Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Don't blame every individual (Score 1) 119

Wow, that's a nice hack job of a quote you did.

Yeah, I was more highlighting the cases where you were lumping everyone in the FBI together, rather than making an actual quote. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I'm not advocating it, I'm not condoning it, but I sure as fuck understand it.

Fine, it sure sounded like you were condoning it through your justifications. If that is the case, I withdraw my criticism. So given that statement, it makes me re-evaluate your intentions in the original post:

But you know what, it really boils down to "if these agencies are going to spy on us, often in violation of the law and our rights ... and then use parallel construction to commit perjury, why should we care?"

I now see that you put that in quotes, as though the "us" was the voice of the hackers. I didn't understand that before. Fine. But hold on just a moment:

It's not like you can only target the people who do this stuff, and it's not like they give a shit.

So here you point out that the hackers couldn't target only the "bad ones" at the FBI. So you were saying that maybe the hack was the wrong thing to do, but if they are gonna hack, they might as well target the innocent people too. Am I misreading this? Because it sure sounds like justification for hurting innocent people.

Then later you say:

Especially when they show so little regard for us.

Here you are using your own voice. That "us" wasn't the hackers. This is your personal justification.

So, are they entitled to expect anything different?

Here you posit that the FBI is deserving of this. That's justification too.

Even in reply to my post, you reiterated your dislike of parallel reconstruction. But the hackers posted this list with the hashtag #freepalestine, not #parallelreconstruction. So you aren't understanding the hackers at all. You are applying your own motivations to their actions. Search your feelings my friend, deep down it sounds like you are glad this happened. You even bothered to reply to an AC who was just trying to say "Dammit hackers, this isn't fair! You hurt innocent people!" Almost any "understanding" at that point is justification for the hack.

(Meta: I bothered to reply here because you replied to something I was saying in another thread - a good well-worded clarification about Sprint and network neutrality. So I take you to be a reasonable person worth engaging in discussion of. You worded your reply without the usual Slashdot "Well screw you you know nothing about hacking..." which I really appreciate in the current climate around here.)

Comment Don't blame every individual (Score 1) 119

these people ... show so little regard for us.... when these agencies use Sting Rays, or commit perjury...not only can we not trust you bastards... So, are they entitled

Most of the people on that list aren't doing any of the the hings you complained about. You just lumped every individual law enforcement officer, undercover agent, secretary, and janitor who work for the FBI under one umbrella. This hack hurts the individuals more than the agency as a whole. It won't stop any of the things you listed. I hope my employer doesn't do something you don't like, because then me and 30,000 other innocent people who work for this company suddenly get on your shit list, and you think it is okay to release our personal data.

Comment Why is it called differential pricing? (Score 3, Insightful) 128

voted against differential pricing, ruling with immediate effect that all data prices must be equal, and that companies cannot offer cheaper rates than others for certain content

The decision makes sense, but the reasoning and naming is nonsensical. It is fine for data prices to be different, and it is fine for companies to offer cheaper rates than others. The issue is that they cannot offer a "partial" internet. They must offer the entire internet, or none at all. This would make more sense to be called "differential content."

Any vision into the naming here? It seems like it sends the wrong message. Or maybe this is a translation problem?

Comment Re:Support long-running discussions (Score 1) 1829

What if users could edit the story summary, like how StackOverflow works with answers? People post complaints about summaries all the time. Perhaps instead, there should be a system where moderators or some other class of people can edit summaries, and another can approve edits. Then Slashdot becomes the best source for story summaries.

Comment Re:should be interesting (Score 1) 327

Oh no, clickbait has come to comments, not just headlines? lol

"Do you know what [your spouse | your children | Donald Trump | Julian Assange's mistress] is doing now? Go check it out!"
Worse-yet, is someone will start moderating these kinds of posts as +1 Insightful even though they make absolutely no point at all.

Comment Re:Android != Play Store (Score 1) 166

Running an Android phone today, without relying on the Google stuff, is really hard. No store sells such a phone (except those cheap phones that replace it with the Amazon equivalents). You usually have to root the phone, and the manufacturers won't honor the warranty. You risk some hardware not working, not getting updates, etc.

Face it: The hand held phone industry is 100% vendor lock-in. They aren't like PCs where you still have Linux if you want to control your machine. Heck, even Windows and OS X don't try to lock you down the way Android, iOS, and Windows Mobile (or whatever it is called now) do.

Comment Re:should be interesting (Score 2) 327

It's BS. I did as the AC suggested, and Googled it. It looks like one of the women's best friend's mother's uncle's former roommate said something about Cuba one time. Or something silly like that.

What has most engaged the conspiracy theorists and Assange's more excitable defenders, however, are a few key incidents in Miss A career, in particular that she is said to have worked in the Swedish embassy in the US, and wrote her university thesis in 2007 on a vision of Cuba after the death of Castro.

