Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Newer Advance / Stop the Botnets (Score 1) 76

by Explodicle (#32550350) Attached to: The Beginnings of Encrypted Computing In the Cloud
Botnets exist because of rational ignorance. For most people, the benefit of having an efficient computer does not outweigh the cost of learning about malware and proper maintenance. How many times have you heard "It does my email and my internet, I don't care"? If there was a financial incentive to keep your computer running efficiently, more (but not all) people would make that effort. I'm sure you're ignorant about some things that malware victims would consider important. Would you like it if they dismissed you as an inherently ignorant person because you didn't take the time to learn something that doesn't really impact the things you care about?

Comment: Re:Porn with no educational value is already verbo (Score 1) 263

by Explodicle (#32132490) Attached to: Wales Supports Purging Porn From Wikipedia
One can upload images directly to Wikipedia when they pass Wikipedia standards but not Commons standards. This is most frequently done with fair use images, which are not allowed on Commons. Which Wikipedia articles did you see that had lost informative images? I'll tag them for new ones that pass the no-porn requirement.

Comment: May 2010 (Score 5, Informative) 263

by Explodicle (#32126062) Attached to: Wales Supports Purging Porn From Wikipedia

Thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikimedia Commons, a non-profit media repository with the primary scope of providing educational and informative images and media. Submissions that are low quality or do not fall into Commons' scope may be subject to deletion. One or more of your recent contributions has been identified by another Commons user as a possible image not in Commons' scope. Commons has guidelines on nudity, as a result of already having a large number of photos of genitalia, specifically the male reproductive system and the penis. If you have objections to the proposed deletion of your image(s), please see the links to the relevant deletion discussion(s) (listed above or below this message box). This message is not intended to be taken personally. Thank you for your understanding. --Explodicle

This is a real warning people get for uploading too much cock onto Commons.

Comment: Porn with no educational value is already verboten (Score 4, Informative) 263

by Explodicle (#32125860) Attached to: Wales Supports Purging Porn From Wikipedia
It's not an encyclopedia. Wales is discussing Wikimedia Commons, a related but seperate project from Wikipedia. They've already got a whole team of people who debate over what is acceptable or not at Commons:Deletion requests. This isn't about what should or should not be included - porn with no informative purpose is already subject to deletion. What Wales is calling for is a greater effort to reduce them.

Have you reconsidered a computer career?