TCDown - Slashdot User

Comment Re:Never trust it (Score 0) 162

by TCDown on Tuesday April 12, 2011 @09:03AM (#35792070) Attached to: Microsoft TouchStudio Uses Phone To Program Phone

I never trust a native speaker who cannot use his own language correctly. "look at what we just did in only 100 lines or fewer".

......Correct: There were fewer days below freezing last winter. (Days can be counted.) ......

So you can't count "100 lines" individually?

Comment Re:B.S. (Score 1) 265

by TCDown on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @10:15AM (#35079156) Attached to: AT&T Sued For Systematic iPhone Overbilling

I would guess that was a bit tongue in cheek!

Submission + - ProFTPD.org Main FTP Server Compromised (net-security.org)

Submitted by Orome1 on Thursday December 02, 2010 @06:54AM

Orome1 writes: A warning has been issued by the developers of ProFTPD, the popular FTP server software, about a compromise of the main distribution server of the software project that resulted in attackers exchanging the offered source files for ProFTPD 1.3.3c with a version containing a backdoor. It is thought that the attackers took advantage of an unpatched security flaw in the FTP daemon in order to gain access to the server.

Comment Re:A subset of PDF files? (Score 2, Insightful) 179

by TCDown on Wednesday December 01, 2010 @06:31AM (#34402264) Attached to: Aussie Government Gives PDF the Thumbs Down

I don't understand the comparrison between websites and PDF's? Graphical text banners, or images that contain text, are perfectly acceptable under WCAG, as long as alt text or long descriptions are used correctly. And if a PDF is correctly created then text can easily be read by a screen reader.

Comment Re:If indeed, truly sad news (Score 1) 547

by TCDown on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @11:49AM (#33663546) Attached to: Xbox Head Proclaims Blu-ray Dead

That made me laugh, having just re-read George Orwell's 1984.

In Brazil, Google Fined For Content of Anonymous Posting 484

Posted by timothy on Monday April 26, 2010 @05:11AM from the hey-you-put-up-that-blank-wall dept.

Sabriel writes "Google's appeal against a 2008 defamation ruling in Brazil over an anonymous posting on Orkut has been denied, and Google has been fined $8,500US ($9,100) for the crime of being vandalized. In the words of the judge, Alvimar de Avila, 'By making space available on virtual networking sites, in which users can post any type of message without any checks beforehand, with offensive and injurious content, and, in many cases, of unknown origin, [Google] assumes the risk of causing damage [to other people].' I'd submit a blunter opinion of this farce, but it might be considered offensive and injurious content. ... I wonder if he's related to the judge in Italy?"

Comment Re:Interesting (Score 3, Insightful) 449

by TCDown on Tuesday April 13, 2010 @06:35AM (#31829318) Attached to: In EU, Google Accused of YouTube "Free Ride"

I have been banging on about your third point for some time. Especially where I took out an "Unlimited" bundle to only then start getting warnings about contravening "acceptable use" policies. Where were they when I signed up. On several occasions I just sent a link back to my ISP to an online dictionary definition of the word "Unlimited" and heard no more. But now it seems that the ISP want paying from both ends, I pay for my bandwidth and Google pays for me to use it??? Doesn't seem right to me.

Slashdot Top Deals