According to the headline, the Australian senate says that open source (I guess they mean free software) is expensive
I guess they'd say the same thing about both country and wes... I mean, open source software and free software. The difference is rather small. That is, when you list the licenses that qualify for one of the labels but not both.
Richard Stallman's version of the story is that the Free Software banner is for those who back what's (essentially) the one thing for ideological reasons; the term Open Source is for those who back it for pragmatic reasons (better, less annoying software).
If you agree with this description of the terminology, it would makes sense for governments to talk about Free Software; Open Source not so much. That's not because governments shouldn't be pragmatic in their software choices, but because they should give proprietary software a fair evaluation on the pragmatic side.
On the ideological side, though, the government should always, always hold its citizens' data stored in a format that makes the citizenry the most independent of foreign interests; the government should never, on behalf of its citizens, cede power without a fight.
Sorry for sounding like an ideology-blinded zealot (I don't think of myself as one), but as they say: freedom isn't free. Sometimes you have to go with the freedom even though you give up some material wealth by doing so.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! --Samuel Adams
Overall, spending $1m on Microsoft software might, for a government, be a worse decision than spending $2m on hippyware.
That may well be. I certainly would like it to be true. But I'd like to discuss your arguments, because I don't think they hold.
Mostly I think you're conflating money with value. When we exchange money for groceries, houses, cars, etc., it's because the things we buy have value. Money has value to an individual only because it's exchangeable for valuable goods. Money has value to a society because it lets the blacksmith buy bread even if the baker doesn't need his horseshoes (as long as someone else does need them): it greases the wheels of trade.
This means that the money is staying in the local economy, rather than going abroad, and so they get more tax money
Consider what might happen if the government sent the money abroad. Either it stays abroad. In that case, the local population got something (software) for essentially nothing: a piece of paper with a number printed on it. Making a little bit of paper consumes fewer resources than making software.
Alternatively, the money comes back into the local economy; it gets spent in the same taxation area that it left, and the transaction is taxed. What the money is spent on leaves the local economy.
By nature, a government is a monopoly and benefits directly (in terms of tax revenue) from increases in the local economy.
Let's just be naive and assume that the government is made up of 100% honourable men and women who try their utmost to do the government's duty: serving the people. What's good for the government is exactly what's good for the people.
The fewer resources the government needs to deprive its citizens of (and still function equally well), the better. It isn't good for the people/government if the taxation is 100%: it means we're drowning in bureaucracy.
Assume a local citizen can create the software at a government expenditure of x dollars (including the taxes on his wages, etc.). Assume that if he doesn't, he goes working on something else, delivering y dollars of taxes.
Then the government should buy non-locally at a price z if z-y < x; that is, it should take into consideration the tax revenue it's losing by spending local citizens' time on software rather than something else.
Basically, I'm going for the concept of Opportunity Cost.
If they then release their changes, then that means that the software is now better and will benefit companies. Some of them will then be able to use it unmodified, and spend money on other things, rather than send it to a foreign corporation.
Once again, sending money to somewhere else isn't a bad thing: either you get something for nothing, or the money comes back.
One thing I do agree with, though:
If they then release their changes, then that means that the software is now better and will benefit companies.
And here we might be going somewhere. The funny business with software (and some other goods, e.g. music and movies) is that it's exactly the opposite of drugs: the first one's expensive, the rest are free---in terms of what it costs to make them of course, not what vendors charge.
So if a set of people x wants a piece of software, and a set of people y can create it, and x wants the software more than they want whatever y could otherwise create with their time and equivalent other resources, clearly it's best if y makes that software. Prices (well, just prices) are used to communicate the relative value people put on different goods and services (and money is exchanged accordingly). But in the case of open source, it's not clear that all the software people really want will always get built.
For the government to build it, at communal expense and for communal benefit, makes some kind of sense. In the sort of the same way it mak
A computer can't even pick a (truly) random number without being hooked up to a device feeding it random noise.
How do you program that? How does the brain choose a random number?
The brain doesn't.
I recall a great psych experiment. It goes something like this:
Divide people into two groups. Give the people in one group a coin and tell them to flip heads or tails 200 times.
Tell the other group to come up with a sequence of 200 heads or tails on their own, such that they look random.
