Beta
×

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!

Comments

top

Ask Slashdot: Why Can't Google Block Spam In Gmail?

naughtynaughty Re:WTF? (261 comments)

I agree. Perhaps the author believes Google should not only try to figure out what is and isn't spam but also delete it so we never see it. If so, I disagree as I much prefer Google's excellent spam filter that still allows me to wander through the spam folder looking for something that it miscategorized and train Google to no longer consider it as spam.

about two weeks ago
top

LTE Upgrade Will Let Phones Connect To Nearby Devices Without Towers

naughtynaughty Re:Licenced Operator "peering" only (153 comments)

That's only one possible implementation, it doesn't have to be done that way but there is no money in it for the carriers if my phone can talk directly to your phone. http://www.radio-electronics.c... It can work without carriers, the carriers will want to control it by building authorization protocols into it so they can make money off of it.

about three weeks ago
top

LTE Upgrade Will Let Phones Connect To Nearby Devices Without Towers

naughtynaughty Re:Awesome way of stretching networks between hous (153 comments)

You would be better off buying $150 worth of equipment than tying up two cell phones with monthly fees to connect two separate networks.

about three weeks ago
top

LTE Upgrade Will Let Phones Connect To Nearby Devices Without Towers

naughtynaughty Re:Can this peer-to-peer like Bittorrent (153 comments)

" Phones will be able to “talk” directly to other mobile devices" Sounds like P2P to me. The carrier doesn't control the spectrum, they have a license to use the spectrum. Am I violating any laws or regulations by powering up a cell phone that doesn't have an active carrier subscription?

about three weeks ago
top

Forest Service Wants To Require Permits For Photography

naughtynaughty Should we jump to conclusions? (299 comments)

This does not apply to tourists. This does not apply to someone pulling out their video camera to video the family frolicking through the wilderness. Here is the definition of "still photography" that the proposed regulation uses: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/re... "Still photography—use of still photographic equipment on National Forest System lands that takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed or where additional administrative costs are likely, or uses models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities." Does that sound that bad? You'll also need a permit for commercial filming, if you are a business and want to make a film set in a certain designated wilderness areas you'll need a permit. Stop the presses!

about a month ago
top

US Strikes ISIL Targets In Syria

naughtynaughty Re:F-22's don't drop bombs. (478 comments)

What do they do with the bombs they carry, gently release them?

about a month ago
top

Anonymous Peer-review Comments May Spark Legal Battle

naughtynaughty Re:More science and less bad photoshop? (167 comments)

Yet if you zoom into that "dark rectangle" you see that it is not in fact a uniformly dark rectangle but has data in it. So what is the significance of that darker area, why would faking it be done and is it in fact an unreasonable set of data? Or is it enough to look at pictures of clouds and note that some look like lions, some like tigers, others bears and announce OH MY!

about a month ago
top

Anonymous Peer-review Comments May Spark Legal Battle

naughtynaughty Re:blowing smoke (167 comments)

You believe that someone who sabotages someone else's career with malicious slander wouldn't have legal liability? I strongly disagree. On the other hand, depending on the wording of the job offer, it is entirely possible that it would be retracted without legal liability at anytime prior to start of employment. In many states firing someone doesn't require any cause, your fired because it's Tuesday and I want to fire someone would be perfectly legal. The employer who revoked his offer was in Mississippi and Mississippi is an "at will" state so revoking or firing someone because you don't like what you read about them on a peer review site would be legally permissible. Thus he likely would not have a case against the people who retracted the job offer.

about a month ago
top

Anonymous Peer-review Comments May Spark Legal Battle

naughtynaughty Re:Why did he lose tenure? (167 comments)

... or he lost his tenure because he resigned to take another offer and that other offer was revoked. I've looked at some of those comparison images and found some completely laughable (rotate image and take one small section and show it is similar to another small section but not other portions of the image) and others more like trying to compare two pictures of 4 sausages and thinking those sausages are all a bit similar to start with but not exactly. In another image comparison the comparison itself altered the dimension of the original images and they still didn't look exactly alike, just similar. But you expect similarity in similar things. From some of the comments it would be reasonable to think there was someone with an axe to grind rather than an objective review of his articles.

about a month ago
top

Anonymous Peer-review Comments May Spark Legal Battle

naughtynaughty Re:Why did he lose tenure? (167 comments)

In many states you losing your job because your boss was unreasonable is not a cause for action against your employer as your employer can fire you for any reason that isn't unlawful. For example, if my boss was told that I cheated on my spouse my boss could fire me because spouse cheating is not a legally protected class. But if the person who told that to my boss did so with the intent of getting me in trouble and it was not in fact true I would reasonably say that he was the cause of me being fired and has liability for defaming me. Blame can be held by multiple persons, my boss for being unreasonable in firing me and the person who defamed me. One can be legal (my boss being unreasonable) and the other not (the person who defamed me).

