Yeah, after what they did to that guy who merely had a pressure cooker in his car, I can't imagine what they'd to to guys dealing with real live anthrax.

I hope they catch those terrorists who were attacking our bases, and giving biological weapons to our enemies. No doubt they'll spend the rest of their lives behind bars.

Good thing they're not working on something where they can secretly insert a backdoor to get their vengeance later.

How dare a highly processed food made largely of fats, not be good for you.

Too late! In a couple hundred years, we went from walking around and working the fields all day, to idling in cars and elevators and sitting in a chair all day and with access to more food than we could possibly eat, including artificial food. And in a few more years we'll take that mammalian internal development thing, and probably the much older sperm racing thing, and replace them with selected genes developed in an artificial womb. (Which will also mean no more "must fit through mom's pee hole" limits on brain size.)

And while it is possible for natural selection to act quickly, that only works when there is a huge difference in reproductive capability, which we also got rid of with our low death rates and fairly similar birth rates. And natural selection only works quickly when the needed genes already exist. Odds are, we don't have the genes to deal with unlimited quantities of food, processed and artificial food designed to pander to our taste, globalization of disease, sedentary living, artificial entertainment (entertainment which no longer promotes development of physical and social skills, yet like artificial food "tastes" better than wholesome food), and various other current pending adaptations besides the new ones for the next hundred years of tech.

Fortunately, in a few more years we'll be editing our DNA routinely rather than waiting millions of years for evolution to catch up.

No, irreparable damage. Note that what is irreparable depends on level of technology.

Examples of potentially irreparable damage: DNA damage, oxidative damage, toxin accumulation, damage to extracellular matrix, scarring, changes in gene activity, and more.

Note: Your cell line has lived for about 3,600,000,000 years. The trick to living 3,600,000,000 years is to repair damage faster than it occurs, for example by reproducing cells at sufficient rate that new undamaged material is created faster than damage accumulates.

Potatoes have cellulose too. I demand potato chips.

In a 5-star rating scheme, the new Slashdot poll...

... deserves one star; it sucked, but not totally

... deserves two stars: OK, but only just OK

... deserves three stars: decent, but no masterpiece

... deserves four stars: excellent, if flawed

... deserves five stars: one of the best. films. ever.

... deserves zero stars: it sucked

... deserves negative infinity stars: it's an ad, about the least nerdy thing ever, that doesn't matter, with an extra helping of SJW, and why is it orange and on the front page

No mere star rating scheme can suffice.

You mean they've re-released the Superfish Polls?

It's the Slashdot way.

There's no law that says they can't pad the variable length input to fixed length, then do their "we can only handle fixed length" parsing, then remove the padding. Or that they can't check for variable length and throw a we-were-too-lazy-to-deal-with-this exception. If you make unguaranteed assumptions about user input then you deserve what you get.

Sounds like a case for civil disobedience (eg vandalism for the public good). Save lives, and low risk -- they'd need to get a jury of non-drivers who like advertizements to secure a conviction.

It's cute how naive you are. It isn't ignorance.

Just to clarify, how would you classify someone who makes statements such as these?:
1) If you don't accede to my political wishes, some very nasty people are going to kill you all.
2) If you don't accede to my political wishes, we will block the whole country's budget.
3) If you don't accede to my political wishes, we will block this very important bill.

Do these not sound very much like "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes"?

terrorism
[ter-uh-riz-uh m]

noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.