Look for a sequence of six consecutive equal outcomes. If such a sequence is present, the numbers are truly random. If not, they're man-made. This works with well over 90% reliability.
I'm sorry that I can't find a reference. Feel free to replicate that study yourself:)
I've thought about something similar: in a post-scarcity world where all our material needs can be provided, say for the sake of example, by robots, and a bunch of robot nerds volunteer their time to maintain and repair the robots, what would people do with the time? Would there still be competition for limited resources? Would there still be limited resources?
Yes. Human attention, affection and sex partners; until we can synthetically grow people, we will have to earn our relationships with others from a limited pool, and since most people want them there will be competition.
So in a Strong-AI world, humans will be needed, at least by other humans, for sex and interpersonal relationships.
If an ethnic community should decide that woman not wearing a burka is obscene
Wouldn't "religious community" be a more accurate description?
Last I heard, the burka-wearing rules go with Islam, not with being a citizen of ${country where Islam is the dominant religion}.
I realise that there's a great degree of overlap, just like most (US) Americans are Christians, but for someone to talk about how people are going to set up a lot of crosses and churches in "the American community" sounds a bit silly, doesn't it? You'd feel like they missed a (not so subtle) distinction, right?
The short version: for each developer, gather their estimated times and actual times for each of their projects.
If the ratio between the two is always 1, that person is the perfect estimator. If it's systematically close to some x != 1, you just divide all their estimates by x to compensate for their optimism (or pessimism, as the case may be). If the estimate factors are all over the board, you teach them how to estimate times better.
You only need TPM for the evil one of those
on
Hardware TPM Hacked
·
· Score: 1
TPMs are designed for three things: 1) establish a hardware root of trust for boot (i.e., make sure that you're actually booting your OS and not a rootkit first), 2) provide lightweight, secure and fast cryptographic operations (so you don't have to do something stupid like store a cryptographic key in plaintext on your HD), and 3) allow remote attestation of a computer's software stack
(1) You can have a root of trust for your boot sector rather easily without a TPM: have the BIOS store a hash of the boot sector; have it warn the user when it changes (pre-boot), and have the boot sector update program tell the user the new hash so he can compare it against what the BIOS says whenever it changes.
(2) fast crypto just requires a hardware implementation of DES/AES/RSA/.... Secure private key storage if you are root---just encrypt your private key with a password and chmod go-r it. For non-root users, you lose: root can always read all of your files and kmem anyway.
(3) Remote attestation is fine, until youtube will only send you videos if you attest to run Windows XX which won't let you store the videos. At that point, your choice isn't just "secure or not", it's "youtube or freedom to control my own computer". Pile NYT, disney.com and a few other highly desirable (to some) websites, and the norm will become computers that their owners aren't in control of. At least that's something to fear.
Yes, there are applications of TPMs for DRM, but that is a side effect and not a primary factor.
Yeah, your legs might fall off. Don't worry, that's a side effect and not a primary factor.
No, sorry. I don't want no (steenkeeng) DRM. I'll trust that the secret keys I store on my machines are kept secret from not-me, and use that for remote attestation (via ssh).
A standard must contain all the information necessary to implement it, or else it is incomplete and thus not a standard.
Or point to other documents which are standards.
For instance, you could have the Microsoft VBA Specification. If that was complete, then both the OOXML/Document spec and the OOXML/Spreadsheet spec could refer to it, kinda' like a subroutine. (Note: I said if. I don't know, and don't think, that Microsoft has done this.)
However, if your notes contain a lot of mathematical symbols or technical diagrams
I can't speak to the technical diagrams, but for mathematical symbols and equations, I've found the following to work reasonably well:
Type some pseudo-LaTeX. Don't sweat the {}-grouping or the $ (or $$) around your equations. For instance something like this (replace the parentheses with the named characters):
For each (alpha) (element of) (blackboard bold Z)_p^*, (exists) x, y: x(alpha) + y(alpha)^-1 = 1
You can cheat and use 'a' instead of alpha, "in" instead of (element of), and Z instead of (blackboard bold Z).
Or, at least on X Windows, you can set up your ~/.XCompose to contain compose key sequences for all your mathematical characters. That works quite well for me.
So, for instance, I press "shift+shift, space, a" to input alpha, "shift+shift, i, n" for "element of", "shift+shift, equals, greater" for an implication arrow, etc.
