Comment It's not true! (Score 1) 50
It's just millions of people calling us and saying that, yes they will help The Doctor.
Comment Re:WoW 2.0 (Score 1) 389
Wish I had mod points.
Comment Really? No one? Fine. (Score 1) 94
I'm not sure if we should be doing this; ThE MAstER mAY nOT appROVe
Comment Oblig. (Score 1) 171
Comment Smooth jazz (Score 2) 239
...will be deployed in 3, 2, 1
Comment Re:That is seven kinds of awesome (Score 1) 137
Exactly my point.
Comment Re:That is seven kinds of awesome (Score 1) 137
I noticed the odd Roman numerals (III II I III I, etc)after a bit. Maybe she left it as a clue to herself.
Comment Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (Score 5, Funny) 662
Your knew hear, arent you?
Comment Re:"Walmart will keep its DRM servers online" (Score 3, Insightful) 92
Didn't see it linked yet.
Comment Re:Half a million dollars to whom? (Score 1, Insightful) 279
Hope more people see this comment. You can't do jack with bitcoins at the moment. Who knows, maybe in the future we can but for now:
News for nerds? Maybe. Stuff that matters? Hell no.
Comment Re:Police State (Score 4, Insightful) 521
No reason to do this. As a Massachusetts resident this is totally unwarranted.
"No reason to do this. As a fucking US citizen this is totally unwarranted."
FTFY.
Comment Re:simpsons did it (Score 1) 86
Submission + - Supreme Court Approves Warrantless Home Searches (nytimes.com) 1
An anonymous reader writes: The New York Times reports that the Supreme Court has ruled, by a vote of 8 to 1, that police may enter a home and collect evidence even without a warrant, if after knocking on the door and announcing themselves they "hear evidence being destroyed." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , who cast the lone dissenting vote, mused: "How 'secure' do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?"
Comment Re:There Is No Cat... (Score 1) 112
What does Schrödinger have to say about people pulling his cat's tail? The next thing we'll see on the intartubes, is people slapping monkeys . .
Without asking him, I'm sure he's either ok with it or against it.
Submission + - FBI: If We Told You, You Might Sue Us (aclu.org)
Gunkerty Jeb writes: So these guys over at the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act with the FBI regarding the interpretation and implementation of the FISA Amendments Act. Last November, the government released a few hundred heavily redacted documents.
Despite redactions, the documents confirmed that the government had interpreted the statute in as broad a sense as we were afraid they might, and that the government had repeatedly violated the few limitations that the statute actually imposed. No real surprise there.
However, that is not the point. The real point is that the documents reveal that the government doesn't want you to know whether your internet or phone company is cooperating with their surveillance program not out of concern for national security, but rather for fear we may become upset and file lawsuits asserting our constitutional rights.
Despite redactions, the documents confirmed that the government had interpreted the statute in as broad a sense as we were afraid they might, and that the government had repeatedly violated the few limitations that the statute actually imposed. No real surprise there.
However, that is not the point. The real point is that the documents reveal that the government doesn't want you to know whether your internet or phone company is cooperating with their surveillance program not out of concern for national security, but rather for fear we may become upset and file lawsuits asserting our constitutional rights.