about a month ago
top

The Raid-Proof Hosting Technology Behind 'The Pirate Bay'

naughtynaughty Re:So... (144 comments)

The "keys to the kingdom" point to virtual machines that can be rehosted faster than the raider can work the legal system in multiple countries to get to the next level of servers after raiding the load balancer. The point is not that they can prevent raids but that any raids will be ineffective at shutting them down for more than a few minutes. That effectively discourages raids as a strategy as they are expensive and ineffective.

about 1 month ago
top

The Five Nigerian Gangs Behind Most Craigslist Buyer Scams

naughtynaughty Re:We need to carpet bomb Nigeria (160 comments)

We have more regulations each year than last and I think the amount of dumb shit done every year is pretty constant. That isn't to say it wouldn't increase if the regulations disappeared, but I do think that regulations try to plug the hole the last clever scam artist figured out and there is no shortage of yet to be uncovered holes that are or will be exploited.

about a month and a half ago
top

The Five Nigerian Gangs Behind Most Craigslist Buyer Scams

naughtynaughty Re:The Tom Clancy solution (160 comments)

... only to find out that the mercenaries were really scammers who took his money and skipped town.

about a month and a half ago
top

The Five Nigerian Gangs Behind Most Craigslist Buyer Scams

naughtynaughty Re:*sigh* A fool and their money... (160 comments)

Guess what happens when you tell people they are gullible or fools? They get defensive and mad at you. Part of me wants the scammers in jail, the other part realizes that we don't have enough jail cells and it wouldn't matter because a fool and his money are soon parted. I Person X doesn't scam them out of their money then Person Y or Z will. It's just a matter of when and for how much, not if.

about a month and a half ago
top

The Five Nigerian Gangs Behind Most Craigslist Buyer Scams

naughtynaughty Re:Checks (160 comments)

They don't pay the FedEx fee, they use stolen FedEx account numbers.

about a month and a half ago
top

The Five Nigerian Gangs Behind Most Craigslist Buyer Scams

naughtynaughty Re:Some fool *tried* that on me on "postaroo"... a (160 comments)

Banks facilitate the payment of checks drawn on other banks. They are not in the business or compensated for taking the risk that the check you give them is bad.

about a month and a half ago
top

The Five Nigerian Gangs Behind Most Craigslist Buyer Scams

naughtynaughty Re:Some fool *tried* that on me on "postaroo"... a (160 comments)

Check21 created the legal framework to allow for check truncation. Your bank never "clears" a check, checks are only paid at the bank they are drawn on. My bank gives me instant access to all my check deposits but I don't labor under the delusion that means the checks have cleared. The bank a check is drawn on generally doesn't do much more than see if the account has enough funds and relies on its customers to inform them if a particular check that was presented was fraudulent, this can take some time. You always remain responsible for bad checks that you give to someone else, within the statute of limitations. The same is true of many things. Let's say you had a rare coin and sold it to me for $500 and 6 months later I sold it to someone else for $600. That someone else took the coin into a dealer 3 months after that to have it appraised and is informed that it was a fake. That person has legal recourse to recover the $600 from me and I in turn have legal recourse to recover the $500 I paid to you for the fake coin. That 9 months have passed doesn't matter, that you thought the coin was real doesn't matter, that I thought the coin was real also doesn't matter. Just because you got a bank to give you money for a bad check doesn't shift responsibility for the loss from you to the bank. So as to make it clear, when you accept a check from someone you are taking on a risk that the check is bad. Don't take checks from strangers or people you know who might stiff you.

about a month and a half ago
top

The Five Nigerian Gangs Behind Most Craigslist Buyer Scams

naughtynaughty Re:Some fool *tried* that on me on "postaroo"... a (160 comments)

Banks don't have time to make a phone call for every check you deposit, it is your responsibility to only accept checks from people you know so you can recover the funds if the check bounces. Your bank's job is to submit the check on your behalf to the bank it was drawn on and request that it be paid. You clearly are gullible and were fleeced, that isn't the bank's fault it is your fault. But because I'm a really nice guy I'd like to let you know that I have many contacts in the scammer community and believe I know the person who fleeced you. I can help you recover all your money but will need a $100 retainer sent via MoneyGram and will only keep 10% of the amount I recover. Reply for details.

about a month and a half ago

Submissions

naughtynaughty hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

naughtynaughty has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?