Why does that work? The main problem with inputting mathematics, as I understand it, is that a lot of mathematics typesetting systems (i.e. Word's equation editor) require you to spend a lot of time in the input phase. So,
Inputting LaTeX means you just type, don't click with the mouse.
Being sloppy about your LaTeX means you input less.
Having compose key sequences means you input your symbols fast
Whether it's fast an non-distracting enough for you, that's of course for you to decide. But for me it's like inputting text a bit slowly, rather than "oh noes!!! Teh maths!!1!"
Aren't you guys tired of reading all the time the same big-brother phone-ad "news" on slashdot?
I'm not.
I'm in fact really happy that there were good discussions about the Nokia N900 phone---otherwise I wouldn't have known about the existence of a smartphone which (supposedly) delivers exactly what I want: a pocket computer I can tinker with.
Being told that the thing I've been wanting for ten years finally exists is something I'm actually happy about. Was Nokia involved behind the scenes? Were they trying to push their product? Why would I care---I want the product at the price it's offered at.
Just like the other day where I was shopping for a scarf. The sales clerk notified me they had socks for sale. I tried a pair on, liked it, found the price reasonable, and I needed more socks, so I bought some. Yes, he applied a sales technique on me, and it worked. So what? His pitch didn't artificially inflate my need for socks, it told me "you can get what you want, and here's how: [...]".
And a while back I was looking for some stickers for my Rubik's cube. One of Google's advertisers had exactly what I wanted, at a price I liked.
Advertisements aren't that bad. It's just that 99% give all the good ones a bad name;-)
That is to say: yeah, I see a lot of ads I'd rather be without. But every once in a while, someone seeks me out wanting to sell me something, and it just so happens that I, before engaging with them, have a desire to buy what I then discover they sell.
If I like the transaction, why shouldn't I like being brought in contact with the other side of it?
And hey, if you don't like the headlines, you don't have to read the summary. And if you don't like the summary, you don't have to read the discussion. And you never have to read the article (see, I'm not new here).
I'm sure ssh has some way to prevent session hijacking though.
Yes, it has. It does cryptography.
Here's the long and short of session hijacking: when you connect to (say) facebook and type in your username and password, facebook issues you a one-time "username"---something which identifies your real username---with no associated password (or, if you will, the username is the password).
Whenever you ask for a facebook page, you send that one-time username in the clear. Anyone who snoops your connection can read that username and reuse it to impersonate you.
If the sending of the one-time username was encrypted, this wouldn't be possible. Like Jeff (Mr. coding horror) says, use HTTPS.
SSH encrypts everything that's sent.
(Oh, and don't listen to Jeff about computer science; a recent stackoverflow podcast made it painfully clear he doesn't know the first thing about automata and language theory. He may be a great programming craftsman and/or businessman, but I find his lack of faith^Wtheoretical knowledge disturbing.)
From 2009, software was ~500 megabucks, iPods ~1500, iPhones ~1700, music ~1000. Also Desktops ~1130 and Portables (Laptopts?) ~2200.
Apple sells computers and consumer electronics (~tied first place). Then music. Then software at a quite distant third.
If you measure by sales, Apple is not a software company.
Then again, Apple probably ships software on each of their hardware devices, so by unit count... well... just like how Vader betrayed and murdered Luke's father, you can get the conclusion you want if you look at reality from a certain point of view that's particularly supportive of your interpretation.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the headline, the Australian senate says that open source (I guess they mean free software) is expensive
I guess they'd say the same thing about both country and wes... I mean, open source software and free software. The difference is rather small. That is, when you list the licenses that qualify for one of the labels but not both.
Richard Stallman's version of the story is that the Free Software banner is for those who back what's (essentially) the one thing for ideological reasons; the term Open Source is for those who back it for pragmatic reasons (better, less annoying software).
If you agree with this description of the terminology, it would makes sense for governments to talk about Free Software; Open Source not so much. That's not because governments shouldn't be pragmatic in their software choices, but because they should give proprietary software a fair evaluation on the pragmatic side.
On the ideological side, though, the government should always, always hold its citizens' data stored in a format that makes the citizenry the most independent of foreign interests; the government should never, on behalf of its citizens, cede power without a fight.
