Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Axiom of Evil (Score 2) 64

There's a saying to the effect of "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity", and perhaps that applies here. It seems likely there's some kind of link between incidents and it's surely not "mass psychosis". The link could just be something as simple as a bureaucratic requirement for a certain product to be used by/for US personnel; maybe a particular pesticide, or maybe some cheap office supply-type product. Or maybe it really is the Russians attempting to spy and there's a glitch with their devices. Making the people you are spying on sick and thus drawing attention isn't really the goal after all.

Comment Re:Surprising it's over this and not everything el (Score 1) 95

Indeed, I don't think this whole thing would have been quite the fiasco that it is without the player base being fed up to the breaking point. Tons of people loudly declared they were abandoning the company's games immediately when the news broke - they were clearly already simmering over other issues with Blizzard.

The Military

Coming To a War Near You: Nuclear Powered Drones 202

An anonymous reader writes "American scientists and engineers are researching a new generation of UAV's that would be nuclear-powered. Why do this? They would have the capacity to stay over a target area for months and only be limited by the ordinance they could drop on a potential foe. They would be similar to a nuclear attack submarine but not limited to the amount of food on-board. The article notes: 'The blueprints for the new drones, which have been developed by Sandia National Laboratories – the U.S. government's principal nuclear research and development agency – and defense contractor Northrop Grumman, were designed to increase flying time "from days to months" while making more power available for operating equipment, according to a project summary published by Sandia,' the paper reported."
Censorship

Smearing Toddler Reputations Via Internet: Free Speech Or Extortion? 213

retroworks writes "Crystal Cox, a Montana woman who calls herself an 'investigative journalist,' was slapped with a $2.5-million judgment last year for defaming an investment firm and one of its lead partners. Cox had taken control of the Google footprint of Obsidian Finance and its principal Kevin Padrick by writing hundreds of posts about them on dozens of websites she owned, inter-linking them in ways that made them rise up in Google search results; it ruined Obsidian's business due to prospective clients being put off by the firm's seemingly terrible online reputation. After Obsidian sued Cox, she contacted them offering her 'reputation services;' for $2,500 a month, she could 'fix' the firm's reputation and help promote its business. The Forbes Article goes on to describe how she tried to similarly leverage attorneys and journalists reputations. Finding some of her targets were too well established in google rank to pester or intimidate, Cox moved to family members, reserving domain names for one of her target's 3-year-old daughter. Forbes columnist Kashmir Hill makes the case that this clearly isn't journalism, and establishes a boundary for free speech online."

Comment They're now claiming it was their error (Score 1) 103

I just got this:

Dear New York Times Reader,

You may have received an e-mail today from The New York Times with the subject line “Important information regarding your subscription."

This e-mail was sent by us in error. Please disregard the message. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

Sincerely,

The New York Times

Comment I was wondering about that e-mail (Score 1) 103

I got one today as well. Thought it was strange since I have an account on the web site, but I'm not actually a subscriber. Good to know that it's a mistake and that I'm not using that account for anything important. Hope they weren't hacked though.

Comment So it's not on purpose? (Score 1) 97

I always figured it was on purpose, the better to keep conversations about the same topic together. Seemed a bit ham-handed but I figured they had a reason. I mean there's no way they could not have known about it is there? All you would have to do would be to glance at one of the major stories and it would be obvious that the comments do not pertain to it directly and are old with thousands of responses.

The Military

US Forgets How To Make Trident Missiles 922

Hugh Pickens writes "The US and the UK are trying to refurbish the aging W76 warheads that tip Trident missiles to prolong their life and ensure they are safe and reliable but plans have been put on hold because US scientists have forgotten how to manufacture a mysterious but very hazardous component of the warhead codenamed Fogbank. 'NNSA had lost knowledge of how to manufacture the material because it had kept few records of the process when the material was made in the 1980s, and almost all staff with expertise on production had retired or left the agency,' says the report by a US congressional committee. Fogbank is thought by some weapons experts to be a foam used between the fission and fusion stages of the thermonuclear bomb on the Trident Missile and US officials say that manufacturing Fogbank requires a solvent cleaning agent which is 'extremely flammable' and 'explosive,' and that the process involves dealing with 'toxic materials' hazardous to workers. 'This is like James Bond destroying his instructions as soon as he has read them,' says John Ainslie, the co-ordinator of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, adding that 'perhaps the plans for making Fogbank were so secret that no copies were kept.' Thomas D'Agostino, administrator or the US National Nuclear Security Administration, told a congressional committee that the administration was spending 'a lot of money' trying to make 'Fogbank' at Y-12, but 'we're not out of the woods yet.'"

Comment Re:Nothing of value actually (Score 1) 379

I actually watch a ton of stuff on tv land and nick@nite, and when they recently started showing infomercials instead of shows at 3 or 4 am I was fairly peeved. But this is far more annoying.

This kind of thing should never make it to the customer. As the customer, I don't care where you get channels from or what you pay, I only care about what I agreed to pay for what I agreed to buy. After the whole NFL network debacle (which is still ongoing), if they do this I'm going to have to finally get directv or that u-verse crap.

Slashdot Top Deals

The amount of beauty required launch 1 ship = 1 Millihelen

Working...