The spreading of viruses among vegetables seems like the most dangerous motivator to reduce vegetable agriculture. The subjective pro of "fruits/vegetables/etc. tastes good" is beginning to look weaker and weaker against the many cons.
Great! Looks like the only option is to become a mineralivore...
The difference was that it was rare that a floppy *drive* would be damaged by a seemingly functional floppy disk so badly that it would corrupt/damage any other disks you inserted into it. I saw first hand a single Zip disk permanently damage several Zip drives in a way that they became more or less a vector for a hardware Zip virus!
Though I have heard that was more an issue with the horrible design/manufacturing/quality control of the zip drives as it was disk issues...
Wait, you are putting Zip disks above CD-Rs in popularity? Or above floppy disks? Either of those formats, in their time, was ubiquitous. Zips come in a distant 3rd there.
And amazingly I have some floppies that have lasted over 10 years and are still readable. During my brief adventure into Zip disks they often wouldn't last 10 days before becoming thoroughly corrupted...
Ah, the click of death... especially impressive when a bad Zip disk could misalign the drive heads badly enough to screw up any other disks inserted. Probably the first widespread example of a computer *hardware* virus...
Except it's not one man, it's a large corporation with a lot of employees, customers, and general name recognition. This is exactly the reason they formed a PAC...
He was talking about Internet freedom, not Internet privacy.
Google and Facebook could potentially have a huge impact on privacy depending on government intervention, but walled gardens like Facebook and Apple are building are most definitely a bad trend for the free flow of information and the freedom to do what you want to do on your own hardware with your own Internet connection.
Yeah, after seeing a few comments like yours and digging around I believe you. It's a bizarre story but it's clear that comments attributed to various people just don't match their writing style in other public forums (ie Rachel may be a bit odd but she knows how to write). I wish slashdot would allow removing/self-modding down of comments, I'd remove mine and encourage anyone else who were taken in to do the same...
Going to make an assumption here, since she's made it clear that his identity is not known.
She has? Seems just the opposite from her own posts on kickstarter, actually.
"As you all know I have a rockin' tight ass, a successful project on Kickstarter that you've all funded, and a cyberstalker that goes by the name of FrankSinatraDirtyTalker1915@comcast.net. I originally met "Frank" back in College, where we dated for a bit. I should point out that he's not an old man, as his username might imply, but rather someone who is simply obsessed with Frank Sinatra and my gorgeous rockin hard ass. Anyway, when I broke up with him he took it pretty badly. It was our Sophomore year at Rice University and I had just discovered gravity bongs and going down on another girl while blazed out of my gord. As I've admitted, these were confusing albeit fun times for me."
It goes on, and only gets weirder. Apparently a significant fraction of the bizarre posts on her kickstarter page were her own. I was as indignant as everyone else when I read the misleading/. summary, but after a couple minutes of digging I think kickstarter was right to ban her... (and that's not even getting into the fact that many "supporters" seem to have complained that she is just taking their money for her own personal use...)
Before you start promoting hurting a bunch of legitimate projects, you should go look up this woman's "Internet history". She's clearly a loon and may have even made up the stalker for publicity. I wouldn't be surprised if she was the anonymous person who posted this to/. as well...
That's the problem with AT&T in this case - they aren't even bothering to disable stolen phones on their own network. Verizon, for example, does disable phones reported stolen so at least they won't work on their system.
The big deal with the proposed system (likely via heavy FCC "encouragement") is that not only will the carriers be required to disable phones on their network, they will post the info to a central database so all carriers can do it.
No one who knows anything about this system has ever claimed they would be permanently "bricked"; anyone who says so is just plain incorrect. The system will prevent them from being reactivated on a new account by keeping track of stolen phone IMEIs, etc, in a centralized database that is shared among providers. It's not making the phone self-destruct or anything, jeez. If you can convince them your phone wasn't stolen they can remove the block and allow it to be reactivated.
Besides, this is something a lot of providers in other countries (and Verizon in the US) ALREADY DO ANYWAY and it's pretty universally considered a good idea.
That's what I thought at first - but the submitter linked to the wrong patent(s). They have several dating all the way back to the mid 90's that at least predate any commercial 3D MMORPGs.
Not saying they aren't stupid patents, but at the least they were not in fact stupid enough to try to sue their prior art...
then you open the door to situations where person A falsly reports persons B's phone stolen and gets it bricked.
That makes absolutely no sense. Besides the fact that they already have methods in place to verify the account owner and prevent for much more important concerns (changing service plan, cancelling the account, etc) how would it be any different from what would happen today if someone were able to convince AT&T that your phone was stolen? They already deactivate the phone from your account when reported stolen, which would cause the same level of inconvenience to the owner.
Adding it to a central database just means if the phone was truly stolen, the thief can't reactivate it on *another* account. If your phone wasn't really stolen (or you thought it was and then found it) you just have to prove that to AT&T (using the same account authentication methods they use to let you deactivate it) and they can take it out of the database.