Sorry for sounding like an ideology-blinded zealot (I don't think of myself as one), but as they say: freedom isn't free. Sometimes you have to go with the freedom even though you give up some material wealth by doing so.
Overall, spending $1m on Microsoft software might, for a government, be a worse decision than spending $2m on hippyware.
That may well be. I certainly would like it to be true. But I'd like to discuss your arguments, because I don't think they hold.
Mostly I think you're conflating money with value. When we exchange money for groceries, houses, cars, etc., it's because the things we buy have value. Money has value to an individual only because it's exchangeable for valuable goods. Money has value to a society because it lets the blacksmith buy bread even if the baker doesn't need his horseshoes (as long as someone else does need them): it greases the wheels of trade.
This means that the money is staying in the local economy, rather than going abroad, and so they get more tax money
Consider what might happen if the government sent the money abroad. Either it stays abroad. In that case, the local population got something (software) for essentially nothing: a piece of paper with a number printed on it. Making a little bit of paper consumes fewer resources than making software.
Alternatively, the money comes back into the local economy; it gets spent in the same taxation area that it left, and the transaction is taxed. What the money is spent on leaves the local economy.
By nature, a government is a monopoly and benefits directly (in terms of tax revenue) from increases in the local economy.
Let's just be naive and assume that the government is made up of 100% honourable men and women who try their utmost to do the government's duty: serving the people. What's good for the government is exactly what's good for the people.
The fewer resources the government needs to deprive its citizens of (and still function equally well), the better. It isn't good for the people/government if the taxation is 100%: it means we're drowning in bureaucracy.
Assume a local citizen can create the software at a government expenditure of x dollars (including the taxes on his wages, etc.). Assume that if he doesn't, he goes working on something else, delivering y dollars of taxes.
Then the government should buy non-locally at a price z if z-y < x; that is, it should take into consideration the tax revenue it's losing by spending local citizens' time on software rather than something else.
Basically, I'm going for the concept of Opportunity Cost.
If they then release their changes, then that means that the software is now better and will benefit companies. Some of them will then be able to use it unmodified, and spend money on other things, rather than send it to a foreign corporation.
Once again, sending money to somewhere else isn't a bad thing: either you get something for nothing, or the money comes back.
One thing I do agree with, though:
If they then release their changes, then that means that the software is now better and will benefit companies.
And here we might be going somewhere. The funny business with software (and some other goods, e.g. music and movies) is that it's exactly the opposite of drugs: the first one's expensive, the rest are free---in terms of what it costs to make them of course, not what vendors charge.
So if a set of people x wants a piece of software, and a set of people y can create it, and x wants the software more than they want whatever y could otherwise create with their time and equivalent other resources, clearly it's best if y makes that software. Prices (well, just prices) are used to communicate the relative value people put on different goods and services (and money is exchanged accordingly). But in the case of open source, it's not clear that all the software people really want will always get built.
For the government to build it, at communal expense and for communal benefit, makes some kind of sense. In the sort of the same way it mak
Sexual attraction, and other emotional desires, are what drive humans beings to make scientific advancements
Yeah, I get laid every time I say "Ph.D. in cryptography" :(
A computer can't even pick a (truly) random number without being hooked up to a device feeding it random noise.
How do you program that? How does the brain choose a random number?
The brain doesn't.
I recall a great psych experiment. It goes something like this:
Divide people into two groups. Give the people in one group a coin and tell them to flip heads or tails 200 times.
Tell the other group to come up with a sequence of 200 heads or tails on their own, such that they look random.
Look for a sequence of six consecutive equal outcomes. If such a sequence is present, the numbers are truly random. If not, they're man-made. This works with well over 90% reliability.
I'm sorry that I can't find a reference. Feel free to replicate that study yourself :)
Humans suck at random.
What role will humanity play in such a system?
I've thought about something similar: in a post-scarcity world where all our material needs can be provided, say for the sake of example, by robots, and a bunch of robot nerds volunteer their time to maintain and repair the robots, what would people do with the time? Would there still be competition for limited resources? Would there still be limited resources?
Yes. Human attention, affection and sex partners; until we can synthetically grow people, we will have to earn our relationships with others from a limited pool, and since most people want them there will be competition.
