Forgot your password?

Comment: Related: 'Stalking app' maker arrested (Score 1) 304

by QuasiSteve (#48151963) Attached to: Technology Heats Up the Adultery Arms Race

This is two weeks ago, but I don't think it popped up on Slashdot;
Feds charge tech CEO with making app for stalkers, domestic abusers

Although people are usually quick to defend the tool (and its makers) and suggest authorities go after its users instead, similar stories from the past seem to suggest that not very many would be jumping to his defense:
Man Creates "Creepy" Stalking App
World's Creepiest iPhone App Pulled After Outcry

Comment: Re:Senders *are* vulnerable too (Score 1) 90

by QuasiSteve (#48122007) Attached to: Snapchat Says Users Were Victimized By Their Use of Third-Party Apps

Last I knew SnapSaved could not yet send pictures.

Whether Ars is simply writing this as an assumption that you could, or whether you actually could, I wouldn't know.

However, I never said that in the eventuality that people used a third party service to send them that they would not also be 'vulnerable'. That's not even material to my comment.

I will happily concede that IF you could send through SnapSaved and IF they saved the sent images as well, THEN the sender could obviously also be blamed for using that third party service.

But you still can't blame everybody else using the official client for sending TO that person just because THEY used a third party service.

Comment: Re:Senders may be vulnerable too (Score 1) 90

by QuasiSteve (#48120805) Attached to: Snapchat Says Users Were Victimized By Their Use of Third-Party Apps

How many of the numerous snapchat clients have been implicated, and how many of those have denied and/or admitted to foul play?

Official SnapChat: Implicated and denied
SnapSave: Implicated and denied
SnapSaved: Implicated and admitted

While it's fair to say that there's a hypothetical situation in which other apps also stored the images, and that said other apps might also do so when sending them, and that said other apps' hosting servers were also hacked - that same hypothetical line of thinking means we'll never know the full story, period.
At least the evidence so far implicates recipients as playing a pivotal role, rather than senders.

Comment: Re:The irony is off the charts (Score 1) 580

by QuasiSteve (#48116661) Attached to: FBI Says It Will Hire No One Who Lies About Illegal Downloading

How ironic that they're so anxious to recruit only people who have never committed the very types of "crimes" they're being hired to do.

I don't know if they wouldn't hire people who have downloaded some songs from an illicit source or whatever - maybe they don't. Their potential employee pool would sure be rather small, though.

However, the article seems to suggest that they're asking this question, and if you are caught lying in your answer to that question, that you are then ineligible to apply for a position with the FBI. Ever.

Based on that information, you could certainly say "yes, I've downloaded maybe 20 movies until I got Netflix and probably about a dozen albums back in the day", and as long as that's the truth.. well.
( Setting aside the discussion about polygraph testing accuracy etc. )

Comment: Re:What snapchat claimed to do was a form of DRM (Score 3, Insightful) 90

by QuasiSteve (#48116235) Attached to: Snapchat Says Users Were Victimized By Their Use of Third-Party Apps

What snapchat claimed to do was a form of DRM

I'm not sure if this has always been the case, or was added later, but for a very long time now, at least the Play Store's description has included:

Please note: even though Snaps, Chats, and Stories are deleted from our servers after they expire, we cannot prevent recipient(s) from capturing and saving the message by taking a screenshot or using an image capture device

So nobody should have been under the illusion that it was, in fact, impossible to save these images even if they lived a sheltered life and never imagined the analog loophole.

Comment: "Their use".. well, actually.. the recipient's use (Score 4, Interesting) 90

by QuasiSteve (#48115995) Attached to: Snapchat Says Users Were Victimized By Their Use of Third-Party Apps

Snapchat [...] is now is saying its users were instead victimized by their use of third-party apps to send and receive Snaps.

While I suppose it's possible that that the reference to 'users' in 'their' is a different subset, the phrasing makes it seem that somebody who sent a picture was victimized by their own use of a third party app, while in reality all signs are pointing to the recipient of the photo using said app.

The recipients hopefully feel doubly-awful not just for betraying their friend's trust (not saving the image implied by the use of snapchat - technical feasibility and analog loopholes aside) in the first place, but for playing a pivotal role in those images possibly becoming public.

While I'm certainly in favor of educating people that when you send stuff to others, you have lost all control over it, no matter what assurances you get, I'm also in favor of educating people not to be jerks (be that the recipients, or the hackers).

Comment: Worry less about motive - worry about apathy (Score 4, Interesting) 96

by QuasiSteve (#48063001) Attached to: JP Morgan Chase Breach: Shades of a Cyber Cold War?

tl;dr: People think it'll happen at other banks anyway, plus it costs money to change banks, thus they don't care enough and stick with Chase (JP Morgan).
And, naturally, how does the stock market react to that? "The bankâ(TM)s shares climbed 2.5 percent to $60.30"

Start making people care that a company they do business with has been hacked, maybe then people will actually bother to worry about motives.

Comment: Re:Math is hard? (Score 0) 283

No, math isn't hard. Neither is misrepresenting facts.

~2,400,000 letters, actually signed by only ~800,000 people does not '2.4 million voices' make, no matter how much nicer that rolls off the tongue / works better in PR than saying "hundreds of thousands of" or "almost a million".

