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!



You Can't Say That On the Internet

stewwy Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (432 comments)

not a student of anatomy then :-)

first point :

Both sexes have 'boobs' Its just that natal females have more developed breast tissue, all oestrogen does is to cause that tissue to develop ( to simplify )

FYI lactation and breastfeeding is even possible in men look (up the Aka tribe)

The second is just an opinion, which I feel free to ignore. although I have to admit to a slight agreement with you on 'fatass's ' but it's my body so I'll do what the f*ck I want with it :-)

about 2 years ago

You Can't Say That On the Internet

stewwy Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (432 comments)

It's funny! :-) Blurs and challenges peoples assumptions.

I'm in the UK and for what it's worth I'm a transsexual currently growing her own boobs, (not bad, a bit more than a B cup at the moment :-) )

The situation is interesting though, if I'm in male mode and strip my top off from there in a situation where male bare-chestedness is appropriate (say a normal beach) then that is OK as far as the cops are concerned.

But it's not OK if I strip off from a Skirt and Bra.

I actually find this quite an enlightened attitude. In the rare case that I'm presenting as male I'm treated as one

When I'm presenting as female then I'm treated as one

Which is how it should be. I do find this whole thing about nipples (in the USA ) a bit ridiculous, and to be honest a bit childish, it smacks a bit of giggling in the playground

It is however an insidious way of introducing censorship.

In the UK we treat sexuality ( and nipples ) a bit more seriously, strangely thanks to the murdoch press and the Sun (a low brow, very popular newspaper ) girls on page 3

But we fall down considerably on freedom of speech at the moment ( witness the guy being arrested for a burning poppy on his FB page along with calling squaddies c*nts, as if they would care )

about 2 years ago

Paul Vixie: 100,000 DSL Modems May Lose Their DNS On July 9

stewwy TR-069 (193 comments)

Some modems implement this , TR-069 (remote config) protocol. At least some of the clueless should have this active, I'm surprised it's not used more widely by ISP's Of course anyone with half a brain will have it disabled,( do you want your ISP to control your router? ) and if you have it disabled at least you know your modem/router HAS a config page but still, it's for exactly this reason it's there.

more than 2 years ago

Europe Agrees To Send Airline Passenger Data To US

stewwy Re:Why? (403 comments)

You're quite correct I could in certain circumstances become bound under that 'law' if I said the wrong thing, in the wrong place. I wouldn't do that because every person is in my opinion entitled to their own illusions/delusions. i.e. freedom of belief

On the other hand as I am probably a 'criminal' in the eyes of at least one set of laws, why should I bother to obey any law I didn't agree with?

more than 2 years ago

Europe Agrees To Send Airline Passenger Data To US

stewwy Re:Why? (403 comments)

As a UK citizen I am now subject to three or possibly four sets of laws

UK law(and it's variant if I travel to Scotland or do business there, Scots law) EU law and now US law.

UK law is all well and good, I was born and brought up here so I have a pretty good idea of what I can and cannot do. (Scotland has roughly the same criminal law but a different civil law system I think)

EU laws, which generally have something to do with commerce, are not too bad as to have any effect on me they have to be translated into English law, usually with all sorts of unnecessary add-ons and gold plating. Just occasionally the prats in Whitehall will get slapped for some fundamental human rights violation which is OK by me.:-)

Just as an aside, a lawer friend once explained to me that in its simplest form UK law generally says 'What isn't forbidden is allowed'. But that Continental (EU) law says 'Everything is forbidden except for what is allowed'. He followed on from this to say that 2 things stemmed from this, in the UK what is forbidden rises over time, but in Continental (EU) Law what is allowed rises.

and now to US law, which seems fundamentally different from most other jurisdictions and seems to apply, regardless of UK law, whenever I travel, do business, or go online. If I break that I can now be shipped off to the US for trial as a non-person/terrorist/someone whose annoyed a US business.

I like to think that if the last ever applied I'd behave like any true US citizen " You can ship me off to your godforsaken country over Your dead body!'

Good luck on keeping track of what laws you break!

more than 2 years ago

Criminals Remote-Wiping Cell Phones

stewwy Re:Encryption (191 comments)

Except that a Vermont judge recently ruled that password(s) contained in one's head are protected under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution. just like any other information in your head. It was discussed right here on Slashdot.

As for threatening law enforcement officers: say nothing, know your rights, and keep your cool. The law enforcement officer is NOT your friend and you shouldn't speak to them or answer their questions. You have a right to remain silent and you should use it. BTW every attorney that I have ever heard opine on the subject has said that it is better to say nothing than to answer some of the questions but not others. Don't let them scare you into giving up your rights with their Gestapo crap. Remember, if they are questioning you, especially if they are threatening, then there is NO way that you are NOT going to be held (i.e. arrested) for a while anyway until the matter either goes before a judge or they have to let you go (48 hours max w/out cause before any attorney can force them to let you out), so don't be dumb and tip your hand right at the start. Also, remember that if you ever get your equipment back then you can never use it or those passwords again (who knows what bugs they may have planted before releasing it back to you). You basically have to wipe and start over on new hardware.

Disclaimer: IANAL so if you find yourself in a situation like the one above find yourself one that you can trust and let them do the talking, but remember that the police are NOT your friends.

yeah right but its not 48hours in the uk try keeping quiet for 42DAYS

about 6 years ago



stewwy stewwy writes  |  more than 7 years ago

stewwy (687854) writes "The register Is carrying the story of an amazing attack on the U.K. governments Flagship IT project, the compiling of a national patient database
Fugitsu the lead contractor have an £895 million stake in the project for the southern region alone. The writer describes the project as " a camel in a field of racecourses " critiques include civil liberties groups doctors and computer experts
What makes this amazing is that the writer is a senior healthcare Fugitsu"

stewwy stewwy writes  |  more than 7 years ago

stewwy (687854) writes "Two articles showcasing the good aspects of science and technology,then the bad aspect of patents
First the Good man-with-bionic-arm-regains-sense-of-touch.html
the URL says it all really.
Then the Bad r/mg19325873.000-editorial-no-patent-no-cancer-dru g-development.html
More or less proving how patents are not a good thing for society."

stewwy stewwy writes  |  more than 7 years ago

stewwy (687854) writes "As you may know, current UK copyright law knows no fair use exception to allow private copying. If you think that should be changed, there's a petition on an official government website you can sign. copy pasted this little snippet from I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else. I have checked out the petition and it certainly needs more signatures"

stewwy stewwy writes  |  more than 7 years ago

stewwy (687854) writes "The nytimes has an article on an agreement between Microsoft and Universal music whereby Universal will receive a royalty for each player sold. In a quote from the article:
The move also reflects Universal's recognition that, for all the runaway success of gadgets like the iPod, consumers are still not buying enough digital music to make up for declining sales of music on compact disk. Universal said it was only fair to receive payment on devices that may be repositories for stolen music.
I wonder does this mean that as I'm now paying for all my music I'm now safe from the RIAA's of this world?"

stewwy stewwy writes  |  more than 7 years ago

stewwy (687854) writes "It looks like the the shenanigans have started already, the Register is running a story rminals_dont_cooperate/ about the difficulty early voters are having with casting votes for Democrats. It is possible, its just a lot harder to do as from the article the default setting of the machine seems to be Republican, No indication of the machine manufacturer yet"


stewwy has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>