One advantage on the other site is that you have a say in what the site is eventually named. Did DICE ask your permission to force Beta upon you?

No, I thought not... Asked for comments - then ignored them.

Its still $10M that could have remained in the taxpayers' pockets. Penny wise, and all that....

I found the task easy - my job was to stand on the side-lines and shout encouragement. But the guys doing the hard work pulled it off brilliantly, and are probably unaware of my support! As you said - welcome to our new home.

Farewell slashdot, at least for the slashcott.

I hope everything turns out well for us all but, if not, thanks for all the good times

The thing that I find amazing is that despite the feedback somebody at /. still thinks that this change is a good idea. Unless you are prepared to share with us 'why' the change is so important and 'what' we will have once it is complete that we haven't got now, we are unlikely to accept that ANY change is necessary. But, to reiterate, fix the bugs, keep the text density high, remember that the comments are more important than TFA (which we are not even obliged to read!), and we are NOT AN AUDIENCE. Other than that, it doesn't need changing until you have convinced us that it is necessary for OUR benefit, not for the benefit of someone who wants to sell me something that I don't want.

It is interesting that you seem to place the blame on the EU - if you read the second link of TFS it finishes by pointing out: 'This standard has been approved as a National Standard of Canada by the Standards Council of Canada, and has been approved as by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) as an American National Standard.' It is, if I understand it correctly, an International Standard that the EU is obeying. I cannot imagine why the US or Canada, for example, is not also complying.

Didn't this happen in Holland? What has it got to do with the US Justice system?

Exclusive contracts are not very common in Europe, at least not in my experience. But perhaps I shop more wisely than others...

Of course, we've never had a case of TFS using such acronyms as MAFIAA, SCOTUS, DOJ, DOD, RIAA or POTUS, which mean very little at first sight to many /.'ers who live outside the US. And if you had followed the 2nd link, which you already would have read if you had been following this story, you would have known the answer immediately. Come on, we all have to learn as we go through life. True, the summary would have been clearer to all if BT had been expanded but its not the end of the world. None of my British friends use the abbreviation BT to mean BitTorrent, we simply say 'torrents' or the 'BitTorrent' depending on context. Additionally, CO, CC NB and CoW do not appear to be recognised abbreviations or acronyms anywhere in the context of TFS.

Ah, the 3 strikes law.... I am currently living in France (and have for quite a few years now) and have not heard of anyone being prosecuted under that law (HADOPI), nor am I aware of anyone having had their internet connection withdrawn. I'm sure it must have happened, but it is not the doom and gloom that others seem to think that it is. I do know lots of people who regularly download films, music and pornography but none have experienced any trouble nor do they show the slightest concern for that particular law. It seems to me that the HADOPI law has put more fear into people who don't live here than it has in those who do...

I think that you might be missing the point....

Bradley Manning might have committed a crime, but Wikileaks hasn't. Bradley Manning stands accused, but is innocent until proven guilty. If it is all so obvious to the US government, why haven't they put him on trial yet? What they are currently doing is certainly inhumane treatment which isn't justified until at least he has had his day in court.

China is citing the US treatment of Wikileaks and JA, although thank you for bringing Manning into the equation. Yet another fine example of the US doing the opposite of what they often tell other countries should be done.

That smart-ass bomb threat going to get them classified as a "terrorist group."

And perhaps that is exactly what is hoped for, precisely as you have suggested. Foreign governments (i.e. non-US) might not put much effort into tracking down someone who 'might' be remotely linked to someone else who 'might' have been involved in a DDos, but they would have a hard time resisting US pressure to help catch the 'terrorists' who are threatening to use bombs.

I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily the reason behind the claims, and I don't think that my tinfoil hat is too tight, but it wouldn't be the first time that a Government has 'manufactured' evidence or made false claims in order to garner public support for what would otherwise be an unpopular action.

If I cannot test it - I will not buy it. Don't worry, as soon as you explain that you will be forced to buy from a competitor they will open the box for you.