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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Image of Mohammad? *Hiisssssss!* *burns* (Score 1) 169

by ememisya (#48925961) Attached to: Facebook Censoring Images of the Prophet Muhammad In Turkey
Really, Muslims don't explode upon exposure to the image of Mohammad. It's also not the majority opinion in Turkey (30% believe their eyes might melt, they're not sure, they never saw a drawing of Mohammad before). This is basically the current administration in Turkey moving onward with their extreme right wing conservative Muslim image (think Foxnews is the only news, and Bush has been President for more than a decade) to strengthen economical relations with the Arab world. The Arabs tend to be super religious, like Amish religious, and like super wealthy, I mean which-pants-did-I-put-that-billion-yesterday wealthy. So, as a conservative and traditional Arab, I shan't be doing business with a country who lets the drawing of Mohammad run amock on their Internets. Keep in mind Turkey is a country who loves to drink alcohol, that bans you to hell in the Arab world, guess what? There are also new restrictions on alcohol in Turkey.

Zuckerberg is a whore for money.
Erdogan is a whore for money.

Comment: "... comb through a suspect's personal device ..." (Score 1) 317

by ememisya (#48925855) Attached to: Justice Department: Default Encryption Has Created a 'Zone of Lawlessness'
So you tell me what the difference is between these two scenarios:

1-) Knock on the door, "Police! We have a warrant to search your home!"
*Person goes to their room, runs their hard drive through a wood chipper*

2-) Knock on the door (presumably), "Police! We have a warrant to search your phone!"
*Person's phone is encrypted*

Here's what's different. Law enforcement can now see through your walls, reroute your traffic, disrupt your radio communications, hell even impersonate a service crewman (cleaning, cable guy, pest control), ALL without any probable cause or warrant, without ever even informing you. So this ... "zone of lawlessness" really is created by the pesky Bill of Rights. We really should do away with it and accept the fact that any idiot with a badge is your "life master", who is always watching and you better behave.

That black, gay, Muslim guy is surely up to something, send John to his uhm... *checks database* 12:00AM Friday night party, with uh... let's see ... weed, he seems to like weed, then arrest him and bring him here, he needs to be off the streets.

Comment: I Got a Few Reasons Why It's a Good Idea (Score 1) 287

by ememisya (#48749375) Attached to: Should We Be Content With Our Paltry Space Program?
  • Can we truly stop a meteor from hitting earth?
  • How much money is there in mining meteors?
  • The world stands at 7 billion people today, how many does it take to make life impossible here?
  • Do we really want to go down with the planet since this seems to be the only body of mass with life on it?
  • Is this the only body of mass with life on it?
  • Is it not great to have a unified goal of existence for all human beings no matter who they are?

Consider how many kings claimed mountains for their own, humanity named the same mountains quite a few times. In the great scheme of things, life as we know it is nothing but a complex chemical reaction occuring on the surface of the Earth. Earth went from being a ball of lava, to having a surface full of gas, to this mostly water structure, freezing and thawing, until pretty lights started glowing on its dark side, sattelites looking down at the very people who made them, should it all just end here?

I suppose we should first get people thinking about caring for the "next generation", and hopefully space exploration will eventually take shape as well. Otherwise we can just continue killing each other to limit the population, hope that a super virus doesn't come about, and just procreate until the planet gets swallowed up by our mid-age Sun. I think the former sounds better.

Comment: Secure in Not Knowing (Score 1) 61

by ememisya (#48531875) Attached to: DOJ Launches New Cybercrime Unit, Claims Privacy Top Priority

Even if that lack of trust, as Caldwell claimed, is based largely on misinformation about the technical abilities of the law enforcement tools and the manners in which they are used.

I doubt it's a good idea to bank on the fact that being uneducated about a subject would lead to safety. There has never been a good way to balance this, hence the Bill of Rights.

Comment: A Reasonable Person (Score 2) 436

by ememisya (#48492131) Attached to: Supreme Court To Decide Whether Rap Lyric Threats Are Free Speech

The government says it does not matter what Elonis intended, and that the true test of a threat is whether his words make a reasonable person feel threatened.

