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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Amazon knows me better than myself . . . ? (Score 1) 209

The more you know about someone the easier it becomes to ruin them. Imagine a world where any sufficiently motivated extortionist could have their pick of targets. Eventually those extortionists would infiltrate whatever system was overseeing the information aggregation

It gets worse: An infiltration wouldn't even be needed--a successful extortionist could simply use his profits from the previous extortion attempt to BUY access to the data since these databases would undeniably be "commercialized" by some scum-bag looking to make a quick buck.

Comment Re:Amazon knows me better than myself . . . ? (Score 1) 209

In the hands of some ideally benevolent government, all data may be benign. In the hands of a despotic one, it can be used to detect and eliminate any and all opposition - a witch hunt to end all witch hunts.

And when you factor in the "transnational" status of our world's largest corporations (i.e. they aren't "American," "British," or "French" companies anymore but "multinationals") the number of governments that you could be targeted by is essentially unlimited, since corporations have no conscience (by definition they don't: They aren't living things) they'll sell the product to anybody they can legally sell to that has money to spend.

Had a conversation about this recently and was pretty shocked at the apathy. Granted, I was talking to a Facebook addict at the time, but its shocking how little people think about what permanent records exist of their private lives.

Comment Re:It's even worse (Score 4, Informative) 826

I'm paying 10% more (roughly) in income taxes now than i was three years ago, with no rise in income. President's fault!

There are a lot of Obama-hating Bullshit Artists on here today: Obama didn't raise taxes, so what did you change? Did you pay off a large mortgage that gave you a large tax deduction? Did you stop donating to charity? The rates are (literally) IDENTICAL to what they were when he took office, so you're either lying or omitting a crucial detail.

Comment Re:Oh, the delicious irony! (Score 1) 923

Does anybody really expect Sweden to say "yeah, fuck all our treaties with America, we'll protect a guy we think raped a couple of our citizens." Really?

First, he's not charged with rape, nor even CHARGED with anything... They're asking for a conversation about "continuing sex after a condom broke." In any other scenario (i.e. the U.S. wasn't out to get this guy) he would have been interviewed via phone and have had ticket mailed to him.

Second, I've never had a condom break in my entire life, let alone had two breaks with TWO CONSECUTIVE WOMEN. It is almost as if they were honeypots to trap Assange... Then we find out one of them has ties to the CIA, and both sent messages bragging about their exploits in star-fucking to all their friends... How is this rape? It isn't, and indeed, "not stopping when a condom breaks" isn't a crime in any other country on earth that I can name.

America's cock is so far down Britain's throat they're willing to damage any relationship, violate any state's sovereignty just to appease them.

Comment Re:Why the double standard? (Score 1) 377

On the other hand, those accidental sells significantly affected the price of certain stocks. If you are an average investor holding onto one of those stocks, wouldn't you rather the trades were canceled so you didn't take a bath due to someone else's error?

I think you might fundamentally not understand the value of stock shares. If the share were under-priced by a "mistake" trade the market would pretty quickly figure that out and value-seekers would flood into the issue and bring the price back to where it needs to be.

However, this is not an endorsement of high-speed trading via algorithm... That's just market-rigging with a fancy name. This is just a reminder that the "market" part of "stock market" still plays a role, even if GS et al are gaming the shit out of the system.

Comment Re:Survey? (Score 4, Interesting) 349

Having really dumb terminals does simplify end support though. Computer not working? Pull it out, put in a new one. Send the old one back to the manufacturer. It means one IT worker can support many more computers, and needs less training thus lower pay.

Only if you've divided up your roles... But so many companies have people "wearing many hats" that, in practice, it will be the same person doing the virtualization AND the "desktop" support of the virtual-desktops... Which means he'll need far MORE training than current helpdesk people. In fact, what it really does is makes IT hiring that much harder for most organizations because now you can't just hire somebody who knows Windows desktops for the helpdesk/workstation VM admin role--you would need to hire somebody who knows VDI or Xen Desktop (or something else.)

Comment Re:Penny wide; Dollar foolish. (Score 1) 277

Yeah, I just slipped right out of the kid's school locker and manged to hop a bus to Oakland. That Siri is far more adept than I ever expected.

