Now they don't have to confine themselves to 2-D naked women.

I clicked on the Silent Circle URL, and was immediately offered a cookie. (Which I declined—thanks Firefox.)

What good will it do to have a medium in 2015 that

is highly heat and water resistant, capable of holding data for hundreds of millions of years,

if by 2023 you're only able to buy the readers on Ebay, used?

Sure, they'll let it through: £ :-)

Choose ``HTML Formatted'' in the menu below the text-entry box, and type in ``£''.

Alternatively, just cut and paste the character, and ignore the A-ring that /. sticks in front: £

I, too, came here to mention IHNMaIMS. It's one of two works I've read only once because I'm too scared to go back.

The other is Dracula. I started it one evening and finished early the next morning because I was literally too scared to put it down unfinished. I'm thinking that after ~40 years, maybe it's worth a re-read. I Have No Mouth..., never.

This might bring back gloves as a fashion accessory!

If the number is over six, there's at least one woman in the mix. And a couple of them aren't so old, unless you're a whippersnapper yourself.

To save more than $100,000, 4ormat decided to skip Internet Explorer, "opting to only allow users to access its service through Mozillaâ(TM)s Firefox and Google Chrome browsers," the article states.

How is this any better than an IE-only website? It just exchanges one group of disadvantaged surfers for another. If it truly works only through Firefox and Chrome, most blind folks are out in the cold (see ELinks or Lynx), to mention only the first group that comes to mind.

What's wrong with Viewable with any browser?

Attached this to the wrong article. Sorry.

Is this the end of the famous /. laissez-faire ``we don't censor comments, we just let you moderate them down'' policy? Or is that already gone and I was looking elsewhere at the time?

It would seem the Journal of Irreproducible Results was ahead of its time.

The prosecutor's laptop may contain child porn, too. I vote we investigate its contents first.

See the Citizens United vs. FEC case. All Wikileaks has to do is incorporate, and Hey Presto!, they're protected.

I wonder how the Supremes would get around that one? 'Cause you know at least five of them would be upset.

My comment was in reply to RJBeery , who asks

Have you ever parked at a meter without plugging it, "hoping" that you'd not get caught? How is that different from stealing from society in other, larger ways, such as robbing a bank (beyond severity of the betrayal)?

It seemed germane to me—how society deals with defectors is an important part of the whole.

Ever heard the expression ``a difference of degree large enough to become a difference in kind''? Certainly there are similarities between shorting a parking meter and robbing a bank, but.... To suggest that the two are not different, except in severity, is to miss the point. Some actions are bad enough that they are warrant a stint in the penitentiary, others only a $25 fine. To pretend otherwise is to fall into the ``zero-tolerance'' trap. Remember the high-school student who was expelled because she'd left a butter knife in the back of her car (after a picnic?)? That's where zero-tolerance gets you, and it's not a good place for society.