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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:People really were sued (Score 2, Informative) 407

It's *you* who devolved into crude sexual comments about AC's sister. All you are is some crude and disgusting idiot with an obviously strong bias for attention-seeking who goes by the pseudonymous handle "djlowe" and keeps posting repeatedly about the same thing. I'll trust the veracity of an AC's statement over anything you say any day of the week. That's the W behind your WTF. Happy to have helped.

Well, in the first place: A claim by an AC, about a sister, has no veracity: I can just as easily state this: My sister is a fucking slut. This, despite the fact that I have no sister. See how that works? In addition, despite the fact that I have a pseudonymous handle "djlowe"? I've been here for a VERY long time, under that handle: I'd tend to think that that has more weight than all of you AC's :)

It's *you* who devolved into crude sexual comments about AC's sister

That was intentional - to point out the fact that there's NO way for any of us to know whether or not the AC's sister even exists. Can you prove that she does? Can you disprove that she didn't give me the clap? Or that she was a bad lay?

I'll trust the veracity of an AC's statement over anything you say any day of the week

Says the next AC *grin* Why doesn't that surprise me? Tell you what - when you grow a pair, you come and post non-AC. Regards, dj

Okay, here I am. Again, I'll trust the veracity of something an AC says, who has nothing to gain or lose, over an immature attention-seeking poster any day of the week. Now you know for a fact that it's true.

Comment Re:Slashdot Borked? (Score 1) 106

I think I figured some stuff out - slashdot is indeed performing an HTTP connection back and trying to retrieve "ok.txt", but it's infrequent and has been going on for some time. The connections are all from and started about 10 months ago. If I check slashdot itself for the file ( it exists, so a possibility is that slashdot is testing to see if my connection is coming from an anonymous web proxy, though I don't know why they'd care. The file returns "ok", so I'll try putting that in and see what happens. I'm surprised that nobody else is noticing this. I'm certain it's not just me.

The slowdown seems to be the result of a really massive pile of CSS/javascript stuff coinciding with a spam attack and my wimpy DSL line. I don't know if the CSS craziness is new, but I'm blocking it all, and slashdot works fine and is much cleaner and faster for me now.

I know this is completely offtopic. Apologies. Slashdot doesn't have a static user support thread that I'm aware of, or I'd have asked in it instead.

Comment Slashdot Borked? (Score 0, Offtopic) 106

Something seems to have changed with slashdot recently. It started connecting back to me as if I were a web server to get a file called "ok.txt", so I started throwing some random stuff in that file to send back. Then I noticed a connection being made from my browser to to download 400K of something or other. This makes slashdot takes so long to come up that it's pretty much unusable. Is this happening to anyone else?

Comment Update - How I Got Insured Without Revealing SSN (Score 1) 1

After wading through quite a bit of United States Code (in particular, subfunction 42 1395y and functions called by its caller) trying to grok how the Virtual Justice Machine might interpret the situation, I discovered 1395b, which seems to say that the Medicare law cannot be construed to mean that someone can be denied health insurance because of it. I pointed the insurance company at USC 42 1395b and a week later, I'm insured.

It looks like Medicare was given a mandate via some changes to 1395y that went into effect on Jan 1, 2009 to come up with a reporting mechanism that any group health insurer carrying someone who was also eligible for Medicare would have to use. However, they made the mistake of implementing it with a design that requires insurers to transmit subscriber SSNs to check their Medicare eligibility status, and then when the insurers starting asking what they're supposed to do about all the people for whom they do not have SSNs, Medicare hinted that they should just drop them. As someone who ran into problems buying health insurance without revealing my SSN because of this, I'm concerned about the idea of having to use an SSN to buy anything.


Submission + - SSNs Required From All Health Insurers ( 1

Glug writes: For many years, I have withheld my SSN from health insurance companies for improved protection against identity theft. Insurers had no problem with that because they didn't need the SSN for anything, and they'd just make up their own unique member id. My health insurance was recently rejected by a major insurer because of some new "government requirements", and a pointer to for more information. What I learned there was surprising — that Medicare is now requiring that insurers submit names and SSNs to check whether they're eligible for Medicare or not, and that they also seem to be suggesting to insurers that they just drop subscribers who balk at giving up their SSNs. Surely there are some privacy-minded slashdotters out there who don't give their SSNs to just anybody — Is this happening to others?

Slashdot Top Deals

This is the theory that Jack built. This is the flaw that lay in the theory that Jack built. This is the palpable verbal haze that hid the flaw that lay in...