Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Election interference (Score 2) 409

Why nothing about Trump?

The obvious common-sense explanation is that they don't have anything particularly interesting on Trump.

Imagine that you actually had something about Trump that was worse than what he always says in public. (I know, it's hard. But try. Maybe "grab the dick" or something.) So you send the information to Wikileaks, and they just sit on it. Weeks go by, you email Julian, "Hey, what about my leak?" and he doesn't reply.

What would you do?

I think you would leak through another channel. Wikileaks isn't the only game in town when it comes to media, you know. If you're too lazy to upload the torrent yourself, there just might be a few thousand other media organizations that would be willing to take the information.

Since this hasn't happened, I think the least extraordinary and most believable explanation, is that there hasn't been a Trump leak. Are you saying that you have come up with an even more likely explanation, where there has been a Trump leak and a conspiracy between every media outlet in the world, led by Wikileaks, to suppress the information in it?

It's interference when it is being done to influence an election

Ok, fine. But if that's your definition, then even a paid advertisement or giving a speech would be examples of interference. Why is interference considered noteworthy or undesirable? Shouldn't everyone be interfering with the election? Australia has mandatory vote; I think America should have mandatory interference!

Unless that's not what you meant. Maybe you meant that interference implies something unsavory? Oh, but then you don't get to apply it to what Wikileaks did. That's quite a dilemma. Have you considered maybe just stop hating Wikileaks, and being grateful that they've already outed and embarrassed the next president? With Trump destroying the Republicans and Clinton already a lame duck, maybe America can have a real election in 2020. Show me one politically-idealistic person, on either the right or left, who doesn't want that to happen.

Comment Re:One sided [Re:And yet] (Score 1) 409

Actually, I'd very much be curious to see equivalent material stolen from the other side.

So go steal it! Why are people acting so entitled yet unwilling to do the work?

This is like complaining about the arrest of John Wayne Gacy because they haven't arrested Jeffrey Dahmer yet. If you wanna complain about Dahmer, fine, but quit bitching about Gacy's arrest.

WHERE IS YOUR INFORMATION THAT YOU WANT TO LEAK? Supply it. Wikileaks will probably be happy to help you. And if they aren't, guess what: Wikileaks totally and completely lacks the capability to prevent you from leaking it yourself, or getting someone else to help you do it.

Comment Once he got inside the bag, it was over (Score 1) 204

I think it's a lot more interesting that he was granted access to see whatever's inside the bag. That's a much bigger leap, and more invasive than reading the magstrip.

The car has clear glass windows. Everyone in public can see what's inside. But when you went through the opaque plastic (cop's own words), you were crossing the boundary between public and private. Any random passerby (e.g. you or I) can see that the bag exists. A passerby cannot see what's inside the bag. To gain that information, you have to get some kind of special access. Owning the bag is one way, warrants are another, and crime is a third.

But it happened. (And it kind of sounds like maybe the suspect consented, so I forgot: the owner telling/showing you what's in the bag is a fourth way!)

Once a judge has already ruled that he's allowed to see what's inside the bag, take things (such as cards) out of it, etc, then it doesn't seem like a stretch for the same judge to also rule it's ok to recursively look inside the nested objects. "We've already established what kind of woman you are, madam. Now we're just haggling over the price."

(BTW, the question about receipts is hysterical. If I'm going to be suspected of a crime for not having receipts, then damn near everything I own is presumed stolen. I bet the same goes for you too, as well as the cop. Got a reciept for that donut? For your $400 smartphone? For your socks?)

Comment The ethics in "work ethic" (Score 1) 326

With respect, expecting much of a work ethic in a temporary part time job with a nebulous future is a bit misguided.

Actually, you've got the right idea but there's a problem word here: "Ethic."

If the employer is not fully committed, then an ethical employee should not be fully committed, either. You actually are seeing a functional work ethic even in shitty jobs. It's ethical, just also .. maybe regrettable.

I wonder if the jargon term "work ethic" was coined by people who were trying to take ethics out of the discussion, by advocating for an asymmetric relationship. We should stop using that term; it's too loaded.

Comment Re:What a Waste (Score 2) 867

Lobbyists go around the people, to have your representatives work against you.

Bad media goes around your representatives, to have you work against yourself.

Maybe they're the same in that they're your adversary, but they're also pretty different. It's like saying an enemy fighter plane and an enemy tank are the same. Yeah, they're both the enemy's forces, I suppose...

Comment Re:maaaan (Score 1) 382

To play Devil's Advocate, though, wouldn't that mean that it would be 'easier' to impersonate him, in terms of a username?

Sure it's easier, as long as nobody really looks at it. That's why "This is the CEO, and I need this info immediately!" social engineering scams work.

But now people are looking at it, and might say "hey, I think this user is you. Is it?" So he's on the spot: he can either admit or deny it.

And if he denies it, then there's always risk of followup questions, like "the DHCP logs say the imposter connected from the same address that your house had that day. Did you notice any strangers in your house?" Or "There was a security camera at coffee shop from which the imposter connected, and the imposter looks just like you! Did your mother ever let slip any hints that you might have an evil twin?"

Next thing you know, he's driving his dead fiance's parents to see his house in the Hamptons. By all means, let's pull over and buy him a housewarming gift. Take it up a notch!

Comment Re:North Caroliners (Score 1) 222

As to voting out their legislators, consider that this is one single issue

The "one single issue" is corruption, not Internet access. Corrupt legislators affect everyone in the state. Whatever you happen to catch them on (today, it's this), is just going to be the tip of the iceberg.

not one that is .. on the radar of most of the state's voters.

Of course you're right about that. Hence the story and public discussion: to help get it on peoples' radar. Now, it's the job of any NC nerds reading this on Slashdot, to tell NC non-nerds about it, so that it'll be on all the right radars.

Slashdot Top Deals

A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard.