Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:not good enough (Score 1) 415

The service is probably configured to restart on failure. This is why you don't terminate services from Task Manager. Killing the process there means it will not exit cleanly, which causes the service controller to interpret it as failed---and respond accordingly.

Either use the UI management console (services.msc) or the command line (net stop SERVICENAME).

If you insist on killing services using the wrong tool, you should set those services to "Take No Action" on first/second/subsequent failures in the service management console. There may still be events logged for abnormal termination, but the service controller will no longer restart the service.

Comment Bottom line... (Score 1) 275

So they reduced their violation of citizen privacy because they are too incompetent to do it properly?

They are stupid enough to store potentially sensitive information on a desktop---nevermind that it's also unsupported and obsolete. What the hell?

With that in mind, I'm confident they have reasonable access controls and auditing in place to ensure the integrity and confidentiality of this data. Surely, the low-rent operation was due to an abundance of effort and expense on security.

Comment Re: What a clusterfuck (Score 1) 676

nothing stops someone from claiming their mother didn't hug them enough as a way to escape blame for a charge.

Actually, this is why classification markings are required on classified documents.

There are so many types of things classified that no one can possibly possess the knowledge or expertise to know whether each particular section of text is classified.

Document creators (including email authors) are required to clearly mark all documents containing classified information. Even further, all information should be clearly marked as unclassified vs classified throughout the document.

Two scenarios, either of which is plausible:

1. If someone at the State Department sent email on that system, that person is in a load of trouble.

2. If people received unmarked classified information, there may be little or no penalty depending on whether or not it was (A) reported to their information security manager or (B) contained material that the recipients should have suspected was classified.

Either way, the server gets wiped since it held spilled information. And it easier to process such things when the server is either owned by the government or by a company operating under a contract issued through proper channels.

Comment Re:What a clusterfuck (Score 1) 676

Ignorance of the law does not excuse.

You are completely missing the point here. There are two separate issues---using non-government equipment is the minor issue, and transmitting classified data on unclassified machines is the major one. The classified information spillage is what can land someone in jail.

Whoever sent classified information on an unclassified system broke the rules. Whoever failed to mark classified information properly broke the rules.

Did Clinton send those emails? Did her staff? Or are those spilled emails what she and her staff received?

If you receive a spilled email (as a government employee/contractor), you have not broken any rules. The only requirement is that you report it and abstain from retransmitting it---if you have reason to suspect it contains classified information. This is where negligence comes into play, specifically, whether or not you should have known or suspected that the contents were classified.

Unless they go into details about who sent, saw, and responded to those emails there is no worthwhile information.

Comment Re:Secondary Effects (Score 1) 155

Will retailers continue to offer discounts on phones as a loss leader or take the hit to their revenue?

Retailers typically get a kickback for new activations and renewals processed through their registers, so they have some leeway to go below cost and remain profitable.

I assume they will push for cheaper phones, as electronics stores usually see higher margins from cellular (as opposed to computers, gaming consoles, appliances, and games/movies/music).

Comment Re:the partial list, for the unititiated. (Score 1) 410

Considering there's only the human race, you're pretty narrow-minded and thus not likely qualified to even define ANYTHING.

If there is only the human race, there can be no such thing as "racism". It's either misanthropy or nothing.

Or maybe there's a third possibility---you knew exactly what he meant, and you decided to respond with a heaping pile of equivocation instead of forming a coherent argument.

Comment Re:Hmmm. (Score 1) 410

Unlike the government, Reddit was not founded to protect your freedoms or to defend you. They have no obligation to provide an avenue for you to exercise your right to free speech.

That is often the problem with unpleasant speech---finding an avenue and an audience. The burden is always on the deviant to prove his views are worthwhile, and I am perfectly fine with that. It's essentially a form of herd skepticism.

If there are deliberate roadblocks with personal penalties for expression, that changes things. Refusing to provide a podium or choosing to ignore someone is one thing; punishing him for speaking is something else entirely.

The guy thinking outside the box already has to demonstrate why his ideas are better than conventional wisdom and prevailing attitudes; there is no point in obstructing the dialogue.

Comment Re:Hmmm. (Score 1) 410

For every horror in all of history, every genocide, those who spoke against the horror were labeled as "toxic nincompoops who spew vitriol".

No, they were usually labelled unpatriotic and often accused of secretly aiding the latest "enemy of civilization".

But Reddit has clearly changed from a place that built a community on the promise of free speech, to a place that's monetizing it's community.

That outcome was guaranteed the day it was sold to a publicly-traded corporation. I'm surprised it took as long as it did to become obvious. Maybe Reddit's owners are a bit more insightful or careful than Slashdot's.