This has led to widespread allegations that the woman is a CIA agent, planted as a honeytrap to bring down Assange. One blogger notes: "[Assange] just happens to meet a Swedish woman who just happens to have been publishing her work in a well-funded anti-Castro group that just happens to have links with a group led by a man at least one journalist describes as an agent of the CIA: the violent secret arm of America's foreign policy.

There are various more sensational articles, but none of those provide any evidence. This was the only article that seemed to explain the connection clearly.

Comment Re:Support long-running discussions (Score 1) 1829

Two thoughts:
1) Really? Are they email notifications? If so, I probably turned those off 18 years ago and forgot about it. Maybe the notifications need to be somewhere else. Or maybe I've been missing out on something key, since I regularly scan my recent comments for new replies. I guess I've been doing it the hard way.

2) Notifications aren't sufficient anyway. Let me share a vision:

Stop thinking of Slashdot as a news site. Instead, consider it to be the exact inverse of StackOverflow. SO is focused on specific questions and specific answers, while cutting-off discussions. Slashdot is about impromptu discussions, with no end, based on current events "News for nerds, stuff that matters." If I just wanted news, there are 5 billion news aggregators out there. Heck, half the time Slashdot links to some other news aggregator or blog site anyway. It's gotten so meta that people make it a goal to find the "real" story and post a link to it. Some of this is about editors, but there is something bigger going on.

The joke on Slashdot is that nobody RTFAs. They come here and click on the comments. I do it too. It's because half the time, the story is garbage, or overblown, or misrepresented. I don't mean the Slashdot summary is wrong (it sometimes is), but that the news article itself is a troll. But this is a good thin, and it should be the focus of Slashdot. It has lots of really smart geeks who want to prove everyone else wrong. Lets use that! For example: There was a story something like "Germany produced half it's power from solar." I click the comments, and learn that really it was "For 45 minutes one summer day, Germany reduced the gas-fired plants down to almost zero. So baseline nuclear imported from outside the country + and solar was sufficient." Wow, that's very different. So in 3 minutes I'm already the local expert because I know the truth. I can debunk the overblown headline when someone brings it up over lunch. And with 15 more minutes of reading high-rated comments, I know what I'm talking about on what is baseload power versus peak and the economics of solar.

What if we could take the best rated comments, and aggregate them into a summary? Almost a real-time semi-automated Wikipedia? Ever read ? It kinda does that.

So now we get to the problem with notifications. Someone posts some revealing insightful thing about the article. Someone else posts a question like "Can you provide a link to that?" or "Hey, but what about this other thing..." and.... no replies. Because the incentive to reply is gone once the story is off the front page. The discussion got cut-off. Is there a way to change the site to be discussion-centric, where highly moderated threads stay up there and people are more inclined to see them and continue talking about them? I almost want a moderation of "+5 Nailed it" that applies to a whole thread. That's for comments that aren't snarky one-liners, they are those "Ohhh.... NOW I get it!" moments. Those times someone made you change your mind. That's what keeps me coming back.

On a similar vein, I want to be able to see all my comments, in context, for all time. I get into some discussion in real-life, where I think "I read about this on Slashdot, and I posted a reply that I feel like really explained the issue." I wanna find that again. I also want to see how much my positions have changed. I imagine running for office one day, and wanting to go back over my comments to understand why I thought something. It's almost a mind-map of my own thoughts and opinions.

Sometimes, I've thought about taking a comment and turning it into a blog entry or article on my own site. This is because there is an "answer sniping" mentality on Slashdot, which makes people try to limit their posts to a few minutes. So you can't always post the entirety of your thoughts. If you post within 5 minutes, odds on a +5 are good. If you post within 15 minutes, you probably will get a moderation. If you post the next day, even if you are the only one who "gets it" odds are nobody will pay any attention. But if I posted on it 2 days later, I probably am really passionate about that post to have bothered to find that old story. So instead, I want to go be able to go back and expand on my quickly-written post. I want to turn it into an entire discussion. Put it somewhere that people can chime in and keep talking about it, so long as it interests someone.

What if instead of having "story" filters, you had "comment" or "discussion" filters. I am interested in discussions about energy, economics, and civil rights. But that discussion might have been spawned by a story about virus manufacturers. The story is just context for a philosophical discussion, but it's the discussion that matters.

I don't concretely know how to do all of this. But maybe this can spawn some ideas?

Comment Support long-running discussions (Score 1) 1829

Sometimes there is an interesting discussion, but aftera bout 12 hours people move on to other articles. It would be great if there was a way to flag a discussion as worthy in some way that it invites people to continue it. Someties I reply to a comment and say "Why?" or "Hey, can you post more information on that?" But the system, being news-based, puts a damper on discussions that last longer than the duration that the item is newsworthy.

Slashdot Top Deals

Business will be either better or worse. -- Calvin Coolidge