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


Forgot your password?

Comment: how ironic (Score 0) 141

by WindBourne (#49606593) Attached to: Statues of Assange, Snowden and Manning Go Up In Berlin
I have no issue with Assange being on this. His goal was ALWAYS about getting knowledge out there. Now, he may be a rapists, but that is a different issue.
However, I take issues with both Manning and Snowden.
Manning's goal was NOT to release information because he opposed what was going on. His reason was because he was mad at the US because he was gay and was about to be booted out. With that said, the information that he release was about some of our illegal doings. As such, he should not be punished for this, but, he is no hero.

Snowden is a whole other creature from these two. He worked on a number of NSA systems. He was aware of what was going on. Cool. I worked on some of these, BUT, it was all low-level stuff, not the high levels that he had. I was aware that it was POSSIBLE to do the things that we have done. When he spoke about the spying on Americans, I was actually good with that. NSA had congressional oversight that was removed by the GOP back in 2005. I was against that because I knew that they did that so that their friends could go to work and do much more than what they were allowed to. That is why Congressman Udall kept hinting at what was going on.
BUT, when he told how NSA spies on the outside world, he became a traitor. America set up NSA to spy on what other nations, terrorists and foreign elements do. We need to know what is going on out there. It is the same thing that ALL NATIONS DO. Yes, EVERY NATION HAS THIS GOING ON. Now, NSA has greater capabilities because we have top ppl in there. In addition, we have worked with many nations to not only spy for us, but also to give them the information. Everyone that we work with, which includes all of the west, KNOWS what we are up to. In addition, we, and UK, have tought others how to do this counting on sharing of information. That is why AQ has not been successful in attacking the west for over 10 years. France happened because all of these nations hold back from spying everywhere, and once terrorists became aware of how we do things, then they could evaded the net. All they had to do was simply avoid certain comm channels that went between nations. By doing that, the evaded the net.
France's attack success can be blamed partially on Snowden. He made it possible for those terrorists to evade the net. In fact, a big reason why so many are going from Europe to ISIS is because ISIS now knows how to avoid detection and instead focuses their recruiting efforts throughout europe and other locations in which they are not going to be interrupted.
How many of you have kids? Do you have a 15-16 y.o. in which the girls want to go marry a terrorists and 'fight for freedom'? Of course, when those girls marry, they are not just property, but ISIS killed a number of them, and their infant kids, so that they were not a burden when they moved from one location to another.
Of course, your boy was not murdered. Just put on the front line with little to no training and told to take on western trained troops. IOW, they were cannon fodder.

Sorry, but this is not what I would want for my kids. And sadly, Snowden makes it possible.

Comment: Re:Minor inconvenience for United (Score 1) 123

by Obfuscant (#49598113) Attached to: Judge Tosses United Airlines Lawsuit Over 'Hidden City' Tickets

To assume it's not an evil plot would require the assumption that United had lawyers so inexperienced that they didn't know they were filing in the wrong venue.

They didn't know what the judge would rule until he made the ruling, or that there would be a ruling. You talk like it is a cut and dried issue, and it isn't. They filed in the jurisdiction where the alleged damages were taking place, and which is probably also the jurisdiction specified in the contract for carriage that the customers who were buying the tickets were subject to.

The claim that the defendants don't have significant presence in Illinois for purposes of legal action, in the context of an Internet-based service, is just ridiculous. The judge is applying brick-and-mortar rules to a global network.

Comment: Re:'Hidden city' explanation (Score 1) 123

by Obfuscant (#49597927) Attached to: Judge Tosses United Airlines Lawsuit Over 'Hidden City' Tickets

The one real issue I see (as mentioned in TFA) is that when you skip the second leg, they will wait at the gate until they're sure you're not coming.

They may not know you're "not coming" until they do a seat count and see that you aren't there. Then they have to figure out who is missing and maybe pull your luggage. That's a significant delay.