That Siri is a wild bitch... One weekend a few years back, she and I rented a convertible, drove out to Vegas, and took mushrooms with 8 strippers. Yadda yadda yadda, three days later Siri has maxed all her (and my) credit cards, done all 8 strippers (and me) and passed out naked on a craps table. I might hang with her again, but I'm not bringing my credit cards... I just now got out of debt.

The worst part is I she talks like that during sex, too. The bonging gets a little old...

Comment Re:Unfair (Score 5, Insightful) 278

What sort of response would you have the police make?

You do realize it is possible to have an investigation and not file criminal charges, right? That there is no requirement to file criminal charges just because there has been an investigation, correct? That prosecutors aren't just "allowed" but are "expected" to not file charges in unwinnable cases because the defendant in question is somebody who has ridiculed them publicly for years. Don't you?

That prosecutors and cops pressing an un-winnable case to the hilt, and just happen to be doing so against somebody who has been criticizing them publicly for years is a pretty large coincidence. But you're right, I'm sure his years-long criticism of Canadian anti-terrorism "security" theater had nothing to do with the reason he was used (correctly) to "send a message" to anybody else that might say the "wrong" things and "reveal our weaknesses" to "terrorists."

You're right, nothing to see here: Big Brother always knows whats best, and ours is not to reason why.

Comment Re:Unfair (Score 5, Insightful) 278

Mr. Sonne went out of his way to purchase specific chemicals that are integral components in bomb-making.

So what? Not illegal to purchase those components if you aren't making a bomb. In fact, it isn't even illegal to buy those things even if you're "thinking about" making a bomb. Possessing these things isn't a crime unless he actually builds a bomb. He didn't build a bomb, never had any intention of building a bomb, and the cops KNEW full-well he had no intention of building a bomb.

So why the charges, if not to silence a critic?

He went out of his way to express his intentions to "test security" at the G-20 summit.

Not illegal. Ever heard of "Freedom of Speech?"

Security took notice of those activities (which he apparently assumed they wouldn't), and they responded as if he posed a threat to bomb the G-20 summit (which was exactly what he tried to make it look like he was thinking of doing).

More like they saw that a guy who'd been criticizing them publicly for ineffective security regimens and saw an opportunity to tarnish his reputation and chill his speech in the future by branding him a terrrorist. Even though he's been acquitted, the damage is done: In the narrow-minds of many this man is now a "terrorist" and damaged goods as a security analyst. ...All because he criticized the wrong person.

And really, how anybody can claim it is anything else than that is beyond me: Almost every advanced nation factors a defendants INTENT to commit a crime into the equation of whether they're guilty or not. In no scenario can anybody claim this guy had intent to blow anything up: He's said he never intended to, and no investigator when pressed has EVER presented evidence he intended to build a bomb. This is a "wink-and-nod" between the cops involved to strike-back at somebody who is critical of their security-theater gravy-train--nothing more.

Comment Re:Of course. (Score 5, Interesting) 1174

But the obvious solution in this case is to have the child go through the scanners again. Why the pat down? Either the scanners are good enough to detect anything that could have been passed from an unscreened passenger to a screened passenger, or they're not. Unless they are implicitly acknowledging that latter...

Except the security isn't the real deal... it's the Pavlovian response of "Yes, I will comply" they're looking for. They must escalate any situation where it appears a traveller--any traveller, even a frightened child--isn't in total subservience and compliance to the rules. Seperating the child is about inducing terror, and specifically conditioning that child to ALWAYS conform to authority. It isn't a coincidence that there are so many incidents with young kids that the TSA is involved in--the youngest generation is being conditioned to expect invasions of their private bodies rather than resist them, as our generation does. They want to turn these invasive "screenings" into part of the background noise of American life so they can ease similar invasive "screenings" into other parts of our lives. Why?

TSA finds far more cash and drugs than they do guns and bombs--and that's what they're really looking for. Cash they can seize (the booty funds "overhead," leaving more money from taxpayers to spend on boondoggle body scanner devices) is the name of the game. Some police agencies get vast swath of their funding from such seizure activities.

Comment Share the template and any custom code (Score 1) 151

Under an open-source license and be sure to include disclaimers about providing no warranty as to its functionality and suitability for what they're trying to do with it. Best choice would be to consult with a good lawyer who has worked with a "free" distribution of software before. Only in America would you need a lawyer to give something away safely, but here we are.

Slashdot Top Deals

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.

Working...