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


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:I'm not sure this is the right response (Score 1) 77

Ashley Madison was not intentionally deceiving people to make money? The Police were all over them ensuring prosecution for fraud? Regulators were investigating? AM had no notice to come clean long before the breach? None of those are true and you know it.

So what you are saying is those guys can lie for some reason. Is it because they have lots of money? You happen to have morality that sympathizes with cheaters? Sorry, I don't see them as any better than the people selling "grow 3 inches" medicine. Lies are lies, and deceit is deceit. _YOU_ can attempt to rationalize it all you like, but I won't agree.

Comment Re:I'm not sure this is the right response (Score 1) 77

You do a good job covering the "Two wrongs don't make a right" argument, but that does not excuse AM from it's wrong doing. Look at this from a slightly different perspective.

AM doing shitty things resulted in vigilantism because these people are operating illegally (AFAIK at least) and nobody was doing any investigating or prosecution. I'm sure that Canada has laws to protect consumers from deceptive advertising tactics and fraud. If not, the US could request that Canada extradite the people responsible and provide full criminal prosecution. That latter part gets completely overlooked because people are too busy looking for the vigilante to see why someone thought it necessary.

While I surely don't put these hackers on any high moral ground I see them "not so" different from Snowden, Manning, Schwartz, etc... Their cause may not match your morality, but yours may not match theirs either.

Comment Does not match TFA (Score 1) 44

I agree with you, but it misses the crud (my opinion) which is TFA. TFA claims that we are all responsible for being good citizens and policing the internet because IoT and such. Which is crud because it lacks a sense of reality. Bad guys do exist, and people do bad things, regardless of how the rest of society is living.

If what TFA said was true, simply agreeing to give banks the ability to build vaults would have stopped all robberies. Countries that have outlawed guns for citizens would be completely free of gun crimes. And those are two really simple examples, human nature extends well beyond this.

The answer is for anything on the Internet to be protected, and if it can't be protected it should not be on the Internet.

Comment Re:Doesn't mean people won't use them (Score 1) 390

How many of these people responding with "I have never used this service" are actually saying "I don't have this available in my car"?

From personal anecdote, probably very few. The people wanting the high tech and self driving cars are the same people walking around with their faces mashed into a cell phone screen. Those people surely exist, but are not a large segment of society. A vocal minority is still a minority.

Comment Re:Agree with content, not the name (Score 1) 233

I have no idea why you would want to call "classical education" something other than the name it has held for centuries. I also have no idea why you would call the Industrial system something other than it's name for nearly a century (it was the Prussian system prior). I perceive it as pompous, and believe it only muddies the waters for a rational discussion.

The last part I agree with, and will simply say this is a historical normal. Knowledge is power, and just like other forms of power certain people attempt to hoard and prevent access to others.

Comment Prayer back at you! (Score 1) 233

Dear Jesus, I hope you don't teach your kid that the only thing they ever need to know is right and wrong. If you do, that's a damn shame and failure. I had taught my kid what an appeal to emotion was before he was 6, but that does not mean he ran into every instance where someone would use that appeal to sway his opinion. He knew what an appeal to authority was not long after that, but even those simple fallacies are not all that's required for critical thinking.

Amazingly, there is very little "true/false" or "right/wrong" in the world. Almost everything is an educated opinion, and sometimes that opinion runs counter to what you would think for numerous reasons.

In simple terms Critical thinking is a mixture of "a great bullshit detector", "universal dissection kit", "crystal ball", and "education". Critical thinking is not one of those, it's all of them working in harmony (or as well as possible together).

Comment Yup (Score 1) 233

I like your choice of wording there, because obsession is a good description. Simply saying "I disagree with that" is now a micro-aggression with racist and/or misogynistic intent.

That said, I don't believe that "science-as-religion" is new. We seem to run through cycles of this in history. Balance always shifts back and forth.

Comment Agree with content, not the name (Score 5, Interesting) 233

Too many people will simply be turned off by the name. I fully agree that we are ignorant, but most people refuse to admit their own. We don't teach people to check facts or even show them how. We teach them to "Google" which returns the popular answer and that may not be correct (and probably is not).

I could spend hours discussing "Classical" versus Industrial education. I could spend days explaining why teaching a rounded education is necessary and teaching only specialties runs counter to education. Liberal Arts (PHI) is essential, but most kids get a couple semesters of history instead.. and we wonder why people can't think critically, defend their own position, and perceive that disagreements with their opinions are personal attacks.

Yeah, I got a college age kid so I see what's been happening.

Comment Re:Very sad - but let's get legislation in place N (Score 0) 705

Some corporations are trying today, but this comes after decades of cost cutting at the expense of the customer. People quickly forgot about the Melissa virus and how it killed companies.

Executives tend to make the decisions which make them and their companies the most amount of profit and maintain customer content. That last part does not imply that the company really gives a shit about the customers data, but may worry about continued revenue from a particular customer.

Without the Guardian, Intercept, and other uncontrolled media sources you might not have heard about the AM breach.

Comment Re: In Theory - Thor (Score 0) 87

You missed at least a couple. Fox Technologies has a product called Boks for this, Oracle LDAP (formerly SunOne) is very good and has all of the API capabilities of any LDAP solution. If you wanted a different *NIX auth back end you could run P-GINA on your WIndows hosts and hae them auth elsewhere.

The reason these solutions are "meh" is nromally related to the huge disparitity in HR solutions and their implementations. Pluggine in to inventory systems creates more unique challenges.

Comment Re:Very sad - but let's get legislation in place N (Score 1) 705

You suck at analogy too! I'll give one more. Past here you are either not trying intentionally or a complete flipping moron who is beyond help.

If a bank manager is negligent and it results in you losing your money should the bank manager be held accountable? YES! If his negligence made him rich should he be forced to give back all of the money he made using ill gotten means? YES!

This is not rocket science, though one may begin to think so. There is a huge difference between the scenario above and what you said. You figure it out and tell people the difference.

Comment One more thing! (Score 4, Funny) 102

Nothing like abusing a commonly used phrase for gain instead of using innovation and good will.

Oh, One more thing.

This generally results in the failure of a company, people have great disdain for abuse.

One more thing.

Politicians usually lose offices after this too, so hopefully the cronies were already retiring.

One more thing!

Nah, too easy...

Comment Re:Very sad - but let's get legislation in place N (Score 3, Insightful) 705

You are talking about two different coins, not even two sides of the same coin. I believe that if you leave 100.00 on your door step you should not expect it to be there when you get home. The person who took it is not right for doing so, but you are not right for leaving 100.00 on your door step where people would be tempted to take it and in other circumstances would not have done so.

What GP said is that if you leave your doors unlocked and get robbed, people would claim that _you_ should go to jail. Which is not a valid argument since AM is not holding their own stuff, they are holding EVERYONE ELSE'S STUFF!

Oh, so there you are!