So in a Strong-AI world, humans will be needed, at least by other humans, for sex and interpersonal relationships.
They're really assuming that the technology will go from zero to sixty in 20 years.
My artificial intelligence quotient goes to sixty-one!
100 years ago in many couldn't the majority couldn't read
Very nice anachronism there :)
Vote for America, Vote Elmer Fudd.
Paid for by the people for Elmer Fudd foundation.
But I thought your government was paid for by Mickey Mouse...
Be careful, fiber will increase the "data" flow.
You've got to be shittin' me...
If an ethnic community should decide that woman not wearing a burka is obscene
Wouldn't "religious community" be a more accurate description?
Last I heard, the burka-wearing rules go with Islam, not with being a citizen of ${country where Islam is the dominant religion}.
I realise that there's a great degree of overlap, just like most (US) Americans are Christians, but for someone to talk about how people are going to set up a lot of crosses and churches in "the American community" sounds a bit silly, doesn't it? You'd feel like they missed a (not so subtle) distinction, right?
playing with it all day long.
Something I'm sure at least a few slashdotters are familiar with ;-)
Process Explorer is what Windows should ship with instead of task manager.
I vote for psdoom ;-)
That sounds almost exactly like what Joel Spolsky talked about ("Evidence Based Scheduling") in his article at http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/10/26.html
Joel Spolsky has written about making useful estimates at http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/10/26.html
The short version: for each developer, gather their estimated times and actual times for each of their projects.
If the ratio between the two is always 1, that person is the perfect estimator. If it's systematically close to some x != 1, you just divide all their estimates by x to compensate for their optimism (or pessimism, as the case may be). If the estimate factors are all over the board, you teach them how to estimate times better.
TPMs are designed for three things: 1) establish a hardware root of trust for boot (i.e., make sure that you're actually booting your OS and not a rootkit first), 2) provide lightweight, secure and fast cryptographic operations (so you don't have to do something stupid like store a cryptographic key in plaintext on your HD), and 3) allow remote attestation of a computer's software stack
(1) You can have a root of trust for your boot sector rather easily without a TPM: have the BIOS store a hash of the boot sector; have it warn the user when it changes (pre-boot), and have the boot sector update program tell the user the new hash so he can compare it against what the BIOS says whenever it changes.
(2) fast crypto just requires a hardware implementation of DES/AES/RSA/.... Secure private key storage if you are root---just encrypt your private key with a password and chmod go-r it. For non-root users, you lose: root can always read all of your files and kmem anyway.
(3) Remote attestation is fine, until youtube will only send you videos if you attest to run Windows XX which won't let you store the videos. At that point, your choice isn't just "secure or not", it's "youtube or freedom to control my own computer". Pile NYT, disney.com and a few other highly desirable (to some) websites, and the norm will become computers that their owners aren't in control of. At least that's something to fear.
Yes, there are applications of TPMs for DRM, but that is a side effect and not a primary factor.
Yeah, your legs might fall off. Don't worry, that's a side effect and not a primary factor.
No, sorry. I don't want no (steenkeeng) DRM. I'll trust that the secret keys I store on my machines are kept secret from not-me, and use that for remote attestation (via ssh).
A standard must contain all the information necessary to implement it, or else it is incomplete and thus not a standard.
Or point to other documents which are standards.
For instance, you could have the Microsoft VBA Specification. If that was complete, then both the OOXML/Document spec and the OOXML/Spreadsheet spec could refer to it, kinda' like a subroutine. (Note: I said if. I don't know, and don't think, that Microsoft has done this.)
Don't some of the RFCs do something like this?
However, if your notes contain a lot of mathematical symbols or technical diagrams
I can't speak to the technical diagrams, but for mathematical symbols and equations, I've found the following to work reasonably well:
Type some pseudo-LaTeX. Don't sweat the {}-grouping or the $ (or $$) around your equations. For instance something like this (replace the parentheses with the named characters):
For each (alpha) (element of) (blackboard bold Z)_p^*, (exists) x, y: x(alpha) + y(alpha)^-1 = 1
You can cheat and use 'a' instead of alpha, "in" instead of (element of), and Z instead of (blackboard bold Z).
Or, at least on X Windows, you can set up your ~/.XCompose to contain compose key sequences for all your mathematical characters. That works quite well for me.
