Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: Because... (Score 1) 200

by AvitarX (#47974977) Attached to: Do Specs Matter Anymore For the Average Smartphone User?

There's also people like me that can't seem to keep a phone working for more than a year or two .

At this point , I think I'll be sticking to phones like the Moto e or g , $200 for a workable phone , not customization to make it annoying (every non nexus android I've used had weird little issues with sharing objects between the built in apps and newer apps from the store)

Comment: Re: How is Yelp supposed to work? (Score 1) 238

by AvitarX (#47962483) Attached to: Small Restaurant Out-Maneuvers Yelp In Reviews War

That's the real problem. If they did it like google, essentially allowing payment to be featured and marked as such, it wouldn't be a problem taking the money from the people reviewed. Manipulating the reviews though sucks, especially since it's still the best way to find something nearby quickly when somewhere new .

Comment: Re: lock the front door before spend $1.5 billion (Score 2) 221

by AvitarX (#47961079) Attached to: Secret Service Critics Pounce After White House Breach

Oilcan completetly see how having unfettered access for the security is better than a locked door .

Casinos don't have locking doors either ,they have 24/7 security .

Double barrel locks are a higher risk in killing you in a fire than the added security of not being able to break a window and reach in to unlock .

Comment: Re:Dial up can still access gmail (Score 1) 334

by AvitarX (#47936289) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Remote Support For Disconnected, Computer-Illiterate Relatives

We had one of them where I work (in the late 90s, maybe into early 2000s). One of our locations didn't have access to DSL, and cable didn't exist yet. Eventually, when the internet was more important, they got ISDN there, and then a T-1 when they got cheap (when factoring in all of the phone lines included). I actually think the location closed just before cable was available.

Comment: Re:"forced labor" (Score 1) 183

by AvitarX (#47933421) Attached to: Use of Forced Labor "Systemic" In Malaysian IT Manufacturing

I thought Obama was running more middle of the line than Hillary, wasn't she for single payer since the 90s?

My memory is hazy, but Obama seemed to run moderate with a liberal fervor (sort of like how second Bush ran super conservative, but with a moderate fervor). What policies was Obama running on that were more progressive than Hillary (or really even McCain?).

Comment: Re: Due to Fire Phone Flop? (Score 1) 77

by AvitarX (#47877447) Attached to: Amazon Instant Video Now Available On Android

I thought their ad was pretty compelling, surprised it flopped.

Now that on think of it, I probably saw the ad on Hulu, so maybe nobody saw it but me.

But they maid the announcement it was coming in mid june, so I think they just rushed the planned release while still testing many devices.

Comment: Re: Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (Score 1) 134

by AvitarX (#47829139) Attached to: After Celebrity Photo Leaks, 4chan Introduces DMCA Policy

I was not, and did not mean to imply it was their policy.

I was trying to say that the legal risk was not there, not speak to what the policies were.

The law is (from wikipedia, I'm too lazy to read the actual statutes right now):

The PROTECT Act also amended 18 U.S.C. 2252A, which was part of the original CPPA. The amendment added paragraph (a)(3), which criminalizes knowingly advertising or distributing "an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct". The law draws a distinction between obscene depiction of any minor, and mere depiction of an actual minor.

As long as it's not sexually explicit it's legal, though also:

In 1994, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that the federal statute contains no requirement that genitals be visible or discernible. The court ruled that non-nude visual depictions can qualify as lascivious exhibitions and that this construction does not render the statute unconstitutionally overbroad.[19]

So genitals are a help in determining, but are not a requirement, and if it's not sexually explicit, it's not pornography, and therefore not child pornagraphy. I have not looked at the pictures in question, because, I have better things to do.

Lisp Users: Due to the holiday next Monday, there will be no garbage collection.

Working...