Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Woman Gets Revenge Courtesy of Google Images

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the geek-woman-scorned dept.

Google 487

another similar writes "This article teaches us that if you happen to have a bad break up with someone who's reasonably tech-savvy, your descriptively captioned photos might end up all over the internet. From the article: 'Upset boyfriends and girlfriends are nothing new. There are plenty of stories of girlfriends getting back at their ex-boyfriends for mistreatment and visa versa. But in the age where Google ranks supreme, you do not want to mess with a girl who knows how to manipulate Google.'"

cancel ×

487 comments

Jack Weppler (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121214)

Poor Jack Weppler, oops just upped the rank.

Re:Jack Weppler (1, Troll)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121230)

Oops. I did, too. Poor Jack.

Re:Jack Weppler (0)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121740)

I am Jack's Colon. I get cancer and I kill Jack.

Re:Jack Weppler (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121456)

At least I know what he looks like, so if I see him I can tell Jack I'm sor--

Re:Jack Weppler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121674)

I don't understand, you never said Candlejack so your post shouldnt have ended so abrup---

Re:Jack Weppler (2)

severoon (536737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121720)

So, she writes Google Webmaster Help and demands they remove the image search results because it's a violation of copyright, and her son is a minor.

Um, no. Showing images in image search does not violate the copyright holder's rights. Perhaps the site hosting the images is violating copyright...but even there I wonder. Is this infringement? I don't think so, just like I don't think Shepard Fairey's work constitutions plagiarism, but either way you go on this the question is there.

Her son is a minor. So what? What's that got to do with Google?

In a free society, does someone have the right to express their opinion about someone else?

Let that be a lesson to you! (4, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121240)

If you discover you're dating a vengeful psycho bitch, don't ever break up with her.

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (3, Insightful)

JazzXP (770338) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121292)

You never know, maybe he had it coming. I'm curious to see what he did to deserve this kind of response.

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121424)

I'm just curious what exactly could he have done which would warrant that sort of treatment? I've personally treated pretty badly by people, to the extent that there's typically prison time handed out for that sort of behavior, but I don't personally think this sort of reaction would've been warranted in any of those cases.

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (2)

log0n (18224) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121610)

So someone could have gone to prison for how they treated you, but you're ok with it? ...

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121692)

Yes, not everyone acts like a pathetic vengeful asshole when bad things happen to them.

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (5, Funny)

grcumb (781340) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121528)

You never know, maybe he had it coming. I'm curious to see what he did to deserve this kind of response.

My guess? He gave her up. He let her down. He never came around. HE HURT HER.

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (3, Interesting)

pugugly (152978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121624)

Going by my experience with women that overreact like this? He turned out to be exactly the guy her parents and two dozen friends said he was when they tried to warn her off.

But she was *sure* he would change . . . for her . . . for their love was something . . . special . . .

or not.

Pug

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121632)

We've all got it coming, kid.

If he were smart... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121450)

he'd embrace it, and put up some pages of his own - pointing out specifically why someone shouldn't get involved with {nameof} bitch. He might also point out that psychos are great sex, while it lasts.

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121468)

If you discover you're dating a vengeful psycho bitch, don't ever break up with her.

Well, that, or at least make sure there's a hidden camera in the bedroom at strategic times, so that you have something to make her think long and hard before doing something dumb online after the breakup.

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121518)

Sadly, I had to employ this tactic once. As crazy as they come, but this did stop her dead in her tracks. The camera wasn't hidden, but I did tell her that I was holding on to the images as insurance. The crazy stopped shortly after that.

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121532)

Bah! There is no such thing as bad publicity.

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121702)

It would make getting a job (or keeping your current one) a bitch, though.

"Sex tapes" may boost a celeb (or wannabe celeb's) career, but for someone who works for a public service organization, a government agency, the military, or most large corporations? It's a quick trip to a pink slip.

('course, it's a good way for the guy who filmed it to get sued or worse, which is why I posted it mostly in jest. Call it a MAD "Mutually Assured Destruction" scenario...)

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121584)

Heh. Long and hard.

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121556)

And if this story was about a guy, it would be about a frightning stalker who might murder her rather than fodder for lighthearted joking.

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (5, Informative)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121618)

+10,000 Insightful. But I don't have mod points, and I never had that many anyways even when I did. And, yes, I'm a girl. A real one.

