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."
Businesses

China Aims To Move Up the Food Chain 257

Posted by kdawson
from the empty-the-cage-and-remove-the-bird dept.
krou notes reporting in the Christian Science Monitor that the current economic crisis is helping China's push into higher-end manufacturing by shaking out low-profit companies. The hope is that, instead of just assembling iPods, Chinese companies will be able to invent the next big thing instead. In this move China is following the well-worn path taken by Japan and the Asian tigers before it. "Last month, the National Development and Reform Commission announced revised plans to transform Guangdong and neighboring Hong Kong and Macau into a 'significant innovation center' by 2020. One hundred R&D labs will be set up over the next three years. By 2012, per-capita output in the region should jump 50 percent from 2007, to 80,000 yuan ($11,700). And by 2020, the study predicts, 30 percent of all industrial output should come from high-tech manufacturing."
Sci-Fi

First Official Photos From New Star Trek Movie 410

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the please-jj-don't-hurt-em dept.
Philias Fog writes "The most secret project in Hollywood is finally lifting its skirt. Today Paramount released a number of images for their new Star Trek movie directed by JJ Abrams. Shots include images of the bridge of the Enterprise, the villain Nero, a ship (not the Enterprise) and all of the crew in uniform. TrekMovie.com has a complete set of photos and links to all the new shots."
Book Reviews

Hackerteen Volume 1: Internet Blackout 69

Posted by samzenpus
from the read-all-about-it dept.
stoolpigeon writes "Hackerteen Volume 1: Internet Blackout is an interesting new project, a graphic novel being published by O'Reilly. What makes it interesting is not just that this is a rather new direction for O'Reilly but that this is, to my knowledge, a rather unique publication in that it seeks to educate teenage youth about an array of issues ranging from privacy, free software, security and the impact of politics on personal freedom as it relates to the use of technology. Making topics like that exciting, and understandable to a young person may sound like a tall order, and I think it is." Read below for the rest of JR's review.

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

Comment: Re:slashdot (Score 1) 730

by GTsquirrel42 (#13474614) Attached to: Chief Justice Rehnquist Dies at 80
Being that whoever replaces him will have a direct impact on future Supreme Court cases, I think we should all be interested. This includes all upcoming Electronic Rights cases that Slashdotters are oh-so-impacted by. Will his replacement be more interested in Electronic Privacy or Government insight into our personal lives? That's the type of question we should all be asking. I know for a fact that a large portion of us are members of the EFF after all.

Staff meeting in the conference room in 3 minutes.

Working...