A reasonable person. Like Snoop Dogg or Katie Couric? I have a feeling that Snoop will believe at least the guy was trying to rhyme, Katie would probably feel extremely threatened. I personally don't think this guy would even be in front of a judge if he kept his amazing rhyming skills to himself when drawing upon the memories of meeting an FBI agent. There is this thing called context one must ask for before assuming anything I think, but maybe not? This case is going to be setting an interesting precedent for online speech in general, lets just hope the judge listens to rap in his free time. An interesting question is, are we under oath when posting on Facebook? If I posted, "I killed that bitch, ripped her head off with her spine through her torso." A reasonable person might believe I've committed murder, unless they asked, "What do you mean?", at which time I would reply, "I was playing Mortal Kombat against Sheeva using Sub-Zero, got the Fatality just in time."

Comment: Re:quick question (Score 5, Insightful) 212

by ememisya (#48413109) Attached to: Launching 2015: a New Certificate Authority To Encrypt the Entire Web
I don't believe any "burried deep within your cables" type organization would require this sort of access. It's a lot easier to exploit some kind of a firmware vulnerability and download the private key to the CA, or simply VNC into the target user's machine to see the requested data before it was encrypted. This is to keep out private hackers, organized hackers, wealthy hackers etc. The government will always have access to your data, well since they tend to have tanks the persuation tends to be unmatchable. The turn of the tide for our century is to see if the governments who do have such access will show equal attention to everyone rather than be in favor of economics, lets be honest having access to all of someone's data immediately tends to reduce respect to that person, objectifying them. This is the culture which is really the root of all the privacy issues. I think ultimately we need to rebrand the NSA err I mean shut down the NSA. Because truly, nobody is watching your computer... O_O ... That's the point, when you KNOW someone is watching, it screws up the whole experience.

When something's strange, in your computer, who you gonna call? Momentarily the answer is, "Tough luck" We've been talking about a "government layer" within the network stack (jokingly at first) for decades. As it is however, the world has a major respect issue between authority and economically disadvantaged. It's really a very complex issue. But I'd say the only good way out is read-only access, which doesn't exist, by highly trained (and hopefully paid) employees who just don't exist.

If you're asking, isn't that the case today anyways? The answer is no, there are 0 checks and balances, apparently. In that, a family was raided (agents boxed in their cars), and interrogated because they Googled, "pressure cooker". Heads of such agencies lied to the Congress, in public, and nobody cared. There is this feeling that there are no consequences to invading people's privacy, whereas it should be jail time for the officials. You see? That's the issue with respect, the person who is watching isn't intimidated at all into peering over a person's private life.

Comment: Re:The New Magic (Score 1) 74

by ememisya (#48412951) Attached to: Machine Learning Used To Predict Military Suicides
I completely understand you. It's fairly normal to feel suicidal at least once in your life, it reiterates the fact of mortality and lets people sort out their priorities given a finite amount of time creates the concept of things being precious. The point I was trying to make was if people are in a fairly good mood, and all their friends start talking about suicide all of a sudden, it might sway their thoughts to a darker zone where none existed before. It's just how we tend to consume information and generate opinions based on it. I guess in short my point is assumption, is the mother of all fuck ups.

Comment: The Internet IS a utility. (Score 1) 258

by ememisya (#48398387) Attached to: Comcast Kisses-Up To Obama, Publicly Agrees On Net Neutrality

... it just doesn't want to go the utility route...

I'm sorry Comcast, but no. You can be like Atmos, that's about it. A good percentage of people don't have any other service such as phone or maybe even access to their homes without the Internet, we even check the time through the Internet. I sincerely hope POTUS doesn't succumb to this sly public Comcast facade.

Comment: Re:The New Magic (Score 1) 74

by ememisya (#48398353) Attached to: Machine Learning Used To Predict Military Suicides
Statistically (well let's call it machine learning analysis for the sake of the article) the military has always been impressed by electronics, and there seems to be this trend of amazement at Big Data, given the amount of signals being collected in any given military institution processed through iteratively data adjusted logic gates. I admit it's pretty cool, but it makes a fatal assumption, heuristic analysis is always correct. Take the case of someone who wasn't suicidal, fits the criteria of "he who must be suicidal", if everyone within the community of this person starts treating them like they're suicidal, well that might make them suicidal. I just hope all they do is send a pamphlet otherwise I feel for the non-married 27 year-olds in the military.

"Pull the wool over your own eyes!" -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs