Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:doesn't europe spy as well? (Score 1) 166

Yeah - no reason to get outraged. The NSA uses our tax dollars to inject weaknesses in applications, encryption techniques, and devices which make it easier to be a victim of identity theft. Worse, after we completed exporting our manufacturing economy during the 80s and 90s in favor of "knowledge jobs", the NSA makes it obvious that doing business with American companies is unwise at best, though moronic is a better descriptor. And if that's not enough, all those aforementioned weaknesses make it easier to hack into businesses and steal their work or otherwise damage them.

So we're talking something like $54 billion a year for ID theft (1), $35 billion for the cloud crap in the next three years (2), and $100 billion and 500k jobs or so due to industrial espionage (3).

What the NSA is doing to undermine security is costing Americans and American businesses billions every year, and harming employment to boot. The NSA is much more akin to a co-conspirator in a Russian computer crime gang than to some run of the mill spy who "always did this" because those others didn't screw with NIST, or use the force of the US Gov't to require backdoors. And worse, we have to pay for it with our tax dollars -- we're paying to get fucked by an agency that destroys American values and then turns around damages our economy. It's like paying to get robbed.

So you know what, you can just take a flying fuck with your idiotic "everyone does it" crap. Your complacency is allowing the NSA to continue directly harming America and Americans.


NOTE: certainly the NSA isn't responsible for the entire $160ish billion per year, but it is doing it's darndest to get there.

Comment Re:So Obama lied again (Score 1, Interesting) 513

Quit thinking the world is so binary. Just because someone says Obama is an authoritarian murderous constitution destroying lying piece of shit, doesn't mean that person is praising Republicans who are the same.

There is a third option, e.g., BOTH parties are metastasizing cancer with absolutely zero redeeming qualities.

Comment Re:Should have dismissed (Score 1) 117


If the troll loses now, and continues to lose every appeal, there would still be no precedent. It is only set when a verdict is overturned.

A precedent at the appellate level can be set when a trial court's decision is affirmed. What is of most importance are the legal issues that form the basis of the appeal. This case appears to have the potential to be a significant decision on venue no matter who wins at the trial court level, providing of course there is an appeal of the venue decision.

In any event, the story is kind of confusing -- I'm having trouble seeing it as a great victory because instead of being dismissed, the case is still alive and the troll gets to go to a jury (i.e., vegas). Who knows how the jury will view the texas filing-cabinet office. Anyone remember that guy who lied to get on the Apple/Samsung jury? Yeah, they could get that kind of jury, and then who's laughing?

Comment Re:Tormail... (Score 1) 292

Our government is out of control and it won't be easy to stop now that things are so far in motion.

I think we've actually had a velvet coup by the Executive branch. For example, waging war with Libya without Congressional authorization was an usurpation of the power to make war. It looks like Syria isn't going to happen, but a few days ago after Putin suggested negotiating and the Obama admin said that it would talk, it also said that military strikes are still on the table (1). WTF? The Executive branch does not have the power to engage in such strikes without Congressional authority unless it faces an actual imminent threat to America, and it's stretching credulity beyond breaking to suggest Syria is a threat such that it represents "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces" (2).

Then we throw in all the ways Federal Agencies like the NSA and FBI are ignoring the constitution, and a reasonable conclusion you can draw is that there has been a coup by the Executive branch. It has come on by increments and was enabled by the courts and Congress, but the Constitutional separation of powers has become so weak, and Constitutional protections so riddled with exceptions (thanks to the War on Some Drugs and more recently, PATRIOT Act), that the time is ripe for the Executive to usurp power. And people don't even know or care that it's illegal -- I saw a poll where something like 30% of Americans thought the president should attack Syria without Congressional authorization (3).

We are sliding into a democratic-authoritarian government, one where we elect a new dictator every eight years from a slate of handpicked individuals trained in the art by the GOP or DNC.

(2) War Powers Act: ; Constitution:
(3) see section "Majority Says Congress Has Final Authority on Airstrikes"

Comment Re:I am shocked shocked I tell you (Score 1) 384

"there's no objective basis for claiming that Obama's policies are worse on any objective basis than W's were"

You are fucking DNC partisan troll, incredibly uninformed, or stupid. Probably the first one because even morons can see that Obama is worse than GWB, if for no other reason than for making the radical abuses and executive power grabs of the GWB administration, the new normal. Set aside whether due process free execution is worse than due process free detention, whether tripling the war in Afghanistan is thrice as bad as GWB, or destroying the War Powers Act so any Cheney type president in the future has carte blanche to start any war, any time, any where, and there isn't anything anyone can say about it.