For example, in the David Copperfield example given above, the judge barred the plaintiff filing the frivolous lawsuit from filing any more civil suits unless first reviewed and signed off by an attorney (who would then be equally liable for frivolous lawsuit sanctions).
Wikipedia is not a credible source. I'm sorry but its not. Its a wonderful place to go and look for actual credible sources.
The good Wikipedia entries (and there are many of them) are in fact actively maintained and monitored, requiring *citations* for any facts claimed. That's WHY it's a wonderful place to go look for credible *sources* (the citations).
Silly people who really don't know much about Wikipedia claim that it's just a bunch of crap randomly entered by anyone who feels like editing it, but that's not how it works in practice. Try it - go to a popular topic and add something false and/or uncited, and see how fast it gets flagged or reverted.
NO chance anyone would actually get tried for blasphemy against the Catholic Church in Mumbai.
Not only does 98% of the local population not give a shit, but the church leaders in the Vatican will be smacking their foreheads when they see this. They have been trying for the last couple hundred years to undo the massive ill-will they have caused persecuting/prosecuting "heretics" throughout the ages...
First time in ages/. has actually reported an event within hours of it happening, and if they had just waited an extra 3 minutes they could have done it right. The irony...
I guess you didn't realize this, but the WWW is based on the concept of the "hyperlink", which lets you put links to anything you want in your HTML, it's amazing!
And even if it were actually a "citation", what's wrong with that here? Wikipedia is generally orders of magnitude more accurate than most of the nonsense people spew here with no clue, let alone citation. That page I listed contains plenty of interesting information relevant to the topic. In fact it even contains dozens of those magical hyperlinks to other interesting sources, astounding, I know, but it does!
If it's going to have a sci-fi sound, though, why not go all the way. I'm currently torn between Landspeeder and Tie Fighter.
I mean, VW/Audi already has the licensing rights for its commercials, why not take the next logical step: "Audi e-tron Star Wars Edition". Available in Darth Vader black, Yoda Green, or Orange-and-White Rebellion Sport.
Actually, no. It would be thrown out of court within minutes.
Of course, you'd never get a lawyer to represent you since there is no money in it and they'd probably be sanctioned. And if you tried to represent yourself you could actually be fined, countersued, and even held in contempt of court for a frivolous lawsuit - which *is* a criminal offense...
Slashdot Mirror
The spreading of viruses among vegetables seems like the most dangerous motivator to reduce vegetable agriculture. The subjective pro of "fruits/vegetables/etc. tastes good" is beginning to look weaker and weaker against the many cons.
Great! Looks like the only option is to become a mineralivore...
Another typo, they make really poor "fighters" :-P
The difference was that it was rare that a floppy *drive* would be damaged by a seemingly functional floppy disk so badly that it would corrupt/damage any other disks you inserted into it. I saw first hand a single Zip disk permanently damage several Zip drives in a way that they became more or less a vector for a hardware Zip virus!
Though I have heard that was more an issue with the horrible design/manufacturing/quality control of the zip drives as it was disk issues...
Wait, you are putting Zip disks above CD-Rs in popularity? Or above floppy disks? Either of those formats, in their time, was ubiquitous. Zips come in a distant 3rd there.
And amazingly I have some floppies that have lasted over 10 years and are still readable. During my brief adventure into Zip disks they often wouldn't last 10 days before becoming thoroughly corrupted...
Ah, the click of death... especially impressive when a bad Zip disk could misalign the drive heads badly enough to screw up any other disks inserted. Probably the first widespread example of a computer *hardware* virus...
Except it's not one man, it's a large corporation with a lot of employees, customers, and general name recognition. This is exactly the reason they formed a PAC...
http://slashdot.org/submission/2014593/netflix-forms-a-pac
He was talking about Internet freedom, not Internet privacy.
Google and Facebook could potentially have a huge impact on privacy depending on government intervention, but walled gardens like Facebook and Apple are building are most definitely a bad trend for the free flow of information and the freedom to do what you want to do on your own hardware with your own Internet connection.
Yeah, after seeing a few comments like yours and digging around I believe you. It's a bizarre story but it's clear that comments attributed to various people just don't match their writing style in other public forums (ie Rachel may be a bit odd but she knows how to write). I wish slashdot would allow removing/self-modding down of comments, I'd remove mine and encourage anyone else who were taken in to do the same...
Going to make an assumption here, since she's made it clear that his identity is not known.
She has? Seems just the opposite from her own posts on kickstarter, actually.
"As you all know I have a rockin' tight ass, a successful project on Kickstarter that you've all funded, and a cyberstalker that goes by the name of FrankSinatraDirtyTalker1915@comcast.net.
I originally met "Frank" back in College, where we dated for a bit. I should point out that he's not an old man, as his username might imply, but rather someone who is simply obsessed with Frank Sinatra and my gorgeous rockin hard ass.
Anyway, when I broke up with him he took it pretty badly. It was our Sophomore year at Rice University and I had just discovered gravity bongs and going down on another girl while blazed out of my gord. As I've admitted, these were confusing albeit fun times for me."
