Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Better go kick WSUS into a sync... (Score 1) 170

by StikyPad (#48413299) Attached to: Microsoft Releases Out-of-Band Security Patch For Windows

To be fair, most updates of OS X have required a reboot as well. I'm in the process of installing 10.10.1 right now, and will have to reboot momentarily. There are probably more patches for Windows, but on its own, I'm not sure whether that statistic is objectively bad.

Comment: Only half of the problem (Score 0) 201

by StikyPad (#48412977) Attached to: Launching 2015: a New Certificate Authority To Encrypt the Entire Web

The other half is less use of URLs to pass parameters and query strings, where less is as close to zero as possible.

And while this will certainly reduce sniffing, it won't reduce "metadata" collection at all, and it won't eliminate the need for endpoint security -- if anything, it will increase it.

Also, why on God's green earth isn't Slashdot using https yet??

Comment: Re:Horribly sexist ! (Score 1) 635

by StikyPad (#48412407) Attached to: Sweden Considers Adding "Sexism" Ratings To Video Games

Still: women are more likely to be displayed in roles perceived as *de*grading, whereas men are portrayed with attributes perceived as positive

I'd like to see empirical evidence of this. Off the cuff, it doesn't ring true, and hasn't for a long time. The leading man in almost every comedy and drama is someone who needs to learn life lessons from his wife or another leading female role. In suspense, the villain is usually a man. Granted, there are certainly genres, most notably action, where women are damsels in distress and nothing more, but that idea does not uniquely appeal to men -- it also appeals to women who like the idea of having their own knight in shining armor. And, aside from some olympic events, most sports don't glorify women. Not sure what to do about that, or why the public doesn't like to watch women compete head-on, but is fine watching men try to stomp each other. I'm also not sure why we're squeamish about seeing women in combat. Why men are expected to earn more in dating, but the same on average, as if one were separable from the other. Why violence against women is generally considered to be *more* wrong, but violence against men is less wrong, despite being a larger problem statistically. Why men under 30 are less educated and earn less than women in the US. Why women's health issues dominate the media and popular culture despite the fact that women live more than 6% longer than men -- and that gap grew last year. Why men are punished more severely and women are forgiven more readily for the same offenses. Why men are less likely to pass on their genes than women, but are treated as if they were surreptitious philanderers, despite the fact that rates of infidelity are roughly equal, and that women are, in fact, more likely to have a child with someone other than their alleged mate. Why we ignore domestic violence and verbal abuse against men; indeed, we seem to expect men to tolerate and excuse bad behavior by women. Why child custody is overwhelmingly awarded to women. Why men are more than twice as likely to be homeless.

Comment: Re:Unethical? (Score 1) 186

Thanks for posting an actual response to this!

I feel that artificial insemination is essentially the same thing, and that's conventionally accepted, and even encouraged in everything from ranching to rescuing species. Would the author have the same qualms about inseminating the elephant to increase elephant numbers? I suspect not. The only difference with mammoths is that we extincted them thousands of years ago.

The ethical concerns I would focus on (not that I am the arbiter of ethical concerns or anything) is whether and how to reintroduce them into the wild, since a) study in captivity would be of limited value, and b) that seems like the most noble and worthwhile end game.

+ - The USA Freedom Act: What's to Come and What You Need to Know

Submitted by StikyPad
StikyPad (445176) writes "The USA Freedom Act, the leading contender for NSA reform, is set for a vote this week. The bill has some problems, but is a major step forward for surveillance reform. That's why we're asking you to call your Senator and urge them to support the USA Freedom Act. Here's a rundown of what's to come, what you need to know, and what may happen this week."

Comment: Re:Wait.. (Score 1) 716

by StikyPad (#48337337) Attached to: Bounties vs. Extreme Internet Harassment

That was

1) Not a stranger.
2) Posted after the fact, not a threat before the fact.
3) Not premeditated.
4) Not an online conflict that spilled over into "real life."
5) Related to GG in exactly the same way, and to the same degree, as it was related to Syria. (Which is to say, not at all.)

But other than those things, you're spot on.

Comment: Re:Wait.. (Score 1) 716

by StikyPad (#48337181) Attached to: Bounties vs. Extreme Internet Harassment

Or aren't a women, who, coincidentally, happen to be a bit physically smaller and weaker on average than men and therefore are more vulnerable to physical assaults.

Stop. The only times that physical strength is the difference in who wins are in arm wrestling and weight lifting, neither of which are frequently used in attacks or to settle interpersonal conflicts.

Incidentally, men are the victims of violent crime significantly more often than women, so being female makes one less likely to be a target of violence. (Page 6, Table 5.

Comment: Re:Two thoughts (Score 1) 716

by StikyPad (#48335555) Attached to: Bounties vs. Extreme Internet Harassment

It depends on the state, but generally it has to be a credible threat of violence, where a reasonable person would interpret it as such. I think most reasonable people would dismiss threats of violence on the internets, particularly given the very low (zero?) rate of historic follow-through from utter strangers.

Comment: Re:Puffery (Score 1) 95

by StikyPad (#48213325) Attached to: Judge Says EA Battlefield 4 Execs Engaged In "Puffery," Not Fraud

Why do we allow that, though? It's ok for companies to lie to you, as long as someone smart enough (i.e., someone who's learned through experience that advertising claims are unreliable) knows that they're lying. Sure, it makes the people who say such things feel better/superior for being "smarter than a gnat," but, at the heart of it, we're still saying it's ok for companies to mislead in order to take money, as long as they're cagey enough about it. Boo.

Hackers of the world, unite!