Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:And most don't care (Score 1) 62

by mi (#49750829) Attached to: NSA Planned To Hijack Google App Store To Hack Smartphones

Some people within the United States may disagree with you. [blacklivesmatter.com]

Seriously? BlackLivesMatter? If you have to refer to a "movement" born out of a lie — that the robber Michael Brown, supposedly, had his arms up when he was shot — your whole position gets seriously compromised.

Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, meet Pot. [mxgm.org]

An inflammatory collection of lies and innuendo based, once again, on the sorry fate of another thug, whose reaction to being followed in the street was to "whoop the shit out of the cracker".

If, while alleging "historical" and "nationwide" victimhood, you don't have decent poster-boys, something must be wrong with your premise.

The anonymous GP is right: we aren't actively killing nor seriously repressing a large number of our own people. Not usually. And if/when it happens, it is a cause of outrage here in the US, whereas in China, North Korea, Cuba or under ISIS it is accepted, grudgingly or otherwise...

But then, I suppose that proverbial kettle of Joseph McCarthy and the pot of Lavrenty Beria are equally "black" to you too...

Comment: Re:The one question (Score 1) 96

People looking at the car have to be able to tell that that car is an electric vehicle and not an ICE, in order to properly appreciate how the EV owner is saving the planet. By making it ugly, they can also allow the owner to sacrifice further by not driving a good looking car.

That's the cynical answer.

The actual reason that EV cars often look strange is because the designers are trying to make them as aerodynamic as possible in order to extend their range.

As battery power density becomes more adequate, maximizing aerodynamic efficiency will become less of a priority, so in the future you can expect designs that make efficiency tradeoffs in order to get a better look.

+ - Rand Paul wraps up NSA "filibuster" after 10 hours->

Submitted by mpicpp
mpicpp writes: After standing on the Senate floor for more than 10 hours in protest of the National Security Agency's sweeping surveillance programs, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, wrapped up his so-called "filibuster" just after Midnight on Thursday morning.

NSA illegal spying and data collection of innocent Americans must end. Thank you all for standing with me. #StandwithRand

— Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) May 21, 2015
The senator and 2016 presidential candidate staged the talkathon ahead of the Senate's consideration of legislation to extend the NSA's authority to collect phone records in bulk. The controversial surveillance program — which has been deemed illegal by one federal court — is supposedly authorized by Section 215 of the Patriot Act. That section of the law is set to expire on June 1, giving Congress little time to renew it.

Paul started his "filibuster" against an extension of the Patriot Act on Wednesday afternoon, even though the Senate was actually in the middle of debate time on an entirely different issue — trade authority. Paul's efforts likely slowed down Senate business — lawmakers are trying to finish a few important bills before taking off for a weeklong recess — but the Senate is still expected to take up legislation to deal with the expiring NSA program.

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:How does one tell the difference? (Score 4, Interesting) 103

by mi (#49742593) Attached to: Oldest Stone Tools Predate Previous Record Holder By 700,000 Years

Yes, I am curious too. That and the high concentration of such "tools" in one spot. Perhaps, an early colony existed around the lake?

Were they tools? According to the legend under one of the images in TFA: "Both the core and the flake display a series of dispersed percussion marks" and another says "Hammerstone showing isolated impact points". If that's true — and the free image is too small to say for sure — the rocks were used to hit something hard, Ok. And such use of rocks, or sticks, or anything not part of body is quite amazing for any creature, although Homo Anything aren't unique in this.

But I don't think, such use makes them officially "hammers" and "anvils", to be honest. For it does not appear, the "tools" themselves were deliberately worked on: the creatures grabbed whatever lied around and used it...

Comment: Re:Anyone?!? (Score 1) 42

by mi (#49740603) Attached to: How 1990s Encryption Backdoors Put Today's Internet In Jeopardy

I asked my mom to to break crypto with open-source software...

