Comment Re:Arsehole (Score 1) 1051
And the answer to that is, "you're fired."
Comment Also tonight (Score 1) 111
Anonymous predicts decline of McAfee Labs. News at eleven.
Comment Great (Score 0, Redundant) 96
The Commission sent a 'statement of objections' to the South Korean group, with its preliminary view that Samsung was not acting fairly.
Samsung then wiped their asses with it and sent it back.
Comment Re:Captain Obvious? (Score 1) 292
Honestly, this should be the final project of any decent software development course.
Comment Re:extracting keys from RAM (Score 1) 268
I believe TrueCrypt tries very hard to avoid swapping the key to disk; I don't know about the hibernation file (though I bet you could script something to shred the file on resume, if you were paranoid about it).
One would hope you would have set your highly secure system to not dump core on a kernel panic.
Comment Re:extracting keys from RAM (Score 1) 268
Unmount the TrueCrypt volume before hibernating / shutting down. Don't let people attach random Firewire devices to your system. Lock your system before walking away (really, unmount the TrueCrypt volume then, too, if you can). Don't run it in a VM unless you know what you're doing.
Common sense stuff, really.
Comment Re:And (Score 1) 163
It's probably a technical thing. They may not have an API that lets them query your bank for your date of birth, while I believe running such a check against a credit card may be included in the usual antifraud capabilities (i.e. they make a preauth that doesn't charge you anything but lets them validate your DOB).
Comment Re:And (Score 2, Funny) 163
Silly me, thinking I could get away with Unicode 2260.
Get that 21st century technology off of Slashdot, we run ancient Perl here and we like it! *mumbles something about uphill in the snow*
Comment I'm with Chris Rock (Score 2) 1168
Submission + - Developer of Facebook browser extension banned from Facebook (fbpurity.com)
earlzdotnet writes: "The developer of F.B. Purity (Fluff Busting Purity) has been banned from Facebook. F.B. Purity is a set of browser extensions for Firefox, Chrome, and others to make Facebook more accessible and remove some of it's most annoying features.
Facebook complains that they are violating their terms of service by interfering with Facebook's user-interface and not using the official API. They also claim to own the "FB" set of letters and say F.B. Purity must remove those letters from it's domain and product. And finally, Facebook also complains that his website is spam and therefore direct links to it is blocked from Facebook.
The developer is not yet banned from Facebook, but has been told that his personal account will be banned at anytime, along with the Facebook page set up for F.B. Purity. This isn't the first time F.B. Purity has caught the eye of Facebook's legal team, but it is the first time they've decided to outright ban the developer. However, it's impossible to ban the browser extension because it is... well, an extension to your browser. Facebook probably can't even detect one is using it."
Facebook complains that they are violating their terms of service by interfering with Facebook's user-interface and not using the official API. They also claim to own the "FB" set of letters and say F.B. Purity must remove those letters from it's domain and product. And finally, Facebook also complains that his website is spam and therefore direct links to it is blocked from Facebook.
The developer is not yet banned from Facebook, but has been told that his personal account will be banned at anytime, along with the Facebook page set up for F.B. Purity. This isn't the first time F.B. Purity has caught the eye of Facebook's legal team, but it is the first time they've decided to outright ban the developer. However, it's impossible to ban the browser extension because it is... well, an extension to your browser. Facebook probably can't even detect one is using it."
Comment Re:One has to wonder. . . (Score 1) 313
...every single user who has ever posted any photo of any identifiable person apart from themselves now knows that they are legally on the hook and must delete every such photo immediately. And probably close their account to be sure.
You have far more faith in the judgment of the common Facebook user than I.
Comment Re:One has to wonder. . . (Score 2) 313
But shouldn't they sue the people who actually PUBLISHED the picture?
I am not a lawyer, but I guarantee they have this covered. The terms of service almost certainly say that you irrevocably represent that you have the full permission of any subjects of your photos, and agree to indemnify (i.e. pay for the entire legal defense of) the service provider in cases where it is revealed that any representations you made in agreeing to the EULA are false.
So if they sue Facebook, Facebook points out the Terms of Service areas where you agreed to these things, then sues you to pay any judgment made against them as well.
Comment I bought a 48 FPS ticket. (Score 1) 599
I'm very excited to see this film in 48 FPS tomorrow. I don't particularly care whether or not it looks good. As a geek, the primary thing I'm interested in is a technology which has not been upgraded since the 1920s. If that doesn't excite you, I may have to personally revoke your geek card.
Comment This is a Tragedy. (Score 1) 2987
Let us momentarily suspend our political leaning as to the cause of this and just understand that the cost of a society in which there is such high population density will inevitably result in a certain, hopefully small, percentage of crazy people who will do something like this. Let us track down those crazy people, help them if they can be helped, protect the rest of society from them if they cannot be helped, and move on, grieving for those who we have lost.
Comment Re:We should all thank God (Score 1) 383
Man, I want to visit that island. I bet they have good parties.
(Visit, not move there.)
