Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Defeats the purpose of snooping (Score 1) 223

"They found, perhaps surprisingly, that over 90% of users are fine with somebody snooping their encrypted traffic, so long as they were informed of the snooping."

Of course they are; they will just watch what they say. The point of spying on someone is to catch them saying something they are not supposed to say. I am not saying I agree with snooping, just that telling someone "hey, we are watching your data" basically makes the activity pointless.

Comment Re:Okay, but... (Score 1) 144

If by highly trained you mean a 2 month boot camp that mainly consists of jogging around and carrying a fake rubber gun, yea highly trained. (I worked at the facility where all the air martials got trained).

Well according to several articles I have seen like this one, they are considered the best shots of any federal agency. So if what you say is true, then everyone else must be complete crap.

Comment Re:Uh.. bandwidth? (Score 1) 380

People seem to keep defaulting to Comcast or providing an example of where servers are allowed at home. My original post was a general statement because some ISPs allow them where many others don't. I have run servers many times from home for different purposes on different providers, but I have never had enough traffic to cause an issue (like test web servers and friends-only game servers). If I expected to use enough bandwidth to be noticed, I would either find a shell host or consider a business package. Even if my ISP allowed home servers, I certainly wouldn't want to run a crappy server by hosting it on a basic home package.

Comment Re:No. (Score 3, Informative) 338

That link is about folks who actually did those things and want to bury things that they think a future employer may find objectionable.

In this case, someone is making shit up and defaming someone.

The person asking this needs to have his wife sue. Do not pass go. Go directly to lawyer.

Actually, the example in the article is about a girl that had a common name that was returning search results that were not about her.

"From the article: "Samantha Grossman wasn't always thrilled with the impression that emerged when people Googled her name. 'It wasn't anything too horrible,' she said. 'I just have a common name. There would be pictures, college partying pictures, that weren't of me, things I wouldn't want associated with me.'"

Comment Mixed Story (Score 1) 233

It's too bad this story is split. It is obvious the exploit/ban topic is stirring up much more conversation than the headline topic about the suspension in sales. When I read the story I was really more interested in seeing discussion about the sales decision.

Comment Re:Not so many lulz now (Score 1) 211

How do you know it is "easy to say" for me, or that I have not experienced being threatened with prison time? While, admittedly, your comments are valid and I can understand how innocent people can be found (wrongly) guilty, that doesn't change the fact that I would fight the charges.