Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:RoI (Score 1) 203

Right. Because there are no protections against price fixing ;)

The laws are written by the corporations. Please try again.

I assume you are venting upset over Obamacare,

Nope. I think Obamacare will fail, and I think we will never fix the problems with medicine in this country until we remove the corporate profit motive, but it's still better than just leaving everyone twisting in the wind.

Comment Re:How about (Score 0) 528

OK, so why are we hating on the guy (or girl) who distributed the picture to the Internet?

If someone is given something, they've presumably been given privilege to do with it as they please: masturbate to it, respond to it, share it with friends, share it with the world. Whatever, as long as they don't sell it. That's how these things work.

Don't like it, and don't trust the other person as much as you do a close friend or relative? Sign a contract - presumably goods of some sort are being exchanged, yes? Maybe it's nude pictures for esteem, perhaps.

Or, better yet, follow the following protocol: don't be a slut, or at least be a bit more selective. That goes for guys, too, though obviously there are more women sending nude selfies than guys. If you're going to trust someone, be damn sure they're trustworthy. (You have sex with a condom even when you trust someone enough to let them smear their genitals all over your own, so why not a little precaution with pictures?)

There's so much porn on the Internet at this point that I don't really get the fear. There are so many unnamed boobs on the Internet at this point (not including ACs) it hardly matters.

Comment Re:Ridiculous stunt (Score 0) 565

My last service call from my cable company indicates this isn't always true. I lost my paid cable signal (broadband) because a neighbor messed up some connections while attempting to get free cable.

Well, that guy deserves a [metaphorical] foot in his ass, but it isn't inherently like that.

Comment Re:lynx ruled! (Score 1) 92

I lived in a house with six pair to every bedroom back in the nineties, and a Linux server in a garage with a 28.8k CSLIP to scruznet. We installed serial terminals in two of the bedrooms to permit housemates without computers to use the network, over three wires, right next to the phone. At 9600 bps, it worked fine. This was before the widespread web, though.

Comment Re:Hope and change (Score 1) 330

Had they presented a down-to-earth, moderate candidate for the election, the Republicans would have won it by a landslide.

And that's why they didn't do that. If they had, they might have won. Instead they did everything they could to throw the election. Gotta follow the script.

Comment Re:Ridiculous stunt (Score 0, Troll) 565

But cable TV stole the free broadcast TV signal I once used.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Not only is it true, but who fucking cares? It costs the cable company nothing for you to get free cable. It's not theft, it's copyright infringement. I wouldn't pay for the wire to come into my house anyway.

Comment Re:No reason to distrust Rijndael (Score 1) 168

I highly doubt that Vincent Rijmen and Joan Daemen themselves were influenced by the NSA in any way in the design of Rijndael, unless you believe that they influenced all the AES entrants, including Ronald Rivest (RC6) and Bruce Schneier (Twofish). I think the only influence the NSA might have had was in perhaps influencing the NIST selection process that chose Rijndael as the Advanced Encryption Standard.

I doubt it too, but the facts combine to suggest that we should be suspicious anyway. NSA has compromised ciphers. NSA chose this cipher. Therefore, it is best to be suspicious of this cipher.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can be replaced by this computer.

Working...