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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


+ - Send a Facebook message to anyone, from anyone->

Submitted by jhigh
jhigh (657789) writes "It is possible to send a Facebook message to anyone, from anyone, armed with only user A's Facebook username and user B's email address. The possibilities for shenanigans are almost endless: send a message from an employee to their employer as revenge, from one spouse to another, embed malicious code and send it to your nemesis in a message that looks like it came from their mother. Facebook was notified and indicated that the application is intended to design this way..."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:What else are they going to do with the cash? (Score 3, Funny) 90

by jhigh (#40800493) Attached to: Apple Reportedly Considering Huge Investment In Twitter
I'm not certain what the OP meant, but I believe that Google acquiring Twitter would be a huge step forward for G+. The biggest problem that G+ has is that, while lots of people may have accounts, no one actually uses their account. If I could integrate Twitter and post to my G+, I would do so in a heartbeat. You would suddenly be taking a great deal of content from Twitter and cross-publishing it onto G+ where others could comment on it, share it, etc.

I think that it could make G+ a real player in social media.

Comment: Re:Translation: (Score 0) 920

by jhigh (#37893706) Attached to: The White House Responds To We the People Petition

Obama endorses the claim that God is important to nation

Actually, whether your'e a believer or not, or religious or not, the the concept of a God is CRITICAL to our nation. This nation exists based upon the belief that we have inalienable rights that are endowed by a Creator. This is a long-established legal principle in the United States which recognizes that in a free society there must be an authority greater than government, otherwise anything that government says is legal, automatically becomes just, as well. If our rights come from government, then everything that government says is right - is right, and there is never a just cause for rebellion.

Only when you recognize that there is an authority greater than than government telling government essentially, "you may say that X is legal, but it's still wrong" can society truly be free. The alternative is, "well, that's wrong because I say it's wrong" or "that's wrong because we say it's wrong" - neither of which is a prescription for a free society for what should be obvious reasons.

Note that this model has worked quite well since the founding of the nation, in spite of the fact (or because of the fact) that the U.S. government makes no determinations about any specific religion. 80% of the conductors of the underground railroad were Catholics and Quakers - theologically completely different, but both informed by their religious beliefs that even though government said slavery was legal, it was still wrong and had to be fought. Every major moral victory over government has been won at the behest of believers in a Creator, not a single, solitary one was ever led by atheists or agnostics.

Comment: Re:Ron Wyden is always involved in these things (Score 1) 133

by jhigh (#37803672) Attached to: Senator Introduces Bill To Stop Warrantless GPS Tracking

But, were they being run by his campaign or by a group supporting him? The reason I ask is that there's been tons of money in recent years for various swiftboating outfits to engage in that sort of behavior, they're beyond the control of the politicians campaign and can raise a lot of money independently.

If you believe that, you're a fool. Those groups are just as much a part of the campaign as the candidate. Sure, they jump through some hoops to avoid blatantly violating campaign finance laws forbidding coordination (at least at the federal level), but it is a well-known tactic to use third parties to say things that it would be unseemly for the candidate to say.

"We really need to get it out there that %opponent% beats his wife, but we obviously can't run an ad saying that."

"Well, I could always call %rich_friend% and have him start a PAC. We can't coordinate once it's formed, but he'll do the job and throw the bombs that need thrown."

Welcome to McCain/Feingold - the law that achieves the opposite of its intended purpose.

Documentation is the castor oil of programming. Managers know it must be good because the programmers hate it so much.