Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:android = windows (Score 1) 109

by Stan92057 (#48198733) Attached to: Delivering Malicious Android Apps Hidden In Image Files
Your comparing a PHONE OS to a DeskTop Computer OS??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Now, I have windows 7 64 bit ultimate had it the day it was released I also have Norton's Internet security. I have adblockers and cookie deleters and so on too. Guess what? I've never had a virus, I have never had Malware and I DO go to all those free porn sites. So, I would be on top of the list of people who SHOULD get viruses and malware. So please explain to me why I don't get those nasties? I get plenty of what they call tracker cookies

Comment: Re:Facebook, provide more parental controls (Score 1) 322

by Stan92057 (#48165103) Attached to: Court Rules Parents May Be Liable For What Their Kids Post On Facebook
Kids need a private channel to communicate with other kids that their parents can't monitor.

LOL its called turning 18

"Dating" is the process of trying to escape control to find out if the person on the other side of the table really wants to be with you more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
are you like 5 years old or something?

Comment: Fact is the law has broken the trust of (Score 1) 284

by Stan92057 (#48164033) Attached to: FBI Director Continues His Campaign Against Encryption
Fact is the law has broken the trust of the American people. They are getting caught lieing just as mush as criminals are. I have NO trust in our police, i have NO trust in the NSA,I have NO trust in the FBI,I have NO trust in the CIA, I have no trust in our lawmakers. Because they have all broken the laws of our land. Its time for a clean sweep people, Vote them all out and start fresh this November. Get out and Vote or shut up.

Comment: Click to play is only small roadblock (Score 1) 111

by Stan92057 (#48161485) Attached to: Adobe: Click-to-Play Would Have Avoided Flood of Java Zero-days
Click to play is only small roadblock, its no different then click to install and we all know how well that roadblock has worked. Users must be far better educated "Nothing is safe" should be the theme of the internet and all computer programs. And we cant count on Microsoft or Adobe or Google to tell us the truth. And each of theses have been fined triple digit millions of dollars for breaking the customers trust or in one way or another.

Comment: Re:WTF? (Score 1) 261

by Stan92057 (#48142675) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Why Can't Google Block Spam In Gmail?
"here's no benefit at all to the spammer if Google shunts their spam into a spambox."
Says you? How many times has google been fined?
I bet they are getting paid off by spammers as not received is not delivered. "moved" IS delivered which still 100% benefits the spammer. Spammer wins

Besides, judging by the massive amount of Slashdotters here saying Google's filter is effective, sometimes too effective, do you really want to just have Google delete what it thinks is spam
You, they, have low standards AND its what I want. I never said i wanted Google to be the ultimate desider. I want e-harmony blocked deleted and never delivered I want, events.comcast-spectacor.com blocked deleted and not delivered. again why will google NOT allow that ? It benefits them, as making me happy! and it truly blocks spam, spammer looses. and i dont care what the IT problems are to make it happen.
Guess they just are not good enough to gget it done or they are getting paid off by spammers. and FYI both of these i mentioned in name refuse to honor my many unsubscribes.
Again i want Google to delete what I want deleted

Comment: Re:WTF? (Score 1) 261

by Stan92057 (#48135345) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Why Can't Google Block Spam In Gmail?
Moving unwanted email to a folder called spam isn't blocking spam its just moved period end of story. Your spam is still being delivered. Question is why wont anyone give its users the option to have filtered address, blocked address, blocked domains not even make it to the mailbox at all? That's what we want that's a real spam filter

Comment: Re:It's not "Vicitim Blaming".... (Score 1) 622

by Stan92057 (#48132173) Attached to: The Correct Response To Photo Hack Victim-Blamers
But don't go whining when the photos get leaked.

Why did you look and download the images knowing they were stolen? Why shouldn't you be held responsible for YOUR actions?

They had NO business breaking into a personal account period end of story You had no business seeking out the images and looking at them, what do you have to say for yourself?. And no i have not looked for or at the images because its the wrong thing to do.

1.they took nude image selfies= none of your or anyone elses business
2.They stored it on an online personal account= None of your or anyone elses business,
3.MAYBE used a weak password=None of your or anyone elses business.
4.Making the suggestion it was there fault=selfish, self-centered human with a god complex.

Plase of blame
1. Jackass who broke in and stole the images.
2. The computer Industry, for allowing people to THINK their data is safe when in fact not.
3. The Computer Indestry for telling people thir data is safe.
4. The people who exploit, by seeking and downloading/Looking at the images. Every last one of them.

"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure

Working...