She'd also have to be in a position to intercept the traffic to begin with. The article's problem-description is rather silly, indeed.

I also do not see, who would still be allowing weak ciphers on their servers — after all the earlier SSL-vulnerabilities we went through in the last 6 months, that is... But the report on the matter estimates 8.4% of the top million web-sites and 3.4% of all HTTPS-using sites as still vulnerable. Shrug...

Comment: Re:Government is guilty until proven innocent (Score 1) 95

by mi (#49740389) Attached to: Do Russian Uranium Deals Threaten World Supply Security?

From the article I linked to. Did you bother reading it?

Yeah, their only source for this particular claim is the guy's own words: "He told the Times: “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”

That's both flimsy evidence (hearsay and not under oath) and evasive. For example, if he is ever confronted with evidence of having been told by Clinton, how to vote, he'll be able to claim, that it was not "interference", but direct instructions from his official boss at the time.

And yet, you took his flimsy statement about lack of "interference" and turned it into a far wider-reaching "had no contact with her about it". Am I being picky? The other Clinton once claimed, "oral sex is not sex", for crying out loud — you can not be too picky with these weasels...

Yes. That's exactly what they did. *eyeroll*

Eye-rolling does not prove anything. I'll take it as another concession.

Yeah, no. This is about the vote to give a Russian country control of 20% of US uranium production and Sec. Clinton's (non)involvement in it.

You defended the Secretary here with two arguments:

  1. That a FactCheck-article concludes, there is no evidence of her wrong-doing — only "speculations"
  2. That any money (bribe) were given not to any of the Clintons, but to the Clinton Foundation

The first claim makes my "rant" — about the need to use a reverse of the usual burden-of-proof principle for Executive government officials — on-topic and otherwise appropriate. The second (false) claim likewise legitimizes my counter-argument about the Foundation being a slush-fund and a power-brokerage vehicle, even if it does not enrich the Clintons directly.

Legitimacy of my counter-arguments now established, absence of any other rebuttals from you evident, the only conclusion is that your original arguments in defense of Madame Secretary are null and void. Have a nice day.

Comment: Re:Either of the poles woulc cause this effect (Score 1) 468

by Tumbleweed (#49739947) Attached to: The Brainteaser Elon Musk Asks New SpaceX Engineers

If you start a mile north of the South Pole, walk a mile south, then you cannot walk west, so it still fails.

Also, the North Pole isn't ice-free all year long. (I've not been keeping up with how much (if it has happened yet) it is ice-free during a year, but it's certainly not the whole year. Yet.)

Comment: Re:Encryption is but a tiny aspect of it (Score 1) 201

by mi (#49739919) Attached to: Australian Law Could Criminalize the Teaching of Encryption

Yes, folks, those problems and more besides can be solved by radical individualism and its close friend, laissez-faire capitalism!

Yes, indeed. I wouldn't use the charged term "radical", but Individualism certainly is it.

Sure, some people will be free to starve, others will be free to die of preventable illnesses

No idea, where you got this from...

your freedom to amass wealth and keep it all to yourself will be safe.

That, definitely, is — or ought to be — among the top-priority freedoms to preserve, yes. I fail to see, how anyone can argue against it. Give it a try, if you feel like it: tell me, what — other than force majeure circumstances like need to defend the country — justifies confiscating one's honestly-earned property?

Comment: Re:Government is guilty until proven innocent (Score 1) 95

by mi (#49739567) Attached to: Do Russian Uranium Deals Threaten World Supply Security?

the person who did represent the State Department had no contact with her about it

And you know this from?..

If any one of them had qualms about it [...]

And, maybe, they did... But seeing Clinton being in favor decided not to rock the boat and alienate the probably next President...

The rest of what you put down is an incoherent rant that really doesn't have much to do with the issue at hand.

A rather backwards way of conceding a point, but I'll take it. It must've been hard for you as it is.

How come financial advisors never seem to be as wealthy as they claim they'll make you?

Working...