Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:*Smack Face* (Score 1) 145

by yenne (#33233672) Attached to: Facebook Bug Could Give Spammers Names, Photos

I constantly get e-mail from other people signing up for things who apparently don't know their own e-mail address.

My e-mail address is also my full name with a "dot net" at the end, and I have chronic issues with customer service reps who don't know how to type anything other than "dot com".

That is pretty ridiculous about not being able to unsubscribe, though.

Comment: Re:*Smack Face* (Score 5, Insightful) 145

by yenne (#33233378) Attached to: Facebook Bug Could Give Spammers Names, Photos

I just tried it. Looks to me like Facebook has a problem with users who enter the wrong e-mail address and can't figure out why their logon isn't working. Hence, the "Not you? Click here." option beside the picture.

It's entirely possible that the idiocy behind the interface design is in an ongoing stupidity arms race with the consumers on the other end.

Comment: I'm sorry, this is "complex?" (Score 1) 396

by yenne (#33073568) Attached to: HDMI Labeling Requirements Promise a Stew of Confusion

What's so hard to understand about "Standard", "Standard with Ethernet", "High Speed", "High Speed with Ethernet", etc? Honestly, this makes a lot more sense to me than 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, gold plated, nickel shielded, and all the impenetrable techno-babble currently in use.

I often hear fellow customers ask whether they really need that platinum reinforced quad shielded $80 cable, because they're not sure what those features actually add to a digital signal. I'd love to lean over and help them, but honestly I haven't got a clue either. I buy mine for $8 from Amazon and have never had a problem.

Sounds to me like these new labels will clearly indicate what types of signals each cable is certified to carry. Instead of asking "do I need gold plating," customers can zero in on "do I need high speed? Ethernet?" Maybe someone with more experience in the matter can explain to me how this is not a win.

Comment: Re:Blind Faith != Religion (Score 1) 892

by yenne (#32379910) Attached to: The "Scientific Impotence" Excuse

Those who modify "their religion" based on political influences truly have no religion, or at best, have a cult.

This depends on your definition of religion. In a generic sense, a religion is a set of beliefs that explore the nature and meaning of everything around us and our relationship to it. I can believe that humanity by nature is good and that we should be kind to one another. Someone else might claim that this is a fairy tale and life's a big game of every man for himself, but that's just another religion.

The stories we tell in support of faith are intended to illustrate the rationale for our beliefs, in much the way anyone's experiences set the tone for their relationship to those around them. It's possible to appreciate the morals of the stories without feeling the necessity to debate their complete factual basis. If someone were to prove without a doubt that there was no Good Samaritan, I'd still tell my children the story for its lessons alone.

Not everyone who claims to practice faith also believes that the world was snorted out of a walrus' nose 5000 years ago, and that any evidence to the contrary was intentionally placed by that walrus to test our faith in him. I consider myself a spiritual person, but I figured out a long time ago that fairy tales aren't real.

In a sense, everyone projects some sort of belief system, regardless of whether they openly embrace or eschew scientific reason.

Comment: Re:Here we go (Score 0) 341

by yenne (#32286002) Attached to: House Votes To Expand National DNA Arrest Database

Playing the Devil's Advocate, everything you just said is already true for fingerprints, except the bit about implicating others with close fingerprint profiles.

Anyone with serious objections to this new law ought to have a response to this comparison, or show evidence for how fingerprinting has been abused to do more harm than good.

Comment: Re:Wall Street Steals the Best and the Brightest (Score 1) 643

by yenne (#32128618) Attached to: Stock Market Sell-Off Might Stem From Trader's Fat Finger

In this case, the profit motive is not, in my opinion serving the public interest.

Without those tax-paying profit seekers, who's paying the health care and retirement expenses of your potato chip factory workers?

Perhaps the profit motive has something valuable to contribute after all.

Comment: Re:What is the price of tea in China? (Score 1) 343

by yenne (#31499462) Attached to: Google Readying To Pull Out of China

I've had some experience with manufacturing in China from a previous job. In this particular rural factory's case, the primary work force was comprised of second sons, daughters, and basically anyone else who didn't inherit family land. The factory provides shelter, food, and entertainment. I'm not sure how many of our dollars end up in workers' pockets, but I'm fairly certain the Chinese Government isn't anywhere near the top of the list preventing them from achieving what we might call the American Dream.

Above the workers, though, are the educated engineer and manager types. The factory owners and managers are Chinese, and I got the impression that they walked the political game in order to achieve their higher social status. The government wants factories (especially to deal with the tremendous number of potential workers), and the owners are in a position to benefit from that. I don't imagine we'd catch them going out on a limb to push for reform. Still, these were kind people who treated their workers well.

A lot of the engineering positions are filled by foreign workers who make pretty good money considering the cost of living. Some are sons of factory owners who were able to pay the cost of education, and these sons stand to inherit the factory or start ones of their own. Neither the foreign workers nor the owners' sons are likely to rock the political boat, either.

I also believe that human rights reform in China is inevitable, but I don't think it'll come from the factories or the pennies the workers earn there. I believe it'll come from the upper class citizens as both education and a desire to interact on a worldwide level become more prevalent.

Comment: Re:Already gone? (Score 2, Informative) 241

by yenne (#31267142) Attached to: Cryptome in Hot Water Again

Or... did you mean Network Solutions charged you to let you transfer the domain away from them?

Yes. I transferred several over a couple years, but one that sticks out in my memory was a case where Network Solutions policy would not allow me to transfer a domain because it was scheduled to expire soon. Not expired, just expiring within 30 days or so. Believe it or not, the restriction was right there in their service terms that I didn't bother reading.

In another case they claimed I didn't respond properly to a transfer request and I had to start the process all over again even though I never received anything.

This was all within a year or so after the deregulation chaos when Network Solutions was losing many of their customers. It's quite possible they've improved their customer relations since then, but the bad flavor still lingers in my mind.

Comment: Re:Already gone? (Score 3, Informative) 241

by yenne (#31265964) Attached to: Cryptome in Hot Water Again

Young says there is a “NetSol ‘Legal Lock’ on the domain name to prevent it being transferred to another ISP until the “dispute” is settled; All Cryptome pages other than the home page now generate a 404 message.”

It astonishes me that anyone still uses Network Solutions. Their extensive list of blocks for transferring domain services (read: anytime you'd actually want to, you're prevented) is mind-boggling.

I had several domains with them back when they were the only game in town, and every transfer has been a nightmare that usually involves paying for another year of service before a transfer is approved.

Comment: Re:Old news (Score 1) 560

by yenne (#30988624) Attached to: Will Your Super Bowl Party Anger the Copyright Gods?

You're missing the part where media networks bid major bucks for the exclusive right to set up cameras, hire announcers, and broadcast the game to your comfortable living room. It's not so exclusive if anyone can take that work and rebroadcast it for profit.

I think your point would carry more weight if you argued that anyone should be able to set up their own cameras in the public stadium, but this has repercussions for any venue including ballets, theatre, and rock concerts. I'm pretty sure that the NFL considers the game itself a copyrighted performance.

The meta-Turing test counts a thing as intelligent if it seeks to devise and apply Turing tests to objects of its own creation. -- Lew Mammel, Jr.

Working...