If you read the article it's barely even that - they're tracking their use of that site, not their computer (or web) use in general. It really is a complete non-story.

I appreciate that the headline just copies that of the original article, but I really do expect better of Slashdot. (I know, I know, I must be new here.)

I live in the UK so perhaps it's different where you are, but it's perfectly possible for me to have a strong voice signal and no data connection. It doesn't happen very often, but it can and does happen.

My girlfriend's mother is from Mauritius; I call her Marie, if that helps?

(Slightly more sensibly, my gf refers to herself as being "half black".)

Other than the use of the utterly ludicrous (and potentially damaging) term "reverse-racism" I'd agree.

I don't mind one or two clever, subtle April Fool's jokes, but in the past that's not what Slashdot has done - each editor has posted a couple, mostly astoundingly stupid and/or obvious.

So no, I don't miss it either.

I don't know the exact details, but remember that both of those things (super-injunctions and ASBOs) are only possible because of Acts of Parliament making them possible. Parliament writes the laws (proposed by an MP/group of MPs, voted on by the Commons, if passed then voted on by the Lords, optional back and forth if the Lords reject it and amendments are made, finally either passed or canned), the courts enforce them.

Also, super-injunctions do more than your example; they prevent absolutely anyone from discussing the injunction, including the fact that the injunction exists.

ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders) are meant to deal with people who are being a nuisance, but not technically breaking a specific law, or breaking a minor one repeatedly in such a way as to cause a nuisance. E.g. someone may be regularly getting drunk, shouting at passersby and pissing in the street. Nothing they can be locked up for necessarily, but you don't want them doing it either and causing distress, so you have the option of giving them an ASBO preventing them from, say, being drunk in public. If they breach the ASBO, that potentially carries a jail term. In practice however there is a perception in some quarters that they're handed out like candy, sometimes for things that people can't realistically be expected to comply with (you can't expect an alcoholic to be sober in public - they need help, not an ABSO, etc) and poorly enforced (the prisons are too full to jail every petty ASBO-breaker).

Fantasy is just scifi with magic instead of tech. (Different realms instead of different planets, elves, goblins, etc instead of aliens, no space ships, etc)

What does cost to produce have to do with price, other than to set a minimum? Besides, you can get generic painkillers for 12p a box here in the UK, or you can buy the name brand stuff for £3.50; the two co-exist just fine. (Though I wonder who on earth buys the name-brand stuff...)

Links or it didn't happen.

Except that in practice, a few people will maybe end up in jail, then as the number of cases increases and more and more people are claiming it was a trojan/virus/whatever, they'll have to either a) stop prosecuting people for it or b) develop a test to detect said malware; detection = no conviction (unless you can successfully argue that the presence of the malware was a ruse to provide an alibi, and they really *were* visiting the sites).

So, I doubt that many people will end up in jail because of a trojan of that sort, just as not many have ended up in jail because of child-porn-planting trojans (which have been successfully used as defences in court).

Just nit-picking here but actually, I'd say that using "ahole" instead of "arsehole" (or "asshole" if you prefer) is a good example of mincing your words - rewording something so as to not cause (as much) offence.

I gather you're not from the UK, or at least are not familiar with our copyright laws. There is no "fair use" provision. There is a "fair dealing" provision, but by my reading of the details this does not fall under it.

How does opening the machine up to see the circuitry prove that the software cannot turn on the camera without turning on the indicator LED? How does reverse-engineering a FOSS driver prove that the firmware doesn't have an undocumented API call to enable that mode of operation?

Well now, that really depends on what you're measuring, doesn't it?

Do I have cash? Or do I not discover the problem until I'm stood in front of the ATM, cursing at it for not dispensing any?

It's a moot point anyway, as in either situation my first recourse would be to phone the bank, not visit it.