An onion article that I read IN PRINT yesterday is getting passed off as an April Fool's joke on slashdot? For shame.

I was about to post this same thing, the only situation that makes any sense is that he could tell the ISPs what to do, who would promptly challenge the directive in court rather than shutting off traffic.

Having just gone through this myself, career services events are the biggest help. I went to a larger university that had semi-annual career fairs, while the drones that go there for corporations can't really do much but point you to a website, if you make a good enough impression you can often get on-campus interviews. I had about 15 interviews between september '08 and february '09, just by using all the resources career services had to offer. Good luck!

I'd like to see some metrics comparing hit rates from XP to Win7... Just out of curiosity to see if their algorithms for disc caching have improved.

This is very easy question to answer. The people should decide their country's own policy. But in Australia, just as in America, the people elected by the people to make that policy don't always(ever?) have their people's best interests at heart, they have their own. Google's really just enforcing what is surely the popular opinion of the people. (citation needed)

Sounds like FFXII.

Since this new body is designed to "represent the government in negotiations," I wonder if there's any relation to the ACTA treaty currently discussed behind closed doors.

This whole thing sounds eerily similar to the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. Great series if you enjoy SciFi books about Mars terraforming.

Even if he loses his medical license, at least he'll be a budding star in any modern media corporation.

Please mod up! Thanks for the informative post.

Reading the judge's decision, he blames most of the court costs on the fact that the Lindors may have had a houseguest in 2004, and that she sold her computers sometime between 2004 and 2008, which was a loss of evidence for the RIAA. If they had disclosed their houseguest then a lot of this could have been averted, according to the judge. Talk about overcompensation for a small discrepancy, you effectively ruin a family because they didn't disclose a houseguest they had for an unknown amount of time. I am not a lawyer, but that seems like a pretty large case of overkill.

I'd love a gaming platform that I could still voice chat on (maybe VoIP only, and just pipe a 3G data plan to the device?), but the telecos are a pretty large barrier to entry.

This is getting even closer to the UFC's pay-per-view model of TV. In order for bars to show these events they have to pay thousands of dollars, and in order to make it worth it they'd have to black their windows (to stop people just watching from the street) and charge everyone cover to get in. I don't think the super bowl organizers really want this because of the negative impact on ad viewership. Fact is bars are already paying for the content and for the super bowl they want to double dip for some bonus money without making it pay-per-view, which isn't really fair.

To expand on this: 'pour cent' literally translated means 'for one hundred'.

TFA mentions one of the securities holes being that users "can't see the URL of the verified by visa website because it's in an iframe." Reminds me of the first time a website asked me to enter a password on verified by visa, I stopped the transaction and purchased the item somewhere else for that very reason, since I never had any notification that verified by visa was something I was going to have to do.