Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


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).


Comment: Re:There is no such thing... (Score 1) 54

by ScentCone (#49195203) Attached to: How Activists Tried To Destroy GPS With Axes

If the two of us ever get into a fight to the death, I'll gladly be the loser walking away.


And Mr. "There is no winnable war" needs to re-examine even some recent history. Does he really think that reborn, modern economies like Germany's represent the outcome of a war not won by those who reacted to that country's earlier aggression? Does he really think that the communists now running Vietnam didn't win their conflict? Does he really think that the rebels in the American colonies didn't win their war with the British crown?

Gaseous platitudes about such things made in an attempt to wish away groups like ISIS (if we just say that wars can't be won, they'll stop lopping off people's heads, right?) are ridiculous. War is horrible, but they can and have been won. Ask the Imperial Japanese Navy.

Comment: Re:No lyrics. (Score 1) 129

by DoofusOfDeath (#49195201) Attached to: Musician Releases Album of Music To Code By

Step 1: remove lyrics.

Beyond that, it'd be pretty easy.

Not for me. There are some purely instrumental pieces that captivate me every time. Especially Rimsky-Korsakov's Russian Easter Festival Orchestra.

(Note: Even if you're not a huge fan of classical music, I suggest giving that piece a full listen through just once. It may blow your mind.)

Comment: Re:God Republicans are Stupid (Score 2) 123

by ScentCone (#49193915) Attached to: The Mexican Drug Cartels' Involuntary IT Guy

Since she handed over a large number of emails, there's no reason to conclude she didn't hand over all the ones she was required to hand over.

No. The fact that she set up a home-brew system to avoid the State Department's record keeping in the first place, and the fact she's been stonewalling requests for official mail for years, and is her own gatekeeper on the message she decides State should be allowed to see - combine that with her long history of obfuscation, ethics problems, and working with her husband's supporters to engage in seriously sleazy tactics - the burden is very much on you to explain why you think her private stash has been delivered in whole and intact to State when everything in her history and everything about this entire scenario screams the exact opposite.

In fact, to plow through her "official" mail (you know, the stuff she couldn't be troubled to mirror in her department's archiving system the way that the 2009 regulation required her to do), she used employees of her family's business - and that operation is funded in large part by big contributions from foreign governments and other entities from which she solicited money while she was wandering the world as Secretary of State.

We know Kerry is doing things differently, due to a change in the law.

Both Kerry and Clinton were subject to 2009's regulation. But you already know that.

It is hilarious, though, to play back her nagging lectures about other people using private email at all, and to know that, for example, an ambassador from her department was given the axe for using private email.

The fact that you seem to anxious to write off her behavior as completely reasonable says nothing about her, but a whole lot about your very strange world view.

Comment: Important information for TV consumers (Score 2) 134

by DoofusOfDeath (#49189473) Attached to: A Critical Look At CSI: Cyber

I suspect that If the producers maximize profit by some combination of good writing/acting, product placements, syndication / iTunes / Google Play / etc. fees, it's a win.

I don't see technical accuracy as an explicit factor anywhere in that formula. Heck, I loved The Office, and I'm just guessing they weren't realistically depicting life at a paper company.

This reminds me of vehicles traveling at the speed of plot.

Comment: Re:Same guy? (Score 1) 123

by ScentCone (#49189391) Attached to: The Mexican Drug Cartels' Involuntary IT Guy

A significant portion of people looked at her address and understood exactly what she was doing form the start.

Just not her boss, the guy who promised the "most transparent administration in history?" He's what ... just too obtuse? Or perhaps just too disingenuous? No doubt a lot of people DID infer that her obvious motive for running her shadow State Department comms system was her interest in doing things like peddling her influence in exchange for huge donations to her family business from foreign governments, and were quite pleased to have those sorts of interactions off the record.

But that doesn't mean that her routine back and forth with other US government email correspondents was making those other people think she was deliberately avoiding passing copies along to the State systems as the 2009 regulation required. I suppose people who know her personally know how evasive and dishonest she can be, and they just saw Hillary being Hillary, but with the blessings of Obama.

Comment: Re:FDE on Android doesn't work as of yet (Score 1) 119

by DigiShaman (#49188687) Attached to: Google Backs Off Default Encryption on New Android Lollilop Devices

FileVault2. As for lost data, yes, I've had a ribbon SATA go bad in the laptop; notorious issue as a result in material defect / breakdown in MacBook Pro's. Anyways, that's why I keep two external USB drives with current Time Machine backups around; both encrypted too. In fact, I've done a full MBR restore from one of the drives without trouble.

With confidence I can truly say that both my MacBook Pro and external drives are fully encrypted and a system recovery has been performed successfully. Should either my laptop or a drive get lost or stolen, I won't break a sweat and worry about the data falling into the wrong hands. I would be pissed about being $1500+ out of pocket in lost hardware however.

Comment: Re:Same guy? (Score 1) 123

by ScentCone (#49187335) Attached to: The Mexican Drug Cartels' Involuntary IT Guy

The legal issue is the fact that she was using a personal email to evade record keeping requirements. That much would be obvious to someone by the fact she was using a personal email address.

But what couldn't be obvious to everyone else was that despite perhaps being in an e-mail swap with her and assuming whatever they might about that, she didn't even have (and thus use, even for forwarding/mirroring) an official government mailbox to use as the legally required dumping ground. A reasonable person might assume that she was keeping up with the 2009 regulation to store her correspondence on a government system by more indirect means - but she was carefully avoiding compliance with that reg.

Comment: Re:Same guy? (Score 1) 123

by ScentCone (#49185565) Attached to: The Mexican Drug Cartels' Involuntary IT Guy

known only to the select few of anyone with whom she exchanged email.

You really think that everyone swapping email with her knew that their communications were being stored on a poorly configured server kept in her house? So far, the general level of panic being displayed by her many party confidants and lots of people in the business suggests that yes, indeed, the completely absurd circumstances were indeed a secret.

Comment: Re:God Republicans are Stupid (Score 1) 123

by ScentCone (#49185553) Attached to: The Mexican Drug Cartels' Involuntary IT Guy

Apparently she did turn over the relevant emails

No, she eventually turned over only those emails that she and her personal advisors decided to hand over. Because she chose to conduct her official government business off a badly secured server in her own house and without any IT governance from her agency, we actually have no idea whatsoever what she's decided to leave out. If she'd been actually using the system that her own underlings told her she should use in order to secure and archive her communications, FOIA requests could tell us the story. But instead, we have to trust a person who - the day she was sworn in - immediately set up a system to keep her official communication off the record.

The fact that she did something that would be illegal if she did it now is irrelevant.

It was illegal before, too. It's just illegal on more than one front, now.

And of course we have congressional subpoenas looking for exactly this sort of communication now because they're now aware it exists, despite earlier investigations concluding that there was no email like this at all, and she and her staff - who knew exactly what they were looking for - didn't say a peep about the existence of tens of thousands of them.

How many QA engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? 3: 1 to screw it in and 2 to say "I told you so" when it doesn't work.