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (3, Informative)

pipatron (966506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121630)

And even if you did have that many mod points, you could only use one of them on the same post.

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121764)

And, yes, I'm a girl.

-1 troll.

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (-1, Flamebait)

Jello B. (950817) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121836)

webmistressrachel

yes, I'm a girl

thanks for the worthless comment that exists only to bring attention to your gender

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121606)

there is one way out, but that's illegal.

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121800)

Only if they catch [wikipedia.org] you. [timesonline.co.uk]

google iceman murders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121772)

lol

Re:Let that be a lesson to you! (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121788)

reiser, is that you?

Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121246)

Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord

Re:Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121282)

What in the world does this have to do with Jack Weppler?

Re:Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121444)

What in the world does this have to do with Jack Weppler?

Could be something his ex thought about him? ;)

More on topic, I am glad they gave the error 200 info in TFA. I was about to mention that a friend had a girl problem. One thing about the ordeal was how responsive the Google URL removal tool was. Just about the only thing he had nice to say about anything related to the issue.

Re:Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121288)

christians worship a submissive/threatening hippie/despot schizophrenic.

Re:Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121324)

Not just muslims, most liberals worship Baraq Hussein Obama as well.

Re:Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121602)

Isn't that the truth [blogspot.com] . (images safe for work)

Re:Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord (0)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121370)

Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord

But when you're supernatural, you can get away with a lot of shit.

Re:Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord (1)

pugugly (152978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121638)

Christians, Jews (and, to be fair also Muslims) worship a god that had a man's daughters sleep with him, and had a kid steal his brothers birthright via fraud.

The house here isn't glass, it's that special breakable sugarglass they use in movies.

Pug

Re:Muslims worship a pedophile psychotic warlord (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121664)

Leave your mother out of this.

visa versa (3, Informative)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121248)

vice versa.
vice is pronounced either as one syllable or two (two is traditional).

Re:visa versa (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121330)

You see, "visa versa" is when an American goes to India to take an IT job away from Indians.

Re:visa versa (0)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121824)

thought visa versa was a car you bought with a credit card.

Re:visa versa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121372)

I think they meant visa versa, as the boyfriend often used her credit card. It's sort of like the term "credit card baby", but doesn't require you to wear pastels to use it.

Re:visa versa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121612)

vice versa.
vice is pronounced either as one syllable or two (two is traditional).

the visa versa is the visa card-specific verse of the song sung by venetian gondoliers when customers pay using credit cards,

Captions? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121258)

She could easily have done much worse than captions. Think 4chan.

Re:Captions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121598)

Not your personal army, newfag

Love the `cute' tone of the article (5, Insightful)

Magnus Pym (237274) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121290)

If the genders had been reversed, he would have been judged guilty of criminal sexual assault and categorized as a violent sexual offender. Gotta love those double standards.

Re:Love the `cute' tone of the article (1)

lcampagn (842601) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121312)

You're absolutely correct; however, thanks to the double standard, I am free to find the situation hilarious.

Re:Love the `cute' tone of the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121328)

There's nothing that says she hasn't also filed fraudulent rape charges.

Re:Love the `cute' tone of the article (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121434)

If the genders had been reversed, he would have been judged guilty of criminal sexual assault and categorized as a violent sexual offender. Gotta love those double standards.

Welcome to the human race.

It's women who decide who to mate with - because they're the ones with the most invested in the results.

Simple biology.

(OT, but somewhat related: the next time some feminist tries to use the fact that female chimps are very promiscuous, you get to use the fact that the male chimp beats the living shit out or even kills of any female chimp that he finds cheating on him....)

Um what? (0)

sweatyboatman (457800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121524)

Yes, because posting pictures of your fully-clothed ex with captions on them is sexual assault. And 3 other people thought this was insightful? Um... what?

Re:Um what? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121596)

It isn't because it was a female on male incident. If it was a male on female incident, it would be.

Re:Love the `cute' tone of the article (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121620)

I totally 100% second that. Women are as vile as men, if not a bit more mentally devious to compensate for lack of body strength.

somebody (1, Interesting)

gladbach (527602) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121314)

HIRE THIS GIRL! I wonder if she is the one who submitted this to /. ?

Re:somebody (4, Insightful)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121394)

Hire her?

And hope you don't have to fire her?

Re:somebody (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121454)

Why yes, that's just what the work place needs! More sociopaths!

Re:somebody (2)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121828)

Why yes, that's just what the work place needs! More sociopaths!

Apparently you haven't been keeping up with recent events concerning Wall Street brokers and bankers...

Re:somebody (3, Funny)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121500)

SEOs are kinda slimy anyway, even when they're normal human beings... a *good* SEO who happens to be vindictive and psycho?

What are you, high!?

Umm... Revenge Fail. (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121322)

While her Google-fu may be good, I'd say that Mr. Weppler's ex could use some work in the wit and viciousness departments.

Without exception, the captions were humorless and(at least without some knowledge of Weppler's background and/or personal life/activities) not at all cutting. A few generic insults, some just nonsensical.

She also seems to have chosen a photo(looks almost like a studio shot rather than a candid) that, while it probably doesn't show him as a genius master of fashion(I'm no judge of this stuff, I can't tell), appears to be reasonably flattering. Neutral background, no embarrassing props/situations/penises sharpied onto his face. Hair and clothes, whether or not well chosen, are in good order, and the lighting is suppressing any facial acne/irregularities.

Plus, of course, you have to be Really Good to pull off insults without sounding pathetic and petty when you are exiting a relationship(even harder when you are the dumped party). Presumably, every one of your oh-so-trenchant insults is either fictitious, or pertains to a quality possessed by somebody you were happy to date until just recently. That takes comedic talent to dodge, and she appears to lack it.

Re:Umm... Revenge Fail. (2)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121416)

Did you scroll down to the second page of results?

Now, since a previous article complained about the lack of women participating in Wikipedia, maybe we can see some articles on Doing a Weppler [wikipedia.org] , Wepplerizing [wikipedia.org] , and Jack Weppler Demotivational Posters [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Umm... Revenge Fail. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121448)

That was my thought. The photo wasn't really that bad, it's hardly the best portrait ever, but it's not really particularly embarrassing. The captions I saw were vulgar, but hardly anything that I'd expect to hurt somebody's feelings. I think the big deal of it is that he's apparently got a psychotic ex.

Re:Umm... Revenge Fail. (1)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121460)

to tell you the truth, I think she did just fine. an upper commenter notes that a boy doing this would have been charged with harassment and so on. I think it's smart to just do something annoying rather than offensive in this context.
also, the point is that having a professional photo like that kind of makes you look superficial (at least to me).
and taking into account that the boy is upset by this (and his mother too), I think the girl did what she set out to do (assuming her idea was to simply upset/hurt him). additionally, the boy's online presence will now be forever tainted by this.

Or rather (4, Insightful)

Snaller (147050) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121334)

If you must date make sure not to date psychopaths.
Better to just stay in the basement.

Re:Or rather (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121504)

If you must date make sure not to date psychopaths.
Better to just stay in the basement.

Already on it!

Re:Or rather (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121562)

Porn, online chat FTW and Palm and her 5 sisters FTW.

Re:Or rather (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121600)

As you can sometimes never know what sort of person someone really is until you are in a relationship with them, the only way to be 100% sure never to date psychopaths is to never date at all.

Oh right... this is slashdot.

No worries, then.

Re:Or rather (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121636)

crazy people seem normal usually.

there are those (like my wife) who insist that all girls are crazy.

Now it is tech savvy to use the meme generator? (1)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121336)

Journalism is dead.

Now a /. article is the standard for journalism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121496)

The world must be coming to an end soon.

Dating is for grown-ups (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121360)

If you are minor and cannot stand for yourself, even to the extent of having your mom stand up for you, you shouldn't have started dating in the first place.

Having a girlfriend is a fukken responsibility. The girl might actually be a little bitch, but her ex-boyfriend is a pussy beyond the hope of repair and totally deserves his fame.

That's so cute (1)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121374)

In these days of a corporatized internet, it's endearing to know that one person with a bone to pick can still influence vast swaths of the public consumption of the internet.

Now if only she had managed to get the images on Google Images and had the links going to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edaJP3Lp0Gg [youtube.com]

DMCA to the rescue? (2)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121388)

My minor son's ex-girlfriend took a copyrighted picture of him (we own copyright) and uploaded it more than 60 times to a website

This might be the first good time I can think of to use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The mother should've sent a DMCA takedown notice to every company hosting the image including Google. Instead of going through barely monitored channels, it would have gone through the highest priority channels because if they don't respond to a DMCA takedown notice in a timely manner, they're liable for damages.

Based on the things the sick girl wrote on the images, it would seem the parents have a good case for libel against her. Many of her joking accusation are provably false and disparaging.

Re:DMCA to the rescue? (1)

Aeternitas827 (1256210) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121502)

You're absolutely right, that could have been done. But really, once it's on the internet, no matter what you do, it's there for good; there's always a cached copy somewhere out there, or someone with a copy who would just be amused to put it back out there.

See Also: Sony v George Hotz

Re:DMCA to the rescue? (1)

madowcopyrightowner (1991028) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121640)

If I may pose a question: what slowness can I offer you?

That was a question in regards to your statements about the DMCA. Could you please answer it?

Re:DMCA to the rescue? (2)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121652)

in soviet Australia, truth is not a valid defense in libel cases.

feels good man. feels like free speech.

It's the same in IT contracting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121398)

Careful with your clients..

Doesn't matter if you do a good job or not. If the guy who hired you isn't happy that you refused to do extra work outside of your contract - or for any reason really, maybe he didn't like your tone in a phone call at 3AM - he'll google your name and blast out accusations on mailing lists you frequent, comment on you in social media and submit you to ripoff report.

Yes, I have experience with this, and while I did win my court case it remains a net loss for me. I still find myself explaining the whole mess to potential employers as a precursor to getting work, despite the incident having happened 6 years ago.

The only way to win is to make sure that happy clients post as much or more. Fight fire with napalm.

I can't imagine potential dates querying me on what happened years ago in a past relationship. Time to adopt pseudonyms on Facebook. Oh wait, then I'm creepy and paranoid. FML

Re:It's the same in IT contracting. (1)

jaroslaw.fedewicz (1539623) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121490)

If my date ever wanted to know a thing about my past relationship, she would just *ask*. No need to say that if I ever found her grepping my phone for things, she wouldn't be my date anymore. That's awful to date anyone distrustful to that extent.

But again, maybe that's precisely the reason why I don't have any dates. The 21st century is sick.

Made up? (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121412)

Sorry, but judging from the photos and the clueless text on them I guess the storry is completely made up.

Regards

angel'o'sphere

Re:Made up? (1)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121458)

I suspect viral marketing.

Re:Made up? (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121662)

you clearly have too much faith in your fellow humans.

Why is this news? (5, Insightful)

Rinnon (1474161) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121414)

I can't figure out why this is news in any way. First off, TFA suggests that they are minors. So just to set the stage, we're essentially talking about a teenage breakup here. Not a great start. Next, we have a girl who decided it would be fun to post images of her boyfriend all over the Internet. Wow, that's a new one! I've never heard of anything like this before! And to top it all off, the double standard here is absurd. As another poster already mentioned, if the shoe was on the other foot, no one would think it's funny or cute in any way. So Slashdot has devolved into a gossip tabloid now? Wonderful.

Now I see why the "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." tag was removed from the top of the site.

Re:Why is this news? (3, Insightful)

shadowkil (257254) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121494)

I can't figure out why this is news in any way. First off, TFA suggests that they are minors. So just to set the stage, we're essentially talking about a teenage breakup here. Not a great start. Next, we have a girl who decided it would be fun to post images of her boyfriend all over the Internet. Wow, that's a new one! I've never heard of anything like this before! And to top it all off, the double standard here is absurd. As another poster already mentioned, if the shoe was on the other foot, no one would think it's funny or cute in any way. So Slashdot has devolved into a gossip tabloid now? Wonderful.

Now I see why the "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." tag was removed from the top of the site.

I seem to get closer each day to removing /. from my rss feed. Everything that is actual tech news, I tend to have already heard from the source, also in my rss feed (usually from Engadget, Anandtech, or rarely, Daily Tech).

Eventually we should discover whether there is a limit as /. approaches lame that prevents actual unsubscription, or if it will disappear. Near enough that limit, I suppose we are just glossing over the posts without even skimming the summaries?

Re:Why is this news? (1)

Aeternitas827 (1256210) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121538)

"News for nerds. Stuff that matters." may not be on the page, but it is still part of the title at the top of the window...maybe a mistake, idk.

Regardless, this is pertinent news for the nerdy folks, who may not have experience with breaking up with a loon--or breaking up whatsoever (you have to date before you can break up with someone, after all). It stands as a cautionary tale, that may well dissuade people from entering the dating pool, and subsequently the gene pool, which may in some way benefit society!

Re:Why is this news? (1)

zanian (1621285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121546)

Furthermore, there is no mention of what he did to deserve this. It's just a an article about some dumb google image prank. It's like celebrity gossip without the celebrity. Definitely not news.

Re:Why is this news? (4, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121574)

"I can't figure out why this is news..."

You clicked on the story anyways and then took the time to post. In internet publishing terms, the story is a success and your attention (the product) has been delivered to the customer (advertisers). Thank you, come again.

Copyrights are not with the family (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121418)

Actually the copyright is with the professional photographer who captured the image - unless the photographer has signed over the copyrights.

Re:Copyrights are not with the family (2, Insightful)

Aeternitas827 (1256210) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121560)

And, couldn't the captioned works be considered derivative works, for purpose of commentary and satire?

This isn't SEO manipulation (5, Insightful)

lul_wat (1623489) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121484)

She just uploaded his picture to MemeGenerator.

This should be in Idle at best.

Re:This isn't SEO manipulation (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121670)

Oh, look. It is.

Can't blame you for not being able to tell; the new design sucks that way.

Smells Fishy.. (4, Informative)

AftanGustur (7715) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121522)

The story doesn't make sense.. The images are still on www.memegenerator.net [memegenerator.net] and have not been removed at all..

I suspect this is just a hoax, viral marketing or social experiment of some sort.

Warning: NSFW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121542)

Warning: decidedly not worksafe images appear in the link provided.

Links NSFW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121548)

a NSFW tag would have gone down a treat there.

Very NSFW (1)

microcuts (1991026) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121634)

Some proper moderation of links would be useful. *beware, links contain pictures of a mans junk*

Reasonably tech savvy? (3, Informative)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121672)

So going to http://memegenerator.net/ [memegenerator.net] and creating dozens of captioned pictures is considered tech savvy these days?

She didn't manipulate google or anything for that matter. The moment you create an image there, it's placed in a spot that Google can immediately recognize. She named the "character" and then created a dozen different phrases for him. She even abused the service because you have to certify that you have the legal authority to use/distribute the image you upload, and if the picture is what the mother and son claim it is, she had no right.

An 8 year old child could have done this.

Minor son (0)

atomicbutterfly (1979388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121678)

My minor son's ex-girlfriend

Sounds like his ex-girlfriend thought he was...

/puts on sunglasses

... a little off-key.

YEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!

My ex (4, Interesting)

rossz (67331) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121704)

My ex-wife made the mistake of being a bitch and posting false statements about me. They bordered on libel, but not enough to be worth suing over. Instead, I posted a few things about her that were not at all good for her image but were 100% true. Shortly thereafter googling her name resulted in that post being in the #`1 spot. She threw a hissy fit and threatened to sue me for libel, defamation, etc. I told her to point out any false statements and I would be happy to remove them. I also told her to feel free to sue. She didn't bother to take it any further.

If she hadn't started the hate-fest I would not have made public postings about her.

"visa versa"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35121758)

I know that mastery of basic written English isn't required to be a Slashdot editor, but "visa versa"? Really?

if you recall pre cell phone days.. (2)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121812)

(probably an urban legend...) Guy is going on a 2 week biz trip; as he leaves the apt, he says to his live in girl friend, I want to break up, when I get back I want you and your stuff outta my apt.
(silence)
Guy comes back, place is spotless, all her stuff is gone.
He notices phone is off the hook
What does he hear ??
At the tone, the time in Tokyo is..
(for you young'uns, it used to be really $$ to make a call overseas, like dollars a minute .....)

Doesn't return 404s, oh noes! (1)

BillX (307153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35121832)

Seconding....37th-ing the notion that if a man did this to a woman, the article would have a completely different tone ("Creepy Stalker Ex Abuses Internets, Police Taking Note"). That aside...

FTFA: "You see, she knew to have the source site remove the images but Google still has them in their index. The issue is that although the images appear to be gone, the URLs they are sourced via are actually returning a 200 status code, which to Google means they are still there. They need to return a page not found status code, and they do not."

In 2011, does GIS or any other search facility still take non-error status codes at their word? Has any commercial site since 2001 or so actually ever returned a 404 response to a non-existent page, rather than an arbitrary ad-happy landing page or redirect to the homepage?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...