just love how the three UK terror attacks (well, two were *attempted* attacks) have received ABSOLUTELY ZERO coverage on Slashdot

    1. Wait about three weeks.

    2. The terrorists used low tech non-functioning methods, and were noticeably inept. More of "your government at work" sort of stuff.
  • 5 replies beneath your current threshold.
1 | 2 | (3)