Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:And google will retain that info exclusively. (Score 1) 195

by Compaqt (#45713139) Attached to: Google Makes It Harder For Marketers To Collect User Data

Erm, actually it's the same storage requirements for Google, even if they rewrite the image to be contained in the email.

E.g.: 1KB email, 40 KB image. Image stored separately, 41 KB storage space required.

1KB email, 40 KB image. Image stored in email, 41 KB storage space required.

Comment: FOSS flashlight app (Score 1) 187

by Compaqt (#45631417) Attached to: FTC Drops the Hammer On Maker of Location-Sharing Flashlight App

The answer is the user can't differentiate, unless we have access to the source code.

So here's an open source flashlight app you should be using:

Or Torch:

Install them by installing the F-Droid (FOSS for Android) package manager from Google Play.

Comment: Re:To hire specific people (Score 1) 465

by Compaqt (#45554101) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Why Are Tech Job Requirements So Specific?

Yeah, but look at it from the perspective of a company (say, your own):

You hire a guy who's a total generalist. You sit patiently while either you train him or he trains himself in specifics. The moment he's trained, he jumps ship for someplace else.

How do you avoid that? Since you paid for his education (training) shouldn't you get to reap the benefits?

Comment: Re:GUI for "NFTables" (Score 1) 235

by Compaqt (#45179431) Attached to: NFTables To Replace iptables In the Linux Kernel

What I find is that when you encounter a series of iptable statements, it seems obvious that the kernel is building some sort of table of data or rules (LISP: data == program).

But instead of providing the table to the system, you have to build it up, piece by excruciating piece.

Whoever thought that was a good idea should have his packets limited.

Comment: Re:Liberal strategy (Score 1) 1144

by Compaqt (#45071217) Attached to: Slashdot Asks: How Does the US Gov't Budget Crunch Affect You?

OK, I checked out your links, and they don't seem to have the text of their proposed amendment other than this vague statement:

We are calling for an amendment to the US Constitution to unequivocally state that inalienable rights belong to human beings only, and that money is not a form of protected free speech under the First Amendment and can be regulated in political campaigns.

So, then, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People cannot spend money as they choose, because as a corporation, it doesn't have any rights, correct? And for humans, speech will be limited to using your voicebox, and not distributing pamphlets?

It would be useful to review the actual Citizens United case: a group of people organized as a corporation were selling an anti-Clinton video close to an election, for which they were prosecuted. If dissing politicians is bad, what exactly is the point of the 1st Amendment?

Do not use the blue keys on this terminal.