Something didn't seem quite right, but I just couldn't put my finger on it...
You can have any 4-digit ID you like, as long as it's "8374".
Not to mention the hassle of claiming those bitcoin tips as income, when it's not exactly clear yet how to do that properly.
I had to use urban dictionary to understand wtf a "photog" was:
Slang for Photographer apparently. Although I've never heard or seen anyone use the term and apparently those writing the summary title thought they were being "hip".
Nope. Clicked straight on through to the first article, and then added my comment.
Allow me to explain how things work here at Slashdot.
First, you read the headline. Advanced users might also make mental note of the Slashdot editor who posted the story (this helps to frame your reactions to the story.)
Now, there are two differing schools of thought as to what to do from here. One camp jumps straight from here into commenting on the story, having already taken in sufficient information at this point to begin forming and expressing opinions. The other camp will read some or all of the summary before commenting. They claim the latter method helps them in identifying and avoiding commenting on duplicate stories.
However, at no point should you ever actually read the articles (this was where you made your critical mistake.)
It's just not done.
I've been playing for about a month under Wine without my account being banned. That said, one has to wonder just how "extensively" their tests were done on Linux. Try running it on any 64-bit kernel, and you can't even get past authenticating unless you're using either a patched version of Wine, or the "setarch i386 -3" workaround. The Warden routine gets stuck in an infinite loop without the patch. More details on this Wine ticket: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30849
Despite their community manager's assertion, there most certainly are gaps in their testing.
If you examine their demo file, you'll find the 5 static JPEGs inside.
What exactly was the point of that "demo"?
So, in other words, this is the facial recognition equivalent of a CAPTCHA?
I am wondering what exactly they are calling cheating here, since the code says they "will not plagiarize, copy work or get outside help."
Here's a good example of outside help:
I once saw a RAC posting from someone who wanted all of his job interview pre-screen questions answered for him. It was no surprise, when I had a look at his project history, that he had cheated his way through his degree as well.