Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Who are you? I'm bat- er, ANON! (Score 1) 347

Pedophiles are like Nazis

You have that backwards. Pedophiles are the group that society wants to watch burn. The group that nobody will cry for as they are marched to the stake, or the concentration camp, or the guillotine. The group that politicians use as moral grounds for passing laws based on hate and vigilantism instead of justice.

It's a slippery slope my friends.

Pretty soon it'll be people who are suspected of having harbored lustful thoughts of girls who appear to be under age.

That and camera technology in the posters you see everywhere advertising clothes/makeup etc for young girls so that men whose eyes linger just a little too long on the poster are flagged as potential pedos.

Comment: Re:They better be damn sure we're not home... (Score 1) 284

Most of us practice head shots for hours at a time.

People in the South tend to have guns within reach at all times; what could possibly go wrong? :)

As I replied to a similar comment below.

Do you idiots seriously believe that if the government was going to target you for surveillance, and go to the length of breaking into your home in order to bug it, that they would do so while you were there????

Some people never leave their homes though! I guess the ultimate in defence against this kind of thing is being a shut-in!

Comment: Re:Good (Score 1) 284

>> Me too. It's a hell of a lot harder to bug every man, woman, and child in the west than it is to intercept and crawl their communications

You don't need to do that.
You just put a worm or backdoor in all these peoples smartphones :)

>> bug every man, woman, and child in the west

The east attempted that before '89, didn't work so well

It didn't work out that badly either. You don't directly spy on everyone; you give everyone a really good incentive to spy on everyone else for you. Kind of what 5 eyes does but on a more personal level.

Comment: Re:tl;dr version (Score 1) 105

Karmashock, you speak as one interested enough to comment, but not interested enough to know jack shit. A delicate balance for you, ja? I like the link you Science and Reason link, so thanks! .... but I'm trans, and although I'm successfully working as a contractor developer, I'm also thinking "maybe this is what people really say behind my back". But then I think ... "the people who matter to me don't think like this, so maybe this guy is full of shit". What do you think? It all sounds like this is a big outrage to you, where the smart people are handling it without a glitch.

I suspect that some of the people who matter to you do think like this.

Try to grasp this; one can be against something but not hate the people who instantiate/exemplify that thing.

I am against smoking, I have many friends who smoke. I am against monotheism, I can still have friends who are muslim. I think transgenderism is just a delusion, does that mean I have to hate you? I don't think so.

You may believe that I'm wrong-headed about your 'condition', or whatever you want to call it, but do you have to believe I hate you? Or I'm afraid of you?

Comment: Re: The white in your eyes (Score 1) 219

by myowntrueself (#48851551) Attached to: Why Some Teams Are Smarter Than Others

Thing is, we're awesome, problem is that we're not awesome in a way that will satisfy most NTs feelings; and most of the world is run on nothing but the feelings of NTs. For instance, very few people get fired due to incompetence, they get fired due to the bad feelings that their incompetence causes; which in some organizations is avoidable (mainly in governmental and nonprofit organizations, or volunteer/nonpaid positions), allowing incompetent people to keep their position. Autistic people on the other hand, we often get fired because we don't fit in with the other employees; no matter if we are competent in all other aspects of the job.

Of COURSE the world is run in the feelings of NTs because THATS NORMAL. NT's are normal people, not abnormal people, not people with special needs. Just ordinary, normal people.

Also, and this may be news to you, normal people aren't all the same and some happen to dislike oversocialisation. They can dislike oversocialisation and still be totally normal people and not in the least bit autistic.

Comment: Re:The white in your eyes (Score 4, Interesting) 219

by myowntrueself (#48851521) Attached to: Why Some Teams Are Smarter Than Others

You don't have to be autistic to find oversocialisation in work meetings to be a problem. Where I work easily half our team meetings are taken up with jokes and banter. Its ridiculous because we actually have work to discuss and work to do after the meetings.

If only people would stop cracking jokes things would be so much better for me. We are there, at the work place, to do a job. That job is not being comedians, its being engineers.

And I am very proudly neurotypical.

Comment: Re:Lennart, do you listen to sysadmins? (Score 1) 551

by myowntrueself (#48834149) Attached to: Systemd's Lennart Poettering: 'We Do Listen To Users'

Personally, I think it is a very real possibility that this is by intent. Not by Poettering himself, he is just a clueless pansy full of himself. But he is perfect for this. He is far, far to incompetent to even realize that software has to be simple in order to be secure. He does has a proven track-record of producing buggy, complex software. He has absolutely no experience with producing secure software. He is known to be resistant to advice and learning. He is known to not work well with others. He thinks he knows it all and has it all.

In one sentence: Perfect for creating a complex monster that will never, ever be secure.

My money is on the NSA and others (remember, Red Hat is mostly funded by the US military) having selected Poettering to sabotage Linux security. This is actually the main reason why it will never find its way on any of my systems. Having the TLAs being the greatest threat to security and privacy is one thing. Inviting them in is something else.

Actually thats kind of my theory on IPSEC... far too complex to configure, unnecessarily so. Easy to 'accidentally' set up IPSEC in unsecure ways because the system is so fiendishly complicated it almost encourages the administrator to make mistakes.

Comment: Re:Lennart, do you listen to sysadmins? (Score 1) 551

by myowntrueself (#48830607) Attached to: Systemd's Lennart Poettering: 'We Do Listen To Users'

How many professional SysAdmins and enterprise users are regularly tinkering with their init settings? It is usually a set it and forget it type of thing.

As I see it, this is just general IT Ranting because something is new.

Because 'new' usually means untried, insufficiently tested, poorly documented etc. All the kinds of things that IT does not want in production systems, because it will mean the pager going off at 2am on a regular basis.

Comment: Lennart, do you listen to sysadmins? (Score 5, Insightful) 551

by myowntrueself (#48828911) Attached to: Systemd's Lennart Poettering: 'We Do Listen To Users'

Well, do you actually take on board the concerns of system administrators and enterprise users?

What a lot of people are concerned about is that this entirely new and largely untested (in the 'wild', as it were) and very very large, complex piece of software which runs at a very very privileged level in the operating system is going to become the main source of security vulnerabilities in Linux.

Can we have a cut-down, simplified version of systemd for servers and doesn't try to replace several layers of server side system functionality such as logging?

Its clear that you listen to desktop users. How about listening to the system administrators?

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.