Comment Re:Good luck with that (Score 2) 190

Even with their 200 licenses per user, they're still only paying $200 per seat. Compared to MS SQL, it's competitive.

The number of licenses isn't relevant for large organizations.

The total *price* is relevant, and at $2 million per year, the UK is either not using Oracle very much or getting a very good deal on it.

Seriously, $2,000,000 to license Oracle for 10,000 employees is way better (on a per-seat basis) than what my employer is paying. Maybe they can negotiate a little harder next year.

Comment Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 1) 1197

I missed the part where he was shooting straight up.

If it's high enough that no one is going to run into it, he should have left it alone. It's not presenting any threat to him.

Self-defense is a right. Shooting at things that merely upset you is not.

Provide the angle of the gun to the ground is sufficient that nothing will be in the path of shot until it reaches its maximum height, than nothing can possible be struck at greater than terminal velocity.

Not strictly true. Two exceptions.

A shot fired parallel to the ground will have maximum velocity at its maximum height, and a shot fired at very slight elevation can have its vertical velocity cancelled while still remaining above terminal velocity. Granted, it would continue to slow while falling until it reached terminal velocity.

But for a guy shooting almost straight up---yeah.

Comment Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 1) 1197

I missed the part in the article where he was shooting directly overhead. That is less stupid, but still pretty stupid.

If it's overhead and out of arms' reach, it's probably not posing a threat of personal harm or property damage---so why is he shooting in the first place?

Maybe if it's at/near ground level, the drone could conceivably strike and hurt someone. Higher than that, not so likely.

Firing at it is an overreaction at best. Plus, if it's illegal to fire a gun in residential areas then he should know it if he's a gun owner. He very obviously isn't going to get the self-defense exemption since there was no threat of harm.

Comment Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 1) 1197

The FAA said not to fly drones above buildings at all, so even above 500 feet their behavior was probably not legal.

The legality of their behavior, however, isn't the only factor in determining whether discharging a gun is appropriate or legal.

There are lots of laws that can be broken without authorizing the use of a weapon in response.

Comment Re:Or... just hear me out here... (Score 1) 1197

There already is a rule. It's 500 feet.

Above 500 feet, it's treated like a public highway. Basically, you're allowed to be there as long as you're following the applicable regulations. There are a lot of rules, including extensive training requirements for pilots, but anyone can fly there as long as they follow the rules.

Below 500 feet, the air is yours. The Causby ruling stated there is both a public and a private airspace, and the FAA decides what happens above the boundary. The government can take easements like they can on the ground, and they have to pay for it when they do.

Obviously, FAA regulations require aircraft to give a certain amount of clearance to obstacles---this is why, for instance, a plane could never fly into your 501-foot building and claim it had the right of way. If the FAA decides to treat drones like all other aircraft, they wouldn't be allowed below 500 feet and would have to fly at least 500 feet above any obstacles.

So there have already been laws and court rulings on the matter. It's a question of the FAA stepping up and doing something with the power that has been delegated to the agency.

Comment Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 1, Troll) 1197

You're only right if hail and buckshot have the same density. And similar shapes. Different density, different shape = different terminal velocity. Their densities are different, therefore you are wrong.

Plus, it is possible for people or property to be struck before it slows to terminal velocity.

The combination of a fence line and ~5 neighbors seeing the drone mean he's in a developed residential area so he shouldn't be shooting unless there is a clear, urgent threat to his health and safety. A drone might be creepy and worrisome, but the correct response is not to start shooting.

Call the police or the FAA, and let them explain to the owner that drones are not supposed to be flown over buildings.

From TFA, the FAA says that drones cannot fly over buildings and that it's dangerous to shoot at them. So both parties are in the wrong---but only one guy acted dangerously, and that's the guy shooting things out of the sky in a residential area.

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 93

Patent licensing fees should be returned (minus reasonable administrative fees) if the patent is overturned.

This really needs to be a law. Maybe put a reasonable 5- or 10-year limit on it so that a company isn't suddenly bankrupted by refunds for losing a patent.

Don't force the purported violator to prove the patent is invalid.

This makes it very difficult to enforce patents, especially for smaller companies. Now instead of being bought out by Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, or whoever has their wallet open, it is possible for those firms to steal an invention while burying the upstarts in legal expenses. Try to get a second round of venture capital with that baggage.

But because they're seemingly willing to give out patents for anything and the rate they're overturned

The computer revolution caught them a bit off-guard. Historically they tended to do much better, and the assumption of validity was justified. They are supposed to be fixing the problem, although I've not kept up with the details.

"Floggings will continue until morale improves." -- anonymous flyer being distributed at Exxon USA

Working...