His birthday, apparently. Wouldn't know from the summary. Did anyone proof read this submission before posting?

His birthday, if you read the article, but the summary refers back to something that's not been stated. Did anyone even read this submission before posting it?

When did being able to distinguish these basic technologies slip away as the kind of basic criterion necessary to get a story posted on /.?

The summary was so infuriating that I actually clicked through and found an interesting article. Much more of this meaningless bullshit in my RSS reader though and I'll dump Slashdot out and go back to not visiting the website for years at a time.

I'm ready to take a 'redundant' to support this. OP, learn REST. This is a pretty good API. Sorry you haven't adjusted to the Web way of thinking.

So maybe we could have enjoyed an accurate submission saying that Berkeley have reported an advance over the already-reported finding, confirming an already-reported finding: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23581/

Not the first time it's been on Slashdot. Typical Sunday 'editing'.

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/27/2015242

People from Ghana are Ghanaian though

No, I still want to see 'hello, world'. Your link doesn't have it right either.