They can't really delay the flights very long over this,

If you've checked a bag, they have to delay. Otherwise they won't delay very long over this and that may keep them from putting someone else in that seat -- costing them revenue.

In short, the airlines lose nothing,

Wrong. At worst they have an empty seat they could have sold at full price weeks in advance. Usually they can fill the seat with a standby pax who pays less than full fare for standby. Both are losses. At best, they will have a full fare pax who was bumped from a previous flight, and that's when they lose the least.

Include in that loss estimate the lost revenue when a full-fare pax trying to reserve a seat cannot get one on that flight and has to go via another airline to meet his schedule.

While it's complicated to determine exactly what the loss is overall, there are times when they lose a full fare, and times when they lose only the time it takes to deal with filling the seat. On average, that's a loss.

Comment: Re:'Hidden city' explanation (Score 2) 123

by Obfuscant (#49597831) Attached to: Judge Tosses United Airlines Lawsuit Over 'Hidden City' Tickets

I thought it was a TSA regulation that it is not permitted for your luggage to travel on a different plane than you.

I believe that the rules say YOU cannot cause your baggage to go on a flight you aren't on. I.e., you can't check in and then not get on. That's to keep you from planting a bomb in your baggage and then not being on the plane. But if the airline puts your bag on another plane, you can't plan that.

Airlines do it all the time, too. Weight limits may make your luggage be held for the next flight, or it may not make a connection.

Thus, yes, they'd have to pull your luggage off the plane if you didn't get on.

When you're on a stopover with no equipment change, you got on the plane in New York and you might not get off in Chicago. They don't know who got off, the scanners don't keep track of that.

Comment: Re:Also, stop supporting sites with poor encryptio (Score 1) 314

by Obfuscant (#49595861) Attached to: Mozilla Begins To Move Towards HTTPS-Only Web

It would be better to have Firefox warn that the site had "outdated security" or something like that. The warnings could start out hardly noticeable and gradually become more conspicuous.

You mean like the unending stream of "security policy violation" messages that some sites trigger by, IIRC, mixing https and http content? The popups that come so fast that you can't get rid of one and stop loading the page before the next one comes up? And then you need to try to get through a dozen of them before doing anything else, except killing one causes two more to pop up?

That kind of "hardly noticeable"? Firefix has a history of not dealing with "security policy" warnings intelligently.

The idea is to get the message in front of as many Firefox using customers as possible before the businesses are aware of it.

That's the kind of action that causes websites to stop supporting browsers. If a specific browser prevents the user from accessing a website, then the business will ultimately react, but it can't do it by just waving a magic wand. Their support will be telling people that the browser is no longer supported -- because that's the truth.

At that point they can either fix their website or block Firefox.

They won't have to block firefox, firefox will be blocking itself.

But now if they block Firefox the reason will be widely known and the bank subject to public ridicule.

Haha haha. Most people won't understand why, and most people won't care. They'll use a browser that works, and since that browser can deal with it, it will be firefox that's broken.

Comment: this is musk only bad idea. (Score 1, Interesting) 503

by WindBourne (#49594041) Attached to: Tesla Announces Home Battery System
Seriously, the man is a genious, but batteries for homes is not that good, unless it is possible for utility to control them as well. At the very least, Tesla should make available server software that utility can interact with home batteries when owner allows. In seasonal weather with high demands and when solar can be blocked via clouds or length of day, it is best to allow utility to control when to charge them , or buy from them.

Comment: And what's the problem here? (Score 0) 120

levies high penalties against those offering "material support" to terrorists

Providing material support to terrorists should be illegal. That the concept can be abused by aggressive prosecutors is obviously a problem, but then any legal concept can be abused. I had a friend who is known as a kind and gentle soul, who was seen being attacked by a woman who rushed him and assaulted him and was prosecuted for assault and battery because he pushed her away from him. Pushed, not body slammed. So should we get rid of assault and battery or should we disbar the son of a bitch who brought charges which the facts on the ground collected at the time didn't support?

In case of injury notify your superior immediately. He'll kiss it and make it better.