This is news? I'd think this would be obvious; people have been identifying authors based on writing styles for quite a long time now. Probably most Slashdotters can almost unconsciously identify nym-shifting trolls that way.

There will be false positives, though; I've seen someone with a writing style so similar to my own that sometimes I thought his name was ending up on my messages through some technical problem.

BTW, I've noticed that the GNAA trolls seem eerily similar to Rick Santorum. Probably just a coincidence.

According to their numbers, they will have less than $30/bl equivelence as they scale up.

Everyone claims, nobody delivers. File it with fusion, practical photoelectric (yeah, yeah, I know, just around the corner), and flying cars. Joule has been making claims since 2009. Remember Changing World Technologies and their oil-from-anything claims? Lots of hype, ending in bankruptcy.

I'm surprised no one has brought up submarine warfare for comparison here. When in a sub war, one does not try to destroy their opponent. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And THE enemy is water. Let the enemy in is the name of the game. Same with space. Vacuum is the enemy. Let the enemy into your opponent's ship and then sit back and watch the show. (for as long as it lasts anyway)

Probably not as effective in space. Submarines have to handle tens of atmospheres of pressure differential, spaceships only one -- and that only in crewed areas.

I could see requiring permission to place transmitters, but why for receivers?

If you follow the links, the FCC said Google Fiber didn't need permission for the Ku band receivers. They amended their filing to reflect that (and to add specific satellites for the Ku-extended band; apparently you not only need an FCC license for the receiving antenna, but for which satellites you point at. Both of which are kind of ridiculous. I wonder if the FCC would have any jurisdiction if you just built an enormous dish and did not actually connect it to anything).

It's not clear why the priorities are increasing. If management is setting high priorities on everything because they've figured out that anything lower won't get done, you have to either stop that behavior (ha!) or set up a "shadow" priority list with the real priority for each project. If priorities are rising because a project really does become more urgent as its due date approaches and passes... well, the system is working. You can't have more work than resources and expect it all to get done, so if none of it can be dropped on the floor, work is going to pile up.

No, that's not how it works. Push too far, expect the unreasonable, and even regular people will stand up and die for what they believe.

No, most of them will simply change their beliefs, and think you are foolish or evil for not changing yours to be in line with those in authority. And when you die, they'll cluck their tongues at your foolishness. That's the future: as Orwell said, a boot stomping on a human face, forever.

"Do you know what your sin is Mal?"

Mal's side had lost before the show even started.

Here's an interesting blog by a mozilla developer on the subject of the -webkit prefix.
Basically he is reminding people that the extensions should move into W3.

Even hardware vendors can't wait for standards organizations (e.g. 802.11n). There's no way software vendors and web designers can.

Heh, I suspected the unreliability of that list and now I know. Thanks for confirming my opinion. Tell me.... are you employed by the PR department of Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, or are you just in it for the lulz?

How can this be +5 insightful with less than 10 comments on the entire post? It turns out that if you do a search for the phrase "a multi-billion dollar web advertising company with a history of privacy violations", you'll discover this is just spam propped up by puppet accounts.

Yep. By his epithets ye shall know him. Perhaps "multi-billion dollar advertising company with..." is just bonch's version of "carthago delenda est".

OK, suppose everything Heartland says about the documents is true: someone leaked a bunch of real documents, and slipped a bogus "smoking gun" memo in there.

Any PR firm worth its salt could have a field day with that, portraying the Heartland Institute as the victim. Why would they then ruin it by making ridiculous statements implying it's an individual's legal obligation to fact check a document before commenting on it? Do they just have an institutional need to twirl their evil mustache?