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


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

Comment Re:Hypocrisy? (Score 0) 734

Report does not state they have any evidence that the Russians hacked nor leaked emails to wikileaks, just basically "we think they did this". Read the god dam report, it absolutely provides no evidence or new information.

...and how do you think the intelligence community came to that conclusion? Do you honestly need to crack open a dictionary to look up what the word "evidence" MEANS?


Comment Malware != Hacking... BUT... (Score 1) 574

Malware isn't hacking. Malware unlocks the doors to hacking by creating opportunity. It exploits security holes wherever it can find them, then once a security hole is established THEN when needed, it can be used for hacking purposes.

If hacking was an army, malware would be the scout.

Comment Cults of personality, or lack thereof (Score 1) 236

Hillary didn't lose because of some "mandate from the minority" or because of perceived corruptions... She lost because she has the personality of a beige jumpsuit.

Trump won because he's the man you love to hate... Trump is EASILY as corrupt as Clinton, probably more so, but the conservatives can NEVER admit that because he's their backed horse now.

Just like every other vitriolic conservative personality, they feign outrage, while giving a slight wink and a nod of supporting the very thing they "stand" for... i.e. "drain the swamp!"

Bernie had personality and ran an arguably clean campaign and REAL grass roots support, but he was undoubtedly hamstrung by the DNC who were dead set on lifting Hillary to office. It is my firm opinion that Bernie would have decidedly beaten Trump... without a shred of doubt in my mind. On that score the democrats were a MAJOR factor in Trump's victory to the presidency.

Comment Re:Are there going to be cries of "fake news" now? (Score 2) 22

While I absolutely applaud the effort to make stories more accurate and accountable. I'm somewhat dismayed that even the slightest bit of questioning of a news story automatically makes it "fake" To claim a story as "fake" is as irresponsible and blindly accepting conclusions... Always QUESTION a stroy, but don't let your questions be framed in order to support a pre-drawn conclusion. That's yellow journalism. Question the story, and fill the holes or find out why the holes are there. People need lessons in journalism.

Comment Re:Hacking review !== Election results review (Score 1) 557

From more reputable news sources: every recount in every other state had more votes for Trump coming out, when Michigan's recount started looking the same way, the Obama appointed judge stopped the recount on a technicality which had been cited before but ignored: Stein has no right to burden the tax payer with a recount since she never stood a chance.

oh DO tell what these "more reputable" news sources are.... well?

Slashdot Top Deals

Your code should be more efficient!