Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:That alone doesn't mean your laptop will work. (Score 1) 835

by GTsquirrel42 (#29376857) Attached to: Does Your College Or University Support Linux?

I mailed the helpdesk again with my findings, and with the little script I wrote to disable NetworkManager, bring up wlan0 manually, and run udhcpc. They seemed very glad to have a solution.

Ha! I tried the same thing at my old university and they yelled at me for trying to "hack the network" and strongly suggested that if I didn't want trouble I shouldn't mention my "workaround" to anyone else. I suppose it was silly of me to suppose that my tuition would go to pay for something I could actually use without getting into trouble...

Comment: Re:Sure, but... (Score 1) 404

by GTsquirrel42 (#29184699) Attached to: One Crime Solved Per 1,000 London CCTV Cameras
Quite true. Years ago when I lived in the States a mate working security in a shopping centre rang one of his colleagues in the back room to "follow" us out into the car park to make sure we got to our cars alright. Laugh it up if you must, but it was a dodgy part of town and people liked ganging up and messing with the rent-a-cops.

Comment: Re:Prevention vs. Action (Score 1) 404

by GTsquirrel42 (#29184591) Attached to: One Crime Solved Per 1,000 London CCTV Cameras
Ah, but we aren't talking about private security over personal property. There's no problem with someone having cameras in their own home/business to protect their own property; they can watch it as often or as rarely as they like. Public cameras on the other hand don't have clear rules as to who can watch them, when to watch them, or what to report while watching them.

Even still we have councils using CCTV feeds to fine people for leaving their dogs' poo. How often is that the 1/1000 "crime" that's solved?

Comment: Prevention vs. Action (Score 5, Insightful) 404

by GTsquirrel42 (#29179881) Attached to: One Crime Solved Per 1,000 London CCTV Cameras
One huge difference: cameras can't actually apprehend anybody. There are cases upon cases of crimes being commited directly under watch of a camera that are never solved. Whether it's because the perp is wearing a hat or they never return to the city or whatever, were there an actual officer there it could have been stopped then and there: the crime would be prevented AND the perp could be taking directly to gaol, no passing GO. A woman being assaulted and saying "oh, we got it on camera so we /might/ be able to catch the guy" isn't going to feel any better until he's actually caught. Telling her they can't catch him because he was wearing a hat or the camera was turned 5 degrees too far to the left is just pouring salt into the wound.

Comment: Discrimination isn't just a legal term (Score 1) 681

by GTsquirrel42 (#27063737) Attached to: Should Job Seekers Tell Employers To Quit Snooping?
Why do you suggest discrimination is only a legal term? Discrimination is something that happens, whether it is legal or not. I may discriminate against someone based on their clothes or the type of car they drive or the colour of their shoes: it's still discrimination. If anyone is trying to make up the meaning of the word, it's you saying it only applies in a legal sense.
Privacy

Should Job Seekers Tell Employers To Quit Snooping? 681

Posted by kdawson
from the easy-for-you-to-say-you-have-a-job dept.
onehitwonder writes in with a CIO opinion piece arguing that potential employees need to stand up to employers who snoop the Web for insights into their after-work activities, often disqualifying them as a result. "Employers are increasingly trolling the web for information about prospective employees that they can use in their hiring decisions. Consequently, career experts advise job seekers to not post any photos, opinions or information on blogs and social networking websites (like Slashdot) that a potential employer might find remotely off-putting. Instead of cautioning job seekers to censor their activity online, we job seekers and defenders of our civil liberties should tell employers to stop snooping and to stop judging our behavior outside of work, writes CIO.com Senior Online Editor Meridith Levinson. By basing professional hiring decisions on candidates' personal lives and beliefs, employers are effectively legislating people's behavior, and they're creating an online environment where people can't express their true beliefs, state their unvarnished opinions, be themselves, and that runs contrary to the free, communal ethos of the Web. Employers that exploit the Web to snoop into and judge people's personal lives infringe on everyone's privacy, and their actions verge on discrimination."

Nokia Unveils "World's Thinnest" QWERTY Smartphone 266

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the i-lost-it-in-a-deck-of-cards dept.
Barence writes "Nokia has revamped its E-series of business-oriented smartphones with two new models, including the 'world's thinnest' QWERTY device. The GPS-enabled E71 is the slimmer successor to the Nokia E61, with a thickness of only 1cm. It's HSDPA-enabled, offers switchable home screens, and gives a claimed 'two full days of heavy, heavy use.' The E66, on the other hand, is a slide-phone with a conventional numerical keypad and a built-in accelerometer. At the same event, Nokia also gave a tantalizing hint about its plans for an iPhone rival, with its senior vice president saying, 'we will have touchscreen devices coming this year.'"
Privacy

+ - The New Facebook Ads: Another Privacy Debacle?->

Submitted by
privacyprof
privacyprof writes "Facebook recently announced a new advertising scheme called "Social Ads." Instead of using celebrities to hawk products, it will use pictures of Facebook users. Facebook might be entering into another privacy debacle. Facebook assumes that if people rate products highly or write good things about a product then they consent to being used in an advertisement for it. But such an assumption is wrong. When Facebook created a system that notified people's friends about new changes to people's profiles, the result was outrage. Facebook thought that there wasn't a privacy problem since the information was public. But as I argue in my book, The Future of Reputation,, Facebook didn't understand that privacy amounts to much more than keeping secrets — it involves controlling accessibility to personal data. With Social Ads, Facebook is again misunderstanding privacy — just because people say positive things about a product does not mean that they want to be used to shill it. People whose images are used in an advertisement without their consent might be able to sue under the tort of appropriation of name or likeness: "One who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy." Restatement (Second) of Torts 652C."
Link to Original Source

Chemist who falls in acid is absorbed in work.

Working...