This just in... faster than light speed is now possible by dropping a clump of light crystals on the floor and then running away.

Let's say you lived in a valley and couldn't pick up any OTA TV broadcasts. You have a neighbor who lives on a hill who can. Aereo is like your neighbor allowing you to put an antenna on their property (and charging a few bucks for their trouble and the use of their land). I don't understand the problem.

What's next? Getting people to use it after they download it. I suppose I'm counted in that 100 million, but I've never actually had a reason to use the product. Absolutely everyone I know in business and personal life uses MS Office, and I get the whole MS Office suite free through work or included in any new PC purchase.

Dear Slashdot,

Please consider your audience. This might be the top "science" story on Hollywood Insider, but on Slashdot it's just insulting.

You advocate a ________ approach to calendar reform. Your idea will not work. Here is why:

Standard Reply Form for Your New Calendar System Idea

EST (Earth Standard Time)

Based on this data, I am able to learn 100x faster at work than at home. I guess that's why they won't let me telecommute...

Is "exciting" really the proper word for this headline? How about "terrifying" or "catastrophic".

Half of the last season has been on Netflix for well over a month.

Not that the idea of a lawsuit against Microsoft is likely, but I think the OP is referring to the source of the attack - not the target. The point is that many DDOS attacks are created by zombie computers, many of which run Microsoft operating systems.

It's even funnier that you were upset by someone mentioning a dumb Texan and then proceed to list Texas as the third largest state. (Hint: It's the second largest state.)

As a reader of Slashdot, you should probably learn that the difference between opt-in and opt-out is more than just semantics.
They are not simply opposites of each other.

Is my calendar broken? Is it April 1 already?

IANAL: Not sure if that's true. If the police obtained the evidence illegally, it could not be used in court. However if someone else obtains it illegally (who has no connection with the police) and provides it to them, then it can be used.

"Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, with the Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials."
- Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465