Slashdot Mirror
Downsides to Intrafamily IM?
Frisky070802 writes "The NY Times has run a column on how many families now use instant messaging within a household, for instance to ask what someone wants for dinner. This is especially popular as whole houses get wired (or wireless) and computers are scattered throughout the house. This is the case at my house but I tend to be the only one who stays on AIM reliably. Can Slashdotters offer some personal experience, pro/con, with being instantly and constantly accessible to one's spouse and children? Does this tend to break down your 'personal time'?"
so no I can't offer any advice.
My little brother, instead of buying a cheap laptop decided to waste 3000 on a powerbook . But since it is based on UNIX it has one FUN security hole. I could wirelessly SSH into his system, and type in using my Linux laptop stuff like "safari goatse.cx", mplayer "porn.avi", or shutdown. Because he is using Crap OS X he has no idea how to secure it because unlike Crap OS X Linux FORCES you to learn about secruity. He eventually sold the powerbook and bought himself a sony vaio. Which gave him twice the speed at half the price :).
found here
That's hilarious! I was 2nd post and got redundant. It's gonna be another one of those days where all mods are on crack isn't it?
Sis2351: hey, bro, wassup!?
GayBoi1: stfu
Why can't people register, for free, without complaining? Well, I for one don't enjoy tossing my information about willy-nilly just to read an article.
Put a shine on your tin foil hat, you dirty little troll.
>And now this totally useless trash to foil the
>stupid lameness filter into accepting all those >
>capitals because I AM YELLING the message above,
>because the twit I am answering doesn't seem to get
>it.
It's hilarious, because you're the one who's missing the point. Once you grow up past the
age of puberty, even if it's 30 for you,
you'll realize that every move you make on
your IP is already logged,
and you are an idiot.
They already know you read the fucking article, your browser sends their server your IP and useragent. Exactly what do you think is going to happen to you once the NYT has your name? Ninjas assassins jumping through the window? Men is black suits with video cameras following you around? Children kidnapped for reading such a subversive site? Or even, horror or horrors, THE VERY SLIGHT CHANCE OF GETTING ADVERTISEMENTS WHICH YOU CAN IGNORE ANYWAY. OH THE HUMANITY
No, We want our cake on equal terms. Why should google users get special treatment over slashdot users? Descriminating against a website filled with hackers is probably not the best idea, they're lucky the worst we're doing is sharing reg info (rather than, oh, say, registering dozens of accounts each killing any use in marketing the data)
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Cake isn't much good unless you can eat it...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This is rubbish. I give them a tailored email, so I can tell if that email is used for anything I don't want, and in addition, they have appropriate policies to control communications from them. No spam here.
Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
If the NYT is paying Google for these hits, and no longer cares about registration, then indeed it's its own problem.
Thanks for the explanation.
Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
Maybe you could eat someone else's cake?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
this is just begging for some clever pun invovling IRC, but what that pun is, I can't think of yet.
Why not fork?
Why should /. users get something for free? It takes time to run a newspaper/web server, people need to be paid, etc.
Would you like to pay for what you're using? A free subscription sure is a nicer than paying for something that costs real money.
Now stop believing you are pre-ordaned to have free access to anything and be grateful for what you have.
There was once a young man who walked around Seattle. Every time he visited a popular store, he would first have to stand still as some random part of his body was pierced and a little tag hung from the piercing. Of course, he was free to dodge this little nuisance, but he would often be denied access to the store. (The most popular and chic stores would always do this.) Of course, to receive the "convenience" of wearing a more permanent tag, one would register with the store, giving far too much personal information. But it was worth it, wasn't it? After all, it wouldn't be annoying at all to be tracked by this tag, along with others from advertisers, while going through life, would it?
Give me a break
Cookies were, in concept, a great thing, but they have become abused by advertisers. However, to block cookies is unwise, since many websites require cookies to allow entry. I take a compromise and have all cookies deleted at the end of the current session.
The New York Times asks for registration, and the parent post argues that this one-time exploitation of personal information is enough--cookies will sign the particular user back in for subsequent sessions. There are, however, problems with this:
I take offense to having my personal information exploited, even if it only occurs in one instance. (n.b.: not "one instance" here, since the data is kept on file.)
I take offense to being tracked, and having my viewing patterns and other information available to a party. (n.b.: this applies to NYT as well as their advertisers.)
I should not be penalised for my pursuit of privacy (a right which should already be enforced by others) by having to take extraordinary measures to perform regular tasks.
I recommend the parent author to rethink his words for accuracy.