So, for instance, I press "shift+shift, space, a" to input alpha, "shift+shift, i, n" for "element of", "shift+shift, equals, greater" for an implication arrow, etc.
Why does that work? The main problem with inputting mathematics, as I understand it, is that a lot of mathematics typesetting systems (i.e. Word's equation editor) require you to spend a lot of time in the input phase. So,
Whether it's fast an non-distracting enough for you, that's of course for you to decide. But for me it's like inputting text a bit slowly, rather than "oh noes!!! Teh maths!!1!"
Something tells me F will mean something completely different when youre getting compiler errors or crashes.
fgrep??
Aren't you guys tired of reading all the time the same big-brother phone-ad "news" on slashdot?
I'm not.
I'm in fact really happy that there were good discussions about the Nokia N900 phone---otherwise I wouldn't have known about the existence of a smartphone which (supposedly) delivers exactly what I want: a pocket computer I can tinker with.
Being told that the thing I've been wanting for ten years finally exists is something I'm actually happy about. Was Nokia involved behind the scenes? Were they trying to push their product? Why would I care---I want the product at the price it's offered at.
Just like the other day where I was shopping for a scarf. The sales clerk notified me they had socks for sale. I tried a pair on, liked it, found the price reasonable, and I needed more socks, so I bought some. Yes, he applied a sales technique on me, and it worked. So what? His pitch didn't artificially inflate my need for socks, it told me "you can get what you want, and here's how: [...]".
And a while back I was looking for some stickers for my Rubik's cube. One of Google's advertisers had exactly what I wanted, at a price I liked.
Advertisements aren't that bad. It's just that 99% give all the good ones a bad name ;-)
That is to say: yeah, I see a lot of ads I'd rather be without. But every once in a while, someone seeks me out wanting to sell me something, and it just so happens that I, before engaging with them, have a desire to buy what I then discover they sell.
If I like the transaction, why shouldn't I like being brought in contact with the other side of it?
And hey, if you don't like the headlines, you don't have to read the summary. And if you don't like the summary, you don't have to read the discussion. And you never have to read the article (see, I'm not new here).
Not that any non-geek would care about the real reason, so "blame it on Linux" is good enough!
So what you're saying is that they should blame it on GNU/Linux? ;)
I have the power, I distort reality!
And that would be Steve Jobs :P
I'm sure ssh has some way to prevent session hijacking though.
Yes, it has. It does cryptography.
Here's the long and short of session hijacking: when you connect to (say) facebook and type in your username and password, facebook issues you a one-time "username"---something which identifies your real username---with no associated password (or, if you will, the username is the password).
Whenever you ask for a facebook page, you send that one-time username in the clear. Anyone who snoops your connection can read that username and reuse it to impersonate you.
If the sending of the one-time username was encrypted, this wouldn't be possible. Like Jeff (Mr. coding horror) says, use HTTPS.
SSH encrypts everything that's sent.
(Oh, and don't listen to Jeff about computer science; a recent stackoverflow podcast made it painfully clear he doesn't know the first thing about automata and language theory. He may be a great programming craftsman and/or businessman, but I find his lack of faith^Wtheoretical knowledge disturbing.)
Neither can she: http://www.slutload.com/watch/qgREWYjJQW/Sexy-girl-stuffs-cell-phone-up-her-pussy-WOW.html (NSFW)
Apple is a software company.
Really?
See http://images.betanews.com/media/3620.png or some article at http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-Q3-2009-by-the-numbers/1248218543 (which got data from Apple's SEC filings).
From 2009, software was ~500 megabucks, iPods ~1500, iPhones ~1700, music ~1000. Also Desktops ~1130 and Portables (Laptopts?) ~2200.
Apple sells computers and consumer electronics (~tied first place). Then music. Then software at a quite distant third.
If you measure by sales, Apple is not a software company.
Then again, Apple probably ships software on each of their hardware devices, so by unit count... well... just like how Vader betrayed and murdered Luke's father, you can get the conclusion you want if you look at reality from a certain point of view that's particularly supportive of your interpretation.
URL says it all:
http://www.slutload.com/watch/qgREWYjJQW/Sexy-girl-stuffs-cell-phone-up-her-pussy-WOW.html
Rule 34 indeed...
(obviously NSFW)