It goes on, and only gets weirder. Apparently a significant fraction of the bizarre posts on her kickstarter page were her own. I was as indignant as everyone else when I read the misleading /. summary, but after a couple minutes of digging I think kickstarter was right to ban her... (and that's not even getting into the fact that many "supporters" seem to have complained that she is just taking their money for her own personal use...)
Before you start promoting hurting a bunch of legitimate projects, you should go look up this woman's "Internet history". She's clearly a loon and may have even made up the stalker for publicity. I wouldn't be surprised if she was the anonymous person who posted this to /. as well...
And why even leave it up to an individual? Crowdsource it!
That's the problem with AT&T in this case - they aren't even bothering to disable stolen phones on their own network. Verizon, for example, does disable phones reported stolen so at least they won't work on their system.
The big deal with the proposed system (likely via heavy FCC "encouragement") is that not only will the carriers be required to disable phones on their network, they will post the info to a central database so all carriers can do it.
No one who knows anything about this system has ever claimed they would be permanently "bricked"; anyone who says so is just plain incorrect. The system will prevent them from being reactivated on a new account by keeping track of stolen phone IMEIs, etc, in a centralized database that is shared among providers. It's not making the phone self-destruct or anything, jeez. If you can convince them your phone wasn't stolen they can remove the block and allow it to be reactivated.
Besides, this is something a lot of providers in other countries (and Verizon in the US) ALREADY DO ANYWAY and it's pretty universally considered a good idea.
That's what I thought at first - but the submitter linked to the wrong patent(s). They have several dating all the way back to the mid 90's that at least predate any commercial 3D MMORPGs.
Not saying they aren't stupid patents, but at the least they were not in fact stupid enough to try to sue their prior art...
then you open the door to situations where person A falsly reports persons B's phone stolen and gets it bricked.
That makes absolutely no sense. Besides the fact that they already have methods in place to verify the account owner and prevent for much more important concerns (changing service plan, cancelling the account, etc) how would it be any different from what would happen today if someone were able to convince AT&T that your phone was stolen? They already deactivate the phone from your account when reported stolen, which would cause the same level of inconvenience to the owner.
Adding it to a central database just means if the phone was truly stolen, the thief can't reactivate it on *another* account. If your phone wasn't really stolen (or you thought it was and then found it) you just have to prove that to AT&T (using the same account authentication methods they use to let you deactivate it) and they can take it out of the database.
Not necessarily true.
For example, in the David Copperfield example given above, the judge barred the plaintiff filing the frivolous lawsuit from filing any more civil suits unless first reviewed and signed off by an attorney (who would then be equally liable for frivolous lawsuit sanctions).
Wikipedia is not a credible source. I'm sorry but its not. Its a wonderful place to go and look for actual credible sources.
The good Wikipedia entries (and there are many of them) are in fact actively maintained and monitored, requiring *citations* for any facts claimed. That's WHY it's a wonderful place to go look for credible *sources* (the citations).
Silly people who really don't know much about Wikipedia claim that it's just a bunch of crap randomly entered by anyone who feels like editing it, but that's not how it works in practice. Try it - go to a popular topic and add something false and/or uncited, and see how fast it gets flagged or reverted.
And how does that change the fact that they fucked up so many times in the past and don't need something this absurd right now?
NO chance anyone would actually get tried for blasphemy against the Catholic Church in Mumbai.
Not only does 98% of the local population not give a shit, but the church leaders in the Vatican will be smacking their foreheads when they see this. They have been trying for the last couple hundred years to undo the massive ill-will they have caused persecuting/prosecuting "heretics" throughout the ages...
Nice idea, but you have to leave before you can re-enter ;)
What are you talking about? Every story I read pointed that out clearly (as if it wasn't obvious to anyone with half a brain anyway).
First time in ages /. has actually reported an event within hours of it happening, and if they had just waited an extra 3 minutes they could have done it right. The irony...
I guess you didn't realize this, but the WWW is based on the concept of the "hyperlink", which lets you put links to anything you want in your HTML, it's amazing!
And even if it were actually a "citation", what's wrong with that here? Wikipedia is generally orders of magnitude more accurate than most of the nonsense people spew here with no clue, let alone citation. That page I listed contains plenty of interesting information relevant to the topic. In fact it even contains dozens of those magical hyperlinks to other interesting sources, astounding, I know, but it does!
If it's going to have a sci-fi sound, though, why not go all the way. I'm currently torn between Landspeeder and Tie Fighter.
I mean, VW/Audi already has the licensing rights for its commercials, why not take the next logical step: "Audi e-tron Star Wars Edition". Available in Darth Vader black, Yoda Green, or Orange-and-White Rebellion Sport.
Actually, no. It would be thrown out of court within minutes.
Of course, you'd never get a lawyer to represent you since there is no money in it and they'd probably be sanctioned. And if you tried to represent yourself you could actually be fined, countersued, and even held in contempt of court for a frivolous lawsuit - which *is* a criminal offense...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation