Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 97

'cause they aren't getting our money fast enough yet?

Re #2, Teh Beeb or someone on the telly said that the IPO was already for a front company, 'cause foreigners aren't allowed to own Chinese companies.

Also said some potential investors are shy because it's not clear whether / how long China will tolerate the kind of workaround set up for the IPO.

Comment Re:Stop Making Up Words! (Score 2) 157

Dude he can call it "cucumber" if he wants as long as it creates actual STEM jobs in North America.

Once it's built it will probably only employee low-paid assembly line workers and some managers.

(Which isn't STEM, but may still be an improvement on the way the USA has been hedded for the past few decades.)

Comment Re:At the risk of blaming the victim... (Score 3, Insightful) 311

But dealing with reality is very logical.

If you don't want people to see pictures of you naked, don't take the pictures.
And if you do, don't put them on a computer.
And if you do, don't put them on a computer on the internet.
And if you do, don't put them on someone else's computer on the internet.

If they're out there, someone is going to get them.

Comment Re:They used to be called UHF TV tuners (Score 1) 237

I never did that but a long time ago (80s) I did listen to some fascinating conversations broadcast in the clear around 1.7 MHz - just past the AM band - off of a cordless phone somewhere near my neighborhood. I had an old Hallicrafters shortwave radio that weighed nearly as much as I did (even more with the big external speaker). I don't remember the details of the conversations, only that it was mostly stupid stuff as would be expected.

Comment disingenious (Score 5, Insightful) 199

lawyers for the federal government argued that provisions within the Patriot Act that legalize mass surveillance without warrants have already been carefully considered and approved by all three branches of government

Two of which are irrelevant for deciding constitutionally.

And if a higher court has already agreed that what they are using the Patriot Act to justify is constitutional, they need merely cite the case. Otherwise they're just trying to blow smoke up the judges' asses. Or arguing that Appeals Courts' opinions don't matter.

(I wouldn't think either was a good strategy for an argument in an Appeals Court, but maybe they think Appeals Courts' judges are stupid.)

Slashdot Top Deals

A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth

Working...