Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Polls on the front page of Slashdot? Is the world coming to an end?! Nope; read more about it. ×

Comment: Re:Bullshit laws (Re:Stucturing) (Score 1) 368

by mi (#49834333) Attached to: Why Is It a Crime For Dennis Hastert To Evade Government Scrutiny?

In this particular case, I was simply being pedantic. This is slashdot after all.

If that were all there was to it, a Constitutional scholar like yourself would not have missed an opportunity to correct the earlier poster, who claimed, that Hastert was "2nd in line to the presidency"...

Obviously, Speaker of the House is the 3rd in line — vice-President is the 2nd. And this difference — though still irrelevant to the point made — is much more "material" than the exact numbering of the Amendments.

Comment: Re:Hybrid electrical system (Score 1) 414

There aren't many appliances sold today, that would accept the DC input directly. Ripping the converting power-supply out from each one to wire it directly into your DC-circuit will void warranties and ultimately cost a lot more than the "20% losses".

I do find the ability to charge USB-devices without the annoying "black bricks", but that's easily achieved by simply replacing the power outlets with something like this (I have four such in my house already).

If he simply runs CAT6 (or better) Ethernet cables to every room, he can later use some of them as simple DC-electricity conductors...

Comment: Bullshit laws (Re:Stucturing) (Score 5, Insightful) 368

by mi (#49832063) Attached to: Why Is It a Crime For Dennis Hastert To Evade Government Scrutiny?

However that doesn't make the laws bullshit. If you have a better way to catch criminals engaged in money laundering

The primary objection to these laws — and the reason they are considered "bullshit" — is that they allow confiscation of funds without having to prove anything. The government does not even need to file a suit!

None of the victims are "criminals" — because nobody is a criminal until found guilty in a court of law — and your above-quoted excuse for the law is thus automatically invalid.

Worse, the practice — and the bullshit laws "authorizing" it — are in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment, which purports to protect us against this exact practice (emphasis mine): "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated".

Comment: He is not "you and me"... (Score 3, Interesting) 368

by mi (#49831765) Attached to: Why Is It a Crime For Dennis Hastert To Evade Government Scrutiny?

First of all, I do agree, that neither bank-withdrawals (in whatever "pattern"), nor lying to anyone (unless under oath) should be a crime. Absolutely not.

But, as long as it is a crime, people like Dennis Hastert — who had the power to do something about these laws, but did not, absolutely must be prosecuted under them. To the fullest extent and without mercy. (I argued the same thing about Spitzer — whose case was even worse, for he not only kept the laws he broke on the books, he strengthened them.)

He is not a regular citizen — employee, student, businessman. He had the power — and more of it, than even an "average" Congressman.

All that said about him, I find it disturbing, that the ruling party would prosecute the opposition's politicians. It does not look good. At all... They should be focusing on their own — like the aforementioned Mr. Spitzer, whose sole "punishment" for breaking federal laws, was resignation...

Comment: Re:US' domestic propaganda ban was lifted in 2013 (Score 1) 259

by mi (#49829579) Attached to: Professional Russian Trolling Exposed

Facebook and Twitter by troops using military computers

That seems to be for the troops' recreation and communications, not propaganda.

Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities [...] http://www.guardian.co.uk/tech...

That's the same article, that the AC above linked to, while making an allegation I rebutted. Your description of it is misleading — at the time it was written, the software did not exist. Only the contract to develop it is actually asserted as existing. Moreover, that is the article, from which I quoted the following: "none of the interventions would be in English, as it would be unlawful to "address US audiences" with such technology". You are citing that same link again to "prove", that "US audiences" were targeted after — and even before — the law banning the practice was abolished? Wow...

phony fan club websites, were set up to disparage USA TODAY reporters [...] Camille Chidiac, admitted to setting up some of the sites

So, it was not done by a government program, but by one guy — seemingly at the behest of one private tax-evading company. And he got punished for it...

Slim pickings — your earlier bold claim, that "the domestic propaganda has been going on since before 2013" is not supported... At all.

+ - PayPal will robo-text/call you with no opt-out starting July 1->

Submitted by OutOnARock
OutOnARock writes: When eBay cuts PayPal loose this summer, users of the new digital money giant will find they've agreed to new terms of service that take effect July 1. Those terms include PayPal giving itself the right to robocall or robo-text members at any phone number the firm can find, for just about any reason — from debt collecting to advertisements to opinion polling.

The fine print also says PayPal can pass along the same rights to its affiliates. Here's the language, in black and white, from the company's website:

You consent to receive autodialed or prerecorded calls and text messages from PayPal at any telephone number that you have provided us or that we have otherwise obtained . . . . (PayPal) may share your phone numbers with our Affiliates or with our service providers, such as billing or collections companies, who we have contracted with to assist us in pursuing our rights.

If I can only use PayPal on eBay, it'll probably mean an end of eBay for me, what about you?

Link to Original Source

+ - Tim Cook: "Weakening encryption or taking it away harms good people"->

Submitted by Patrick O'Neill
Patrick O'Neill writes: Over the last year, Apple CEO Tim Cook has repeatedly made headlines as a spearpoint in the new crypto wars. As FBI director James Comey pushes for legally mandated backdoors on encryption, Cook has added default strong encryption to Apple devices and vocally resisted Comey's campaign. Echoing warnings from technical experts across the world, Cook said that adding encryption backdoors for law enforcement would weaken the security of all devices and "is incredibly dangerous," he said last night at the Electronic Privacy Information Center awards dinner. "So let me be crystal clear: Weakening encryption or taking it away harms good people who are using it for the right reason."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes (Score 1) 265

by mi (#49826939) Attached to: Microsoft To Support SSH In Windows and Contribute To OpenSSH

In which case people would just use putty or cygwin or openssh instead

Or they'll expect remote servers to implement whatever changes Microsoft will require for interoperatibility. We've been through this in the 1990-ies, when Microsoft's Internet Explorer was introduced with subtle incompatibilities in HTML-rendering...

Firstly I can see why you had to write "attempts", because it seems none of those actually killed anything

Well, a successful attempt is still an attempt: Netscape died. Kerberos survived because the world wised up by then — this very site had helped by hosting an anonymous coward's post documenting Microsoft's "extensions" to Kerberos so developers world-wide could implement them without signing an NDA of their own.

if they create an incompatibility here it is going to completely break their system making it such that Linux, BSD, iOS, Android, etc... can no longer connect to it.

Or not — depending on the nature of incompatibilities and the marketing/advertising... For example, the regular connections will work, but compressed ones will not (either at all, or requiring client to support some new compression algorithm). Or port-forwarding will be disabled (or not working at all). Or WINCH will not be sent to the remote servers, when the local window is resized — or, in the other direction, arriving WINCH will be ignored or misinterpreted. The possibilities for both honest errors and deliberate breakage are immense...

Comment: Re:US' domestic propaganda ban was lifted in 2013 (Score 2) 259

by mi (#49826777) Attached to: Professional Russian Trolling Exposed

But let's not kid ourselves: the domestic propaganda has been going on since before 2013.

Citations? Given how enthusiastically US media supports the party currently in power, I doubt, you'll find any.

Not until there is another regime-change and dissent becomes patriotic (rather than racist) again.

Comment: Re:Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes (Score 1) 265

by mi (#49826761) Attached to: Microsoft To Support SSH In Windows and Contribute To OpenSSH

PuTTy is already an incompatible mess all of it's own. It even has it's own special format for keys

The second sentence implies some other incompatibilities, in addition to special format for keys. I'm not aware of anything else — could you list examples?

Well fuck me, time to look up the command to convert that stupid shit again

PuTTY's entire source-code is , whereas Microsoft's own implementation of Kerberos was binary-only and developers had to sign an NDA to learn, how to interoperate with it. I linked to that above — the story was all the rage right here on /. 15 years ago...

I have no idea why no one bothered porting OpenSSH to Windows before

Probably, because, PuTTY provided a perfectly satisfactory solution...

Comment: Re:Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes (Score 4, Insightful) 265

by mi (#49826629) Attached to: Microsoft To Support SSH In Windows and Contribute To OpenSSH

What exactly are you scared about?

That, for example, in order to ssh into a remote Windows system you'll have to use Microsoft's ssh-client — because they'll use some funky cipher/digest combination or some other "extension". They did it to Kerberos before...

Or that interactive logins will only work on certain terminal emulators — because nothing else will be able to properly emulate powershell's window — just imagine the termcaps entry...

In the link I gave there is a large list of Microsoft's earlier attempts to kill a standard by first adopting it — read it up...

Comment: Re:Blame America first (Score 1) 259

by mi (#49826475) Attached to: Professional Russian Trolling Exposed

For a job as an Internet Troll that would probably be counted as a benefit.

Huh? You must be thinking of sincere volunteer trolls trolling for fun. That's not, whom we are discussing here. These folks are hired to spread the "party line". And to a recipient any message seems more convincing, when expressed well and by someone, perceived to be a person of quality.

The article I read (itself in Russian) mentioned a older man hired by the "troll-factory" to help improve the language and grammar of rank-and-file workers — and how depressingly difficult he found his job to be.

+ - Why Is It a Crime for Dennis Hastert to Evade Government Scrutiny?

Submitted by HughPickens.com
HughPickens.com writes: Dennis Hastert is about the least sympathetic figure one can imagine. The former House Speaker got filthy rich as a lobbyist trading on contacts he gained in office, his leadership coincided with Congress's abject failure to exercise oversight or protect civil liberties after the September 11 terrorist attacks, and now Hastert stands accused of improper sexual contact with a boy he knew years ago while teaching high school and trying to hide that sordid history by paying the young man to keep quiet. If federal prosecutors could meet the legal thresholds for charging and convicting Hastert of a sex crime, they would be fully justified in aggressively pursuing the matter.

Yet, as Conor Friedersdorf writes in The Atlantic, the Hastert indictment doesn’t charge him for, or even accuse him of, sexual misconduct. Rather, as Glenn Greenwald notes, “Hastert was indicted for two alleged felonies: 1) withdrawing cash from his bank accounts in amounts and patterns designed to hide the payments; and 2) lying to the FBI about the purpose of those withdrawals once they detected them and then inquired with him.” It isn’t illegal to withdraw money from the bank, nor to compensate someone in recognition of past harms, nor to be the victim of a blackmail scheme. So why should it be a crime to hide those actions from the U.S. government? The current charges could be motivated by a desire to prosecute Hastert for sex crimes. But that dodges the issue. “In order to punish him for that crime, the government should charge him with it, then prosecute him with due process and convict him in front of a jury of his peers,” says Greenwald. “What over-criminalization does is allow the government to turn anyone it wants into a felon, and thus punish them without having to overcome those vital burdens. Regardless of one’s views of Hastert or his alleged misconduct here, it should take little effort to see why nobody should want that.”

Neutrinos are into physicists.