Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Why bring that up ? (Score 1) 119

by Zaiff Urgulbunger (#49185277) Attached to: Craig Brittain (Revenge Porn King) Sues For Use of Image

His name is public however because it is in the public interest.

I'd like you to back this up with reason, please. The justice system has its hooks in here. Punishment is in their dominion, not yours or mine. So. Exactly how does it benefit the public to further drag his name, address, family, future etc., through the mud?

Someone is found guilty of a crime, it's in the public interest to be aware of this. The justice system in (in theory) operating on behalf of society. So the news media report such things.

I'm struggling to understand why you feel this is wrong. Is there a circumstance (other than this one) where it would make sense to keep the identity of a guilty party secret?

Comment: Re:Why bring that up ? (Score 1) 119

by Zaiff Urgulbunger (#49167199) Attached to: Craig Brittain (Revenge Porn King) Sues For Use of Image
Your argument might make sense except that the perp in this case has been found guilty, and the crime he is guilty of was operating a business that traded off making peoples private pics public; essentially blackmailing them. His name is public however because it is in the public interest.

The thing I find strange/funny is that he must surely have learned a bit about what can and can't be made public whilst trying to defend himself, and yet... he hasn't, has he?

So on top of being a social low-life parasite, he's a stupid social low-life parasite. Double whammy!

Comment: Re:More of this (Score 1) 166

by Zaiff Urgulbunger (#49152053) Attached to: Microsoft's Goals For Their New Web Rendering Engine
I think I'm correct in stating that HTTP headers... or maybe email headers... or both, need CRLF endings, which seemed surprising to me. Not sure what the historical reasoning for that is.

Still, I think the main thing we should all be happy about is that MS didn't decide to create a new ASCII escape code called X-CRLF or something!

Comment: Re:Audiophile market (Score 1) 418

In the UK we seem to have quite a lot of BS audio products too. This one is my favourite!

So for a mere £599 (approx. 925 USD) you can purchase FOUR small circular bits of hard-crafted titanium.

OMFG... I've just found these marvels too! Basically, there's a rich-seam of audiophile bullshitters out there.

Comment: Re:The most insecure OS in the world (Score 1) 136

Windows - the most insecure OS in the world.

True, but only because Adobe never made an OS.

True. But Adobe already creates exploits for all the other OSes in the world, so they don't need to actually create an unsecured OS.

AFAIK no Adobe software even runs on Raspberry Pi, but never-the-less, flash can crash it. The mere "aura" of Adobe can break things! :D

Comment: Re:Raspberry Pi 2 but not Surface RT? (Score 2) 307

by Zaiff Urgulbunger (#48962347) Attached to: Microsoft Announces Windows For Raspberry Pi 2

I also, don't see how they could justify supporting Raspberry Pi, while at the same time abandoning their own products, but I can definitely see why they would want to open up their app store to and easily available $35 computer. I will definitely buy one just for Windows 10 if they do this and it supports the App store.

I suspect it's more about gaining developer/maker mind-share than selling MS App-store apps. MS currently seem to be working very hard to ensure they stay relevant in the future.

Comment: Re:Idiots at work (Score 1) 329

It is sooo dumb, but I think it is more to do with pandering to the electorate than anything. A good few years back, there was a report of some guy using a radio scanner to listen in to the police, find out where the queen was going to be that day, and then post it on the internet. I don't think he was doing it maliciously, but probably not a clever thing to do, and you can see why the security services would be unhappy with this. Anyway, one thing that came out from it was that there had been a plan to introduce encrypted radios, but they'd cocked it up or something.

Oh, and the solution to the problem? Ban radio scanners. You know.... 'cos then bad people won't use them, what with them being illegal.

* Some details may be inaccurate as this is from memory.

Comment: Re:And their reasoning is? (Score 1) 1350

by Zaiff Urgulbunger (#48757999) Attached to: Gunmen Kill 12, Wound 7 At French Magazine HQ

The funny part is that Muhammad (pork be upon him) is idolized to a degree that would make a North Korean blush.

Actions speak louder than words, and regardless of claims to the contrary, Muslims worship their golden calf almost as much as the devil he spoke for.

IMHO that's one of the saddest things about the whole "no depictions" thing... the fact that the people who are most vocal about it, are the ones who have apparently, entirely failed to understand the intent behind this hadith.

It's almost like... they're just total psychopaths or something.

I really hope the "main stream" muslim community can use this as a reason to clarify some of this shit, because it strikes me that there's a fuck of a lot of self-appointed clerics who are really not doing anything useful; just stirring up hatred.

*FYI - I'm not a muslim! Apologies for any errors.

What this country needs is a dime that will buy a good five-cent bagel.