Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:$949/week? (Score 1) 449

$949/week... pfft, the computer camp I used to work at was $1200/week, irrespective of if campers were overnighting or commuting, + $400 additional to overnight, which makes sense when you consider that it's in a neighborhood where the clientele that can pay for that will, and on a college campus that probably jacks up rates figuring they can make money off of the numerous camps that want to have their activities there.

Comment Re:Not bad in principle (Score 1) 146

Yes, but most of us do our "reputation management" by, you know, behaving properly rather than going around trying to erase any record of our misdeeds.

Sounds like a lot of presumptions (that only the "misbehaving" use these services, that good, behaved businesses aren't/can't be targeted by bad reviewers falsely, etc.
These notions are tripe. It does happen, fairly often, people being wrongly targeted, having their reputations tarnished I mean.

Comment Re: $380K (Score 1) 706

If you're honestly conflating the statement, which I interpreted as "security was inadequate, they should have upgraded it before the issue got worse" with some idea that they can't be hacked because they were throwing money at it, without proof that is actually what is being implied, congratulations, you're an idiot.

Comment Re:CBC assumed CNN owned it (Score 1) 222

That makes no sense at all. Seriously. IF someone owned a CD that was stolen, person B likes it, buys it off of them thinking it was legitimately theirs (a CD is innocuous, but just an example), then it was stolen, they can get in trouble just on that alone? I've been Googling penal laws for various states on the matter, and they seem to support the assertion I am making... that you get in trouble if you obtain it knowing it was stolen, or keep it/refuse to turn it in after it was revealed to be stolen.

Comment Re:CBC assumed CNN owned it (Score 1) 222

That makes no sense at all. What I am saying is that - based on the research I have done - you can't just get in trouble if you own property if you obtain it, and then find out it is stolen - you have to know it was stolen beforehand, or not turn it on/whatnot after it was discovered that the property was n fact stolen - and most of the penal codes I have been googling up support this idea.

Comment Re:CBC assumed CNN owned it (Score 2) 222

Yeah, and if the car was stolen, your sister would be in jail for receiving stolen property.

Maybe I am missing something, but if you're saying the sister would be in trouble just because of the purchase, that might not be correct - if I recall, you have to have knowingly engaged in the purchase, but IANAL. (seems logical though, why get someone in trouble if they, in good faith, thought they were buying something legitimately that later turned out to be stolen?)

Comment But is it a problem... (Score 1) 73

with the language itself, or an issue that boils down to the coders, and how attentive they are to the vulnerabilities while they are producing the code for whatever they are working on?

My thought is that it is the latter (that it boils down to the coders, and their attentiveness + planning out their work to avoid such issues, but that's just one opinion.

Comment Re:Carpenter Bees (Score 1) 225

Once I went to a zoo with my GF-at-the-time. We were in a gift shop mucking around with the various doodads, next thing I know, I see flakes falling from above. I look up at the wood beams running along the ceiling, and watched as a carpenter bee dug through the wood, crawled out of the hole and then flew away. Those suckers dig fast.

Comment Re:The honest version (Score 1) 48

It's not censorship if it's done by private companies.

citation needed.

Every definition I have read has nothing on where the SOURCE of the action is, just on the ACTION itself. Censorship is not about who does it, but that there is an editing, a repressing of opinion - some cases, like private companies editing their journalists (to various extends) are fine, but that's not a matter of "censorship" versus "not censorship," but a question of "acceptable censoring" versus "unacceptable censoring."

Comment Re:no surprise here (Score 1) 48

Only if you're utterly an utter failure at critical thinking. Liberalizing alone does not give any hint at the extent, which can be as simple as preventing them from lasting as long as they do, and allowing consumers to do modifications, and backing up unhindered (as well as the ability to play media on whatever device they want unhindered) - which is a far cry from that in any sense of the word *

* purposefully excluding the fact that copyright infringement =/= theft legally, and the opinion that the two should stay separate on all levels, because of how much of a tangent I risk going off of by touching that can of worms.

Comment Nope. (Score 1) 535

I guess this shows you what not to do when geeking out on Star Wars.

No, it shows how hyper-paranoid we've become, to the point where we're too afraid to even ask people questions, just jump to conclusions. >_

There can be no twisted thought without a twisted molecule. -- R. W. Gerard