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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Don't entirely buy this (Score 1) 276

That is the NSL program. If you are served a NSL, you have to hand over data and you're not allowed to even talk about the fact you were served a NSL. It is really fucked up and the law needs to change.

You are not however required to put in a backdoor or give direct access for all data all the time.

That is why Google is able to keep the NSA out of their servers and just FTP over data for specific requests when they are served a NSL.

Comment Re:Don't entirely buy this (Score 1) 276

I don't believe it is the case at least. Companies like Google are pretty unhappy about the affair, and have tried to talk about it as much as they're legally allowed to with their transparency reports, though they can't list NSL requests in said report. But they do mention that they're not allowed to talk about NSL letters, which is legally as much as they can say.

Google has even outlined their process for handing over data to the government (via FTP) because they refuse the government direct access to their servers.

I just don't believe Google would have handed over their private keys when there is zero reason they'd have to, when they've demonstrated they are willing to fight governments on such requests (US, China, Brazil and more).

Comment Don't entirely buy this (Score 1) 276

I've seen this claim a few times in the past. Someone a few months ago told me they were confident that the government already have private keys for every major US site.

If that were the case, why would they need to request data from Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, etc. All of these companies have discussed how the government requests data from them, and how they have to provide it. If the government simply had the private keys and could just sniff all traffic, they wouldn't need to.

I wouldn't be shocked if someone asked for private keys at some point, but no company is obligated to hand them over. The government wouldn't have any legal recourse to do anything about it, and it would hurt the program if it went public and went to court. The government has zero leverage in this case.

The only reason the NSA has been able to get data currently is because of the NSL program. That program needs to stop and go out the window. There is zero reason why the previous system (obtain warrants, or prove in court good reason why you had probable cause and literally didn't have time for the warrant in each case) can't work.

Comment Re:Really?!? (Score 1) 1448

You miss the entire point. You insist there are real life consequences, as if by watching this movie, it advances Card's anti-gay agenda. The reality is that the movie is far likely to do the opposite given that the story itself advocates tolerance. You continue to insist on something that makes no sense logically, and historically has proven false repeatedly.

If there was a clear correlation, such as all proceeds of the movie going directly to Card (who was likely already paid his set amount), and in turn those proceeds going directly to fund discrimination, then perhaps you'd have a point. Card already has wealth, and that wealth has not caused direct harm to the LGBT community, even though Card has certainly written ignorant essays calling for the criminalization of homosexuality. And despite those essays, homosexuality has not been criminalized. In fact, Utah is rumored to be on the precipice of overturning their gay marriage ban (despite Card's comments, and despite it being a strongly Mormon state).

The decision to attend the movie or not doesn't advance any political cause. Speaking to your elected officials, voting, volunteering, donating money, etc. These things advance political causes.

I'd dare say your false pretense of political activism is what is wrong with the country. You think you're making a difference by skipping a movie, and in doing so clearing yourself of obligation for actual action.

My original statement is that it is ironic that Card is a homophobe despite writing this fantastic story of tolerance, to which you foolishly tried to counter that his story doesn't promote tolerance. However, it does. It influenced me in a very positive way in promoting tolerance as a youth, because I experienced the story without the context of his personal political views. I'd wager most movie-goers will do the same.

For every single Hollywood movie you can see this summer, I'm sure you can find at least one person attached to the movie who has done or said something abhorrent. And unless you are consistent in your pointless boycott, then yes, you are fully a hypocrite.

Comment Re:Yawn (Score 1) 387

Because key Windows apps will move forward and have new versions that support the new OS.

If you're running an old app that won't be updated for the new kernel, then it can't take advantage of new Windows features either way, and is already a second-class citizen. For example, Windows 7 added support for Jump Lists on the task bar. Vendors have to put out new versions of their app to support this feature.

When Apple made the leap to OS X, Adobe rewrote their app to work on OS X. When Apple switched to X86 processors, Adobe rewrote their app to work on OS X.

Being obsessed with backwards compatibility, you give no incentive to developers to write better apps.

Comment Re:Really?!? (Score 1) 1448

Whatever you do, don't read Jack London or H. P. Lovecraft, who both wrote racist, propoganda books that fed the fear of "Yellow Peril". Supporting these racist authors will have real world implications.

Watching Lethal Weapon advances antisemitism.

Driving a Volkswagen on the autobahn is a clear indication you support Nazi ideals.

And watching a movie whose whole message is one of tolerance clearly will support the exact opposite ideal.

Comment Re:Really?!? (Score 1) 1448

The problem with your comment is that it is entirely incorrect.

Orson Scott Card initially had a short story, but it really took life when he came up with the concept for the sequel. An editor suggested taking that concept for Speaker of the Dead and inserting Ender, a character from an unrelated short story at that point.

The novel of Ender's Game was written literally as a means to lead into Speaker for the Dead, a story he had already decided he wanted to tell. The books were actually bundled together and distributed as Ender's War.

Even more, the "hand-waving" you want to invent is actually something present in the first book. Go re-read the last chapter of Ender's Game in which Ender takes possession of the Hive Queen and vows to right his wrong. From the very beginning, the story was about tolerance, not advocating genocide and war.

Comment Re:Boycotting the movie (Score 1) 1448

I perceive it a bit different in that they became influential bloggers.

Mike and Jerry made dicks jokes on Penny Arcade, and in turn made Time's Most 100 Influential people list and now run the Penny Arcade empire with a gaming expo more relevant than E3.

And Peter Wiggin didn't become a world leader by receiving Reddit upvotes as it were. He had puppet writers creating propaganda and support for his real persona. He was brother to the most famous man in the world, who was now removed from the equation. Celebrity can be parlayed into political power.

The point of Locke and Demontheses was two-fold:

1. The Human/Bugger war stemmed from our innate desire for conflict and war. The moment the threat was removed, we looked for new enemies (human again)
2. Public support for these conflicts could be generated by fear mongering and propaganda.

Comment Re:Microsoft? (Score 1) 387

This joke is entirely apt and inaccurate at the same time.

Microsoft keeps losing market share in every key market and their rate of growth keeps slowing.

But yet they are growing still none the less with record profits.

There are some who feel Balmer needs to go to save Microsoft, yet how do you kick out a CEO delivering record profits?

Slashdot Top Deals