Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:Two types of laws (Score 1) 337

"what Clinton did (according to Comey) is not at all uncommon in the Federal Government/Intelligence Community, but it's usually punished by things like mandatory security training, letters of reprimand, revoking security clearance/firing (usually after repeat instances)"

I can accept most of these as adequate consequences. Sadly, though, if she were elected as President, the least would be impossible to invoke.

So in the absence of conviction and jail, she cannot be prosecuted if she is elected, unless she is found to continue these actions as President. Then she could be impeached, tried, convicted, and removed. And we would have succession, the result being a Democrat regime when it should not be, because the Democrats have nominated an unindicted felon that should not be permitted to hold office.

Comment Boycotting pirates (Score 1) 127

It's the same with the hosting providers that give rack space and network connectivity to these sites.

Indeed. Once a wrong-doer using their services is identified, CloudFare — and all other enablers, including the ISP — can be expected to stop the enabling.

Unless, of course, you don't think, the "alleged pirates" are doing anything wrong, do you?

Even if they didn't, someone else would

Yeah, there is no point in vegetarianism: if I don't eat this steak, somebody else would. And a great defense for a contract killer too — if I haven't shot this guy, they would've hired someone else to kill him.

A week ago you were defending boycott of Mozilla over Brendan Eich's "homophobia" — now you are claiming, a boycott can not be effective?

Comment Re:Questions to Hillary's fans (Score 1) 242

it is profoundly unfair to discriminate against women at the workplace because of their biology.

That women give birth is as unfair as gravity, which keeps us from realizing our dream of flying. But it is not wrong to acknowledge it. The point was — and remains — that this biology is inconvenient. Why is acknowledging the inconvenience "sexist"? Can a true statement ever be unfair? How about these:

  • Blacks have more pigment in their skin than Whites.
  • Women have uterus.

Are these two racist and sexist respectively? And if they aren't, why an equally correct statement about employee's pregnancy being an inconvenience is?

By stating that this is an inconvenience to employers, Trump is stating that this unfair state of affairs should continue.

Stipulating for a second, that "unfairness" equals "discrimination", is he even stating that?

While a tortured interpretation is required for Trump's words to appear remotely sinister, Hillary Clinton's dismissal of rape-accusations as "Bimbo Eruption" is Ok with you... The hypocrisy is so thick, you can cut it...

It was racist primarily because there was absolutely no basis in fact

But there was basis! His father was from Kenya and traveled there with his pregnant mother. Whether she returned to States to give birth or not was not at all obvious.

people claimed, despite contradictory evidence, that he was born in Africa

I haven't seen such claims — certainly none by Donald Trump. The evidence — still posted on White House web-site — only appeared in 2011.

and was a Muslim

A son of a Muslim is a Muslim — fact. And converting to any other faith, as Obama has done, is a capital offense under Sharia — but Obama's religion is a different topic, let's not get distracted.

as if either condition disqualified him from being a US citizen

No, his citizenship was not in doubt. Whether he was a natural born citizen was questioned. And McCain faced similar questions — which, for some reason, have never been denounced as "racist".

Comment Re:Refused to hand over "evidence" (Score 2) 85

Here's a quote from an article about Samsung's washing machines exploding.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in New Jersey, references similar reports collected by local news and filed online with regulators. It also claims Samsung "has moved aggressively to collect and destroy all evidence of the defective machines" after they exploded.

Given that this is a company that's trying to silence news of this sort, it isn't fishy in the least to hang onto the only evidence you have so that you can either hand it over to the police or use it in a lawsuit against them. That's called common sense.

Comment Re:Passing the buck? (Score 5, Insightful) 127

I think CloudFlare's comments are accurate, but I'm no expert.

I'll play an expert. CloudFlare are lying. Though it is correct, that "a simple DNS reconfiguration" would allow the pirates to continue to exist, their bandwidth requirements will go much higher and they would not be able to do as much damage to the intellectual property owners.

Think, for example, of banks blocking money-laundering — it does not stop whatever activity generates the criminals' profits. But it makes the criminals' lives (much) harder.

The reaction and attitudes of Slashdot and other crowds will, once again, boil down to those towards the original activity. People frowning on copyright infringement will denounce CloudFlare. Others will celebrate the pirates getting off for a while longer.

But technically CloudFlare's arguments are bullshit — and they know it.

Submission + - (Not Quite) Open Source Hardware? 1

Ichijo writes: One hardware project that calls itself "open source" doesn't want to make its hardware design source files publicly available because doing so would, in their words, "make it very trivial for e.g Chinese companies to start producing cheap clones... we’d be getting support requests for hardware we had no idea of the quality of." This answer was in response to a request by a user who wants to use the design in his own projects.

Have any other open source hardware projects run into support issues from people owning cheap "clones"? Have clones been produced even without the hardware design source files?

Comment Re:Scan your signature (Score 1) 248

They could tell because there were several pages requiring signatures, and they were all exactly the same.

Remotely plausible... But only if the recipient is already suspicious. Which they probably were after you discussed the printing vs. e-signing with them.

They can also tell by the size/speed of the transfer.

Nonsense. You made this up.

As much as hospitals charge, do you seriously believe that they aren't staffed up enough to detect fax cheaters?

Let me tell you a story, that happened to me. I had a dedicated fax-line, its number differing from that of some medical office in another state only by the area code. Guess what? Incorrectly dialed faxes — from hospitals and other medical offices — would end up in my computer (been using Hylafax for 20 years now) a couple of times per week. PHI be damned — I got medical histories and exam results of total strangers.

Now, this was before HIPAA, but medical information was already a big deal — and yet, these much-charging organizations could not be bothered to properly verify fax-numbers... Dedicating resources/training to catch — not cheaters — people not wishing to waste paper is not going to happen...

Comment Re:Refused to hand over "evidence" (Score 1) 85

Exactly. The only time I hand over equipment to the manufacturer is when they've already agreed to set things right in writing. Typically that's via an RMA or warranty replacement, but if I had been burnt as a result of a device exploding, there's no contract between me and anyone else saying that they're going to cover my medical bills and replace other equipment that was damaged, so why the hell would I hand a potential adversary my best piece of evidence against them?

Maybe if the friendly Samsung rep shows up with a generous settlement offer...

Comment Re:Siri on Mac (Score 5, Informative) 61

In the case of Siri on the Mac, however, the information is kept on-device, as I recall. In contrast, the situation discussed in the summary involved information that was never being kept strictly on-device and that Apple never claimed was private information that they weren't capable of accessing (which makes the "despite what Apple claims" seem a bit odd). Anyone who had ever glanced through Apple's (quite easily readable) white papers on their security measures would know that they had never made those claims.

According to Apple, iMessage conversation follows roughly this pattern (it's been at least six months since I brushed up on the specifics, so I'll definitely be glossing over quite a few details):
0) At some point in the past, Alice and Bob established Apple IDs, turned on iMessage, provided one or more pieces of contact info by which they could be identified by others via iMessage (e.g. e-mail, phone number), and then linked devices to those Apple IDs. During the process that links a device to an Apple ID, the device generated a fresh private-public key pair and provided the public key to Apple.

1) Alice creates an iMessage intended for Bob and presses send.

2) Alice's device opens an encrypted connection to Apple and indicates to Apple that it wishes to send an iMessage to the Apple ID associated with a provided piece of Bob's contact info.

3) Apple looks up the Apple ID associated with that contact info and returns the set of public keys associated with Bob's Apple ID, one per active device he owns.

4) Alice's device encrypts the iMessage once for each of Bob's devices (using the keys from step 3 so that only Bob's devices can decrypt them), then sends them to Apple. Metadata is included to help Apple route the correct messages to the correct devices.

5) Apple receives the encrypted iMessages and pushes them down to each of Bob's devices.

6) Apple keeps a log of recent messages so that they are able to perform various operations, such as syncing the Read status between Bob's devices after he reads the iMessage on one of them.

All of which is to say, Apple never claimed that they didn't know who you were talking with and when it was happening. Rather, they claimed the exact opposite, since that information is necessary for the operation of iMessage. The fact that they keep a log of information that was always available to them is both unsurprising and something that they had already disclosed. What they actually claimed was that your communication with that other person was end-to-end encrypted such that they couldn't get access to the content of the messages, and that remains true, so far as we know.

Comment Re:Like it would have mattered (Score 1) 166

"Cell phone networks are usually provisioned for "just enough" capacity under normal circumstances"


Yeah, where I eat lunch four days a week there is not enough cell capacity for those 2 hours when we all march out to eat, surf, and post.

I can eat where 'free' WiFi is offered. If I choose something more interesting, I suffer the vagaries of cell service and the inadequate provisioning of my provider. Ack.

And I stick it out, because the rest of the time it's good. My choice, my pain, feh.

Comment Re:There's plenty of space (Score 1) 166

If you're hosting an event such as this, you should anticipate and plan for the needs.

Go to a sporting event, like an NFL game, and see how 60,000+ fans tax your RF environment. You solve the problem.

Hofstra could have handled this better, or the Debate Commission could have. The method they chose is subject to some criticism, isn't it?

Slashdot Top Deals

Are we running light with overbyte?