"Obamacare was a GOP proposal that came from the Heritage Foundation. And it was more conservative than what Nixon proposed back in the '70s."

No shit. You use this a defense, but Obama was touting the public option even after he cut a deal with the for profit insurance/drug industries. Is this supposed to be an example of how liberal Obama is? That he gave us NixonCare with the liberal parts stripped out? How does enacting NixonCare prove that the DNC is *not* the New GOP?

The bottom line is, Obama is a murderous neocon. I don't care if he is Chartreuse -- his policies are bad, racist, cronyist, and murderous. I bitched the same way about GWB because of his policies, and to suggest people let up on Obama because he is black (i.e., playing the racist card) IS racist.

Comment Re:I am shocked shocked I tell you (Score 0) 384

You are a fucking retard and a purplebelly. Seriously.

All the guy said was that Obama has expanded "oppression" from a historically oppressed group to a larger group.

"Oppression" is a word with moral content -- you don't use it as a praise. You use it when you are criticizing someone for their policies. That sentence criticizes those who oppress minorities, AND it criticizes those who oppress more. Get it, "oppress" is a word of criticism, not support.

Secondly, policies have nothing to do with melanin.

The fact that Obama's POLICIES are worse than GWB's on an objective basis (for example, due process free detention vs due process free execution; lying to Congress to get authorization for a war (Iraq) vs destroying the separation of powers by totally usurping the power to make war (Libya)) is not something you can get around by labeling any criticism of Obama as racist. It just makes you look like the idiot partisan tool that you are, a New GOP (aka Democrat) conglomeration of red and blue. Red and blue makes purple, thus you're a purplebelly.

Comment Re:Yes, and? (Score 1) 237

You know what is confusing about the Verizon order (confusing if you take government organizations at face value)?

The ONLY phone call information Verizon is NOT required to turn over to the NSA, are calls that start and end outside the US. If the call is wholly inside the US (including local calls), ends in the US, or starts in the US, Verizon must turn it over to the NSA. Interesting order from the FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Page 2, starting at line 5

Comment Re:Was that really necessary? (Score 4, Interesting) 208

When the Tea Party first started getting media attention, I was interested in subscribing to their newsletter, but now they're basically just the Christian conservative message wrapped up in some anti-tax stuff.

Denninger quoted here, voted for Obama BTW:

Karl Denninger, an original organizer of the Tea Party, is out with a livid blog post blasting current leaders of the conservative movement and the apparent hypocrisy in their views of the economic issues that originally catalyzed its creation.

According to Denninger, "Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, and douchebag groups such as the Tea Party Patriots" are to blame for the bastardization of a movement that now seems focused on "Guns, gays, God," instead of the Tea Party's original mission: to castigate the federal government for supporting the "rampant theft" of taxpayer dollars that went toward "propping up FAILED private businesses."

Comment Re:Slashvertisement (Score 2) 254

If they could non-destructively freeze and thaw you

This is the part I'm skeptical about. Take two fresh strawberries. Put one in the fridge, put the other in the freezer and freeze it, then pull it out and let it thaw. Get the berry from the fridge and do a taste/texture test. Not even close to the same.

Something happens to all those cells when they freeze, so even if your brain doesn't turn to jelly when they defrost you, you definitely won't be as tasty after freezing and thawing.

Comment Re:Somehow this will all be Obama's fault. (Score -1, Offtopic) 232

Fuck you troll. Is that some kind of inverse defense of the candidate who promised to be the exact opposite kind of president he turned out to be? That Obama is FINALLY getting crap over his crap policies is rightfully earned and very belated -- but to trivialize that by linking it to something obviously unrelated is to attempt to subtly soften the completely appropriate criticism that Obama has spent the last five years channelling Nixon.

Comment Re:Extensions needed! (Score 1) 399

Thanks -- that was a really informative explanation. So if I got it right:

A uses B's public key to encrypt a message, then A uses A's private key to encrypt the encrypted message. When B gets the message, B uses's A's public key to decrypt the outer decryption, with proves A sent the message, and then B uses B's private key to decrypt the content of the message.

Comment Re:Extensions needed! (Score 4, Informative) 399

Is there a reason you would use your private key to send encrypted emails to someone? I don't understand.

My understanding is this:

A uses B's public key to send message to B, B decrypts with B's private key.

A slot safe is a better analogy than keys -- anyone can put stuff in the safe's slot, but only the owner who knows the combination can open it and read the messages people put in there.

But -- maybe you're describing a use scenario I'm not familiar with. And if that is the case, I'd like to understand it.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. -- Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays", 1928