Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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

Comment Re:Only a fraction of US munitions... (Score 1) 198

We bomb brown people because we can get away with it. That's more opportunist than racist, but it's still racist.

As soon as "white" people start doing the same crap, it happens to them too. I'm guessing you're wishing away that pesky little Balkan conflict a few years back, where we bombed white people for, among other things, slaughtering olive people.

Pretending that it's skin color that makes ISIS a fair target for air strikes is the worst sort of craven intellectual laziness.

Comment Re:Only a fraction of US munitions... (Score 2, Funny) 198

Our Nobel Peace Prize President dropped 26,000 bombs (real bombs, not little hand grenades)

Probably a lot more than that. You're not understanding the usefulness of air strikes on this sort of combatant.

on various brown people

Right, right. It's because of their skin pigment! For reference, resorting to lazy race baiting doesn't really win arguments (see the most recent election results as an example)

(even though we are not at war).

Yes, I can see you're having some trouble grasping current events. Please don't do anything dangerous to other people in the future. Like, voting.

Comment Re:Top priority? Always? (Score 1) 144

If your companies top priority is to keep data secure, they how/why did you get hacked. They always say that, but clearly that is not the Top Priority

I see you're doing your part by not using dangerous apostrophes where they are needed!

Implicit in any company's statement that security is their top priority is the large bundle of compromises that don't go away whether or not that is your top priority. They could make the data perfectly secure by disconnecting the servers and putting them in a bank vault. They could make sure the data can't be breached by simply destroying all of it. See?

Security can be your Top Priority, but it has to be done in the context of things like still making it available to users across the internet. Doing it while not going bankrupt. Making the service competitively priced so that it can actually be afforded and put to work.

They could have said that the system could only be used on equipment they ship to their clients, connected to the back end through a hardware-based dedicated VPN with biometrics, dongles, and constant nagging by three-factor comms surrounding every time someone hits the enter key ... and of course nobody could or would want to use the system or pay the monthly fee needed to keep something like that alive.

They may very well put security at a higher priority than chipping away at a long list of UX updates, performance under load, documentation, multi-language support, and a thousand other things. Doesn't mean that doing so means they'll be perfect in their security results. Ever run a business like that? No? Give it a whirl. Make security your top priority, and then start paying attention to what that decision means in real life - including in your ability to get and retain customers during that balancing act.

Comment Re:Huge numbers! (Score 1) 273

What? Tens of millions of people routinely bitch, in public with their names attached, about every possible person, agency, posture, act, policy and purpose of government across the spectrum from the local PTA to city, county, state, federal, and international governance. There is nothing "brave" about parroting a lazy meme about freeing Snowden from prosecution for some very cut and dry real crimes. Your sense of drama is wildly disconnected from reality. Show me a single person, ever, who has been put into any sort of legal jeopardy for saying out loud, "Snowden should be pardoned." A single example. Specifically.

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 22

But in saying it this way, you're attempting to imply you can provide evidence. And I am simply pointing out that there is no reason to even consider that this is a possibility. Don't tell me you will do it later, because that's irrelevant. It's no different than saying nothing at all, or even saying "I have no evidence" or "I cannot provide evidence." They are all exactly equivalent in the end, except that the other methods do not have the implication that you might actually provide the evidence, despite you not giving us a reason to believe that, so it smacks of dishonesty.

Just say nothing at all, unless you have something to contribute. You'll be better off.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

If not for you, then it's not difficult for anybody.

I make no claims about what is not hard for others. I do assert that most people do not do it, regardless of how hard it is.

In this case blaming the media is just doing the democrats' dirty work ...

Yawn. I am uninterested of your characterizations. Either actually make an argument against what I wrote, or do not. So far, you have not.

We all have the same power to turn our backs. You're not that special.

You are not, in any way, arguing against what I wrote.

In theory humans can make the choice.

Of course they can. So? Again: this, in no way whatsoever, implies that the media is not to blame. It just means that we have the power to ignore their bad behavior. But it's still their bad behavior. They are still to blame for it. Obviously.

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 22

Incorrect. Page views and the like are cash money.

I meant -- obviously -- there is no journalistic or democratic reason to do it. Everything has a reason.

I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton.

Of course not, you don't read the NYT.

So you have no examples, then. Good to know.

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 22

I'm not talking about evidence, I'm talking about railgunner's assertion that it's "obvious".

I get that, but the main point is that there's no reason to report it in the first place, because there is no evidence ... regardless of how much you think it might be in line with his character to do it.

Besides, it worked so well on Clinton, can you blame anyone for adopting the tactic?

I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton. Can you give an example? The main attacks I know of on her were based on hacked documents that the DNC and others admitted were genuine; on a report by the FBI that no one called into question on the facts (though admittedly we couldn't verify some of those facts, such as that the information Clinton mishandled was actually classified); and so on.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

The media has 'trained' us?

Yes.

Is it really so hard to turn your back?

Not for me, no. I am one of the very few who actively dismisses any unsourced report.

Where is all this *personal responsibility* that you speak of?

Of course, it is our responsibility to ignore unsourced reports. But that doesn't mean the media isn't responsible for incessantly giving those unsourced reports to us ... obviously.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

'Fake news' and the official narrative are frequently synonymous. Why is it the media's fault if people decide to believe them?

Did you not read my comment? I already answered this question: because it's the media that has trained us to believe assertions without evidence.

Comment It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

The media regularly gives us stories without evidence, without substantiation, and asks us to believe those stories. Then -- I'm shocked! -- people end up believing stories without evidence or substantiation.

Only when we stop paying attention to source-less claims will we solve the problem of "fake news."

Slashdot Top Deals

Truth has always been found to promote the best interests of mankind... - Percy Bysshe Shelley

Working...