While I think the new layout is much better than beta, it has broken my normal Slashdot reading experience.
I was reading using Google Chrome on a Microsoft Surface Pro 3.... vertically. I tend to browse a lot of news vertically. This limits the vertical screen resolution.

The old slashdot layout imposed a minimum screen width and would provide a horizontal scrollbar which allowed me to see the stories without a sidebar visible.
The new slashdot layout locks into the screen resolution such that the stories on my screen appear to be about 3cm wide fitting about 4 words per line, and the right sidebar is a cool 12cm wide full of useless stuff (for reading purposes anyway).

Can slashdot please impose a minimum width on the container that contains the main content?

Problem is 100% reproducible on all browsers. Simply change the width of the window to around 650px. i.e. open up two browser windows side by side and the front page goes to heck.

Those bits of communication that only come through face to face can be substituted by more technology. Someone in a teleconference doesn't need to read my facial expression when drawing if I then say "Wow, holdup, I don't understand." There's a whole different method of communication when it comes to having an effective meeting that isn't face to face. Things like going around the table person to person and addressing each person individually, asking for confirmation of something being understood, not assuming that someone knows something etc. There's nothing magical about a face-to-face meeting that can't be communicated via a telephone using a different method. You said it yourself, it takes longer, but as soon as you include travel it is actually far more efficient.

Spend $5k on sending each person to a business communications class, and an how to run an effective meeting class. Then save yourself $50k / year on flights.

This. I use electronic whiteboards at work. The ability to share a session in the software is great. It works just like a real whiteboard except with more features and the ability for people in distributed locations to write on the same board in the same meeting is well worth it.

That was a trick question right? If the other side also has a digital whiteboard then they can scribble on the same image.

Because Google does a very good job of pointing towards the most relevant site if it's a bit local thing, and if it's local, I'll search on the map.

The .dec thing really reads to me like they use it internally, and don't want to use it.

I can think of no other reason for getting a very generic tld, and saying only we can use it, only for our stuff.

I tend to agree, the people I know that use blue ray don't have Internet. There's plenty of cheap boot legs next to the red box in the shadier parts, but the people buying them don t have Internet. For the rest of the people I know, a few dollar rental online here and there covers the gap of Netflix.

I can't tell of this is serious, or satire.

One of the issues discussed doesn't seem to match the others. Primarily, I know best in this area, make me all powerful is exactly the type I would expect to with a minority be pro systems and pro marrying children (because you know who is best for them).

Most excellent Poe style post!

The new TLDs are a cash grab and nothing more. Not only for ICANN, but for every company that manages to buy up a gTLD.

Basically, the people buying up these gTLDs are hoping to cash in on companies wanting to register .searchterm domains. Which, in my books, is nonsense. I don't trust any of these new domains to be anything but spam traps and phishing expeditions. Given the options in search results, I would always go to the .com, .org, or .net address over a gTLD.

I'd think using pen/stylus tablets to scribble diagrams and then emailing or messaging those amongst the team members would be about as good as you can get, unless you can find a software package that would let the people share a drawing space using individual tablets. I've long wanted to get one of the Samsung tablets just for that purpose.

Well, there's .goo - they do seem to ooze into everything...

Well, it eats, excretes, and reproduces, all that's missing is some form of self-organization.

Rail needs an extremely expensive foundation, and right-of-ways. Hyperloop requires occasional pylons, radically reducing the ground-level expense. And it's not like the tubes themselves are high-tech, it's just a bunch of sturdy, reasonably airtight tubes - size large urban water pipe would probably do the job fine with a little cable suspension to support the lengths between pylons.

For any given leg of the journey you probably want all the trains traveling at the same speed, as set by the long-haul trains - there's no passing lane in the tubes after all, and a train going 800+mph covers an awful lot of ground in 30s. If you want to make a 15 minute trip by 200mph train, you've just backed up the 800mph trains for an hour. So any switching would have to be at roughly full speed - once on a side loop you could then do whatever you want of course. And the linear accelerators are likely to be a significant fraction of the total cost - it takes many miles to get a train up to 800mph, the rebooster stations just give them a little speed bump, and every station would need it's own quad of zero-to-full-speed accelerators (one each braking and accelerating for both directions)

There is however the possibility of putting more than 2 tubes on the pylons - once the right-of-way has been acquired and the pylons erected there no reason you couldn't have both a 2-way pair of high-speed tubes, and a second pair of low-speed tubes all suspended from the same pylons. The tubes themselves are after all probably only a fraction of the total cost, and having a second pair of tubes would also offer redundancy when inevitable downtime is necessary for one of the others.

Then if you wanted to get really fancy you could periodically have multi-mile "switching stations" to accelerate cars from one tube to the other