Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:grandmother reference (Score 1) 311

For that to work, the vast majority of the game has to exist on the client (i.e., it has to be single-player or capable of LAN play or something). Hackers are not going to be coding up an offline server for an MMO. Maybe they'd be stealing the server-side code and adapting that, but not coding it up from scratch.

Comment: Re:Now using TOR after WH threats to invade homes (Score 1) 155

by Pseudonym (#48913565) Attached to: EFF Unveils Plan For Ending Mass Surveillance

Will the EFF be the ones who apologize to the families of those killed by attacks that could have been stopped?

Really? Do tell. What are these attacks that have been stopped by mass surveillance and could not have been stopped by good old-fashioned detective work?

Terror attacks are rare in the United States. They are remarkable precisely because they are rare. This is why anti-terrorism powers are overwhelmingly used to investigate non-terrorism offences, and the vast majority of terrorist attacks foiled are ones that they made up.

Comment: Re:But does it matter any more? (Score 1) 120

by PopeRatzo (#48911119) Attached to: Windows 10 IE With Spartan Engine Performance Vs. Chrome and Firefox

Only if the DoJ continues to look the other way in the face of continuing flagrant Sherman act violations

If you're a fan of any current computing tech, either mobile or on the desktop, you really don't want to be bringing up Sherman Act violations.

I can't think of a single major manufacturer of PCs, mobiles, or commercial operating systems for PCs or mobiles that isn't guilty of anti-trust violations.

Comment: Re:The solution is obvious (Score 1) 510


Google are a highly effective propaganda company.

But, as providers of a platform for developers, they are absolutely horrible. Writing software for their "platform" is like building a house on quicksand.

They make me look back on the time spent developing for Microsofts products with fondness.

Comment: Re: That's a nice democracy you have there... (Score 1) 372

Neither the US constitution, nor does any commentary I'm aware of, state that electors are pledged to represent the interests of their state.

U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."

The idea that a state legislature would choose electors that represent its interests should be common sense.

Of course, at every crucial point in history prior to the 1860s, somebody suggests reducing the power of states in favor of either democratic populism (Jackson) of federal power (Hamilton, Washington...), and the argument against goes something like, "You're just trying to abolish slavery!" American federalism was invented as a pretext to sustain slavery in the colonies where it was economically entrenched.

You could just as validly claim that slavery was a scapegoat excuse for the Federal government to usurp power from the states. Preserving states' rights is yet another reason why we would have been better off if slavery had never existed...

Comment: Re: not honest (Score 1) 348

by PopeRatzo (#48906739) Attached to: Americans Support Mandatory Labeling of Food That Contains DNA

"Safe" doesn't even have to be the issue. The issue is, why are these people so keen to make sure consumers don't know where their food comes from? Even more important, why are they so keen to make sure that consumers don't know where their food money is going?

When I buy a bag of rice or an ear of corn, I want to know whether or not my money is going to pay for a license fee for intellectual property covering a basic foodstuff. Because I would rather it did not. And for some strange reason, there is a group of people out there who believe I should not have that choice as a consumer, and they use "science" as their reason.

Comment: Re: That's a nice democracy you have there... (Score 3, Insightful) 372

The problem with the electoral college is not that it exists, it's that it's being used improperly as a flawed proxy for the popular vote instead of as it was originally intended, which was to reflect the will of the individual states, not the people. Similarly, Senators were not supposed to be elected by popular vote, but rather by vote of their state legislature. And, of course, the office of the President was not supposed to be nearly as powerful as it is now.

What does this all mean? It adds up to the idea that the states were supposed to be much more powerful in comparison to the Federal government than they are now. Since states are smaller, it's easier for individual citizens to meaningfully interact with their state representatives than their federal ones. If states still had the power the Framers intended for them to have, individuals would have better representation than they do now even without electing the President or Senators.

Corporate interests are allowed to dominate because people feel like their vote doesn't matter. Why doesn't their vote matter? Because all elected offices who's constituency is small enough for them to actually affect don't do anything important enough anymore!

SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out! -- Ken Thompson