The dishonesty isn't in sending letters to multiple people - it's in suggesting that there are more signees than there actually are.

Whether that's getting carried away looking for malfeasance in common practice, I don't know.. it probably is - but it would also probably be good if such common practice would stop. Otherwise, where would it end? Claiming that there's 348 million voices (slightly over the U.S. total population) simply because you CC'd the signatures to all the representatives?

Comment: Re:Idiot (Score 1) 942

by QuasiSteve (#48034425) Attached to: David Cameron Says Brits Should Be Taught Imperial Measures

Having prepared many a baked good in the U.S., I can honestly say I've never read a recipe that calls for 'sticks' of butter as a unit.

The 'cup' measurement is still not a problem though - because the stick-of-butter packaging tends to have little lines telling you exactly at which point you've reached half a cup, a quarter cup, 1/8th of a cup, or tablespoons, etc.

It's because the U.S.'s food industry is so homogenized that the volume measurement 'works'. 1 cup of product X from one company is going to be equal to 1 cup of competing product X from the other company.

There are some notable exemptions.
Brown sugar, for example, which is why most recipes will call for "1/2 cup of brown sugar, packed" - because if you don't 'pack' it, the size and shape of granules can greatly affect the actual amount.

Cherry tomatoes was another example. But the thing with that, and with many other such items, is that the exact amount doesn't really matter all that much - it's certainly not 'scientific cooking'. So one time your pizza / salad / whatever will have a bit more/less tomato than the next time, but it's not a big deal.
Eggs is a huge one. If a recipe calls for '8 large eggs', have a good look at the 'large eggs'.. they're far from the same size. Nobody bothers to suggest that one needs X milliliter of eggs, though (never mind separating out yolk from egg white).
Onion is another one. Recipes often call for '1 large onion'. Go to a grocery store in the U.S. and check out the large onions.. there's some the size of a big nectarine, and others are easily bigger than your fist. So which do they mean? It doesn't really matter... use the latter if you like things more onion-y.

Only when measurements are very strict, a recipe will in fact call for weight.

Personally I think it makes cooking a lot easier - except for when you get to the whole 1 tablespoon = 3 teaspoons vs 16 tablespoons = 1 cup thing. Having a measuring cup/thing for every common cooking unit saves a lot of mess, especially when you need to double/triple/quadruple recipes.

Comment: Not just the ad - the entire story is BS (Score 4, Informative) 240

by QuasiSteve (#47966115) Attached to: Friendly Reminder: Do Not Place Your iPhone In a Microwave

The summary says that 'others' have fallen for it. That makes you think there's got to be at least half a dozen idiots in the world that have tried this, right?

The article (at DICE) says "others have fallen".

Their source is The Independent:

What does that story say?

Pictures have followed the advert that (also fake) showing the outcome of attempting to charge your phone in the microwave:

So there's really only 1 person who said they tried it - and the article itself points out that this, too, is fake (as admitted - he was doing it for the exposure, RTs, etc.)

Maybe there's hope for people yet - though I wouldn't put it past some to actually try it, there's no reason to believe that it has already transpired.

Comment: Re:WTF is a pre-announcement? (Score 3, Insightful) 14

by QuasiSteve (#47936259) Attached to: IOCCC 2014 Now In Progress

An announcement that they're planning on making an announcement, with the former alluding to the same material as the latter.


The @IOCCC judges are looking at their schedules to see when we might hold a new #IOCCC. Stay tuned!


The 23rd @IOCCC will be open from 2014-Sep-01 02:03:04 UTC to 2014-Oct-19 18:17:16 UTC. #ioccc #IOCCC23

Comment: Re:billing address checks? what checks? (Score 1) 172

by QuasiSteve (#47922883) Attached to: Quickflix Wants Netflix To Drop Australian VPN Users

They're allowing the VPN users because, to Netflix, it looks like it's coming from a valid IP in the US.

That was the whole point of my comment, though - the summary suggested that there's already checks on the billing address, when in fact Netflix doesn't much care where the billing address is - they serve up the content portfolio based on the IP address. If they did use the billing address, then that account could log in from whatever IP address they like, and they'd still get the content licensed for the country/region that matches the billing address.

And yes, I know the content owners "don't let Netflix".. and, yet, here we are.. unless there's a major kerfuffle going on behind the scenes between the content owners and Netflix regarding the VPN loophole.

Comment: Re: [s]Parallax.[/s] Perspective (Score 4, Insightful) 425

by QuasiSteve (#47920495) Attached to: Apple Edits iPhone 6's Protruding Camera Out of Official Photos

You're thinking of perspective - and you'd need a very odd angle and wide angle lens to hide it. Here's a more realistic side shot which is already fairly up close and wide angle:

I don't think most people are particularly going to care (unless the protrusion is likely to make the phone wobble when set down somewhere), but it's slightly humorous to see Apple editing it away / leaving that ring off for product shots / conveniently leaving it out of product renders.
( Or, if you're still convinced that they didn't edit it away, they at least went to the trouble of trying to hide it without making it seem like they're trying to hide it. )

...when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. - Fred Brooks, Jr.