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


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:More political redirection (Score 1) 528

Depending on the circumstances (such as happening after a subpoena) it's called consciousness of guilt.

A great example of this is if you happen to use a firearm (you claim) in self defense, flee the scene, and not immediately report the incident to police, you are going to have a very difficult time mounting a self-defense case as your actions after the fact suggest you knew you did wrong.

Comment Re:More political redirection (Score 2) 528

I prefer option 3, they are pointing out the peculiarity that, given all the other shit she's pulled, in this one instance, she chose to follow best practices.

"Your Honor, just because my client was in the vicinity of the shooting, drove to a near by store to buy bleach & laundry detergent, then drove home to wash his supposedly blood covered clothes, allegedly scrubbed gunshot residue from his hands, randomly decided to meticulously clean several of his firearms in no way demonstrates any consciousness of guilt, instead just best practices with regards to laundry and firearm maintenance"

Yeah, see how that works.

Comment Re:More political redirection (Score 2) 528

Let's be pragmatic here. She didn't decide the logistics of her email server and how to secure it or delete emails. Her IT intern did this.

Let's be realistic here. She didn't tell her IT guy what tools to use. She didn't have to. Someone -- and it doesn't take too much intelligence to guess who -- gave a directive to make that server and all its contents disappear Jimmy Hoffa style. That directive was given only after the existence of the server became public knowledge and its contents were requested. Can guilt be proven by such an action? No. But can anyone make any remotely plausible, intelligent, cohesive argument as to why someone running for POTUS would knowingly put themselves in such an awkward, damaging position?

Clinton is no fool. She knew wiping the server after it was discovered would leave her open to charges of hiding things. The most plausible explanation of why she'd do this was because there were things on the server that were even more awkward and damaging.

Comment Re:More political redirection (Score 2) 528

Whether the secure wipe was used as a simple matter of Best Practice, or was done for Nefarious reasons, is not known. So when the article makes judgements such as "When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see." it becomes a political mudslinging story.

What exactly is the purpose of BleachBit? As described on its own web page, BleachBit "tirelessly guards your privacy." It doesn't matter if it was wiped because of "best practices" (something rather laughable given that Sec. Clinton was violating the "best practices" of the very department she was head of according to the head of IT at SecState) or to hide nefarious activities. The main purpose of BleachBit is to preserve privacy by "obfuscating forensic evidence." The OP's statement was completely correct and made no judgments whatsoever about the guilt or innocence of Sec. Clinton. You're calling it mudslinging because you don't like the idea of people questioning her motives and wish to deflect attention.

Comment Re:Self-inflicted (Score 2) 76

Yes, and those idiot's votes count the same as yours and mind. It is amazing how many people "me too" jump on some bullshit I've already proven to be false a few times before. Hoax is the poisoning of the mind for people too stupid to do their own thinking and prefer their news in a 600x600 image square. Whoever controls these drones, controls the vote, because they are half the population.

Or to paraphrase George Carlin, think about how stupid the average person is, then remember that half the population is dumber than they are.

Comment Re:Signed drivers? (Score 1) 257

Because even generic USB devices that adhere to standard device classes use drivers? And it is perfectly possible for a device manufacturer to still have a custom driver because they want added functionality?

Ages ago I was developing the USB functionality for a device and accidentally came up with a particular firmware load which did something wrong during the initial connection of sending back & forth device identification info... on any Windows machine (98, 2000 & XP) we tested it on that you plugged it into, the device discovery would fail, so you'd unplug the device and move on... and 3 minutes later the PC would seize up (no BSOD oddly enough).

For some reason I never reported the bug, nor did spend any time trying to figure out what bits of my code were breaking Windows, I just solved my problem, made the device be recognized by Windows and move on.

When parsing any protocol or format, it is often possible for there to be unexpected cases which weren't adequately tested which make have negative side effects. This shouldn't be a surprise, I'd just be curious to know what specific change in the new update caused this.

Comment Re:Hillary for prison! (Score 2) 526

The sad thing is that I'm not sure that Obama overstepping the constitution and grabbing another term is worse than anyone on the ballot.

Would it be that hard to tell from his other constitutional oversteps?

More so, even if Clinton, Trump, Stein & Johnson & there VPs were abducted by aliens on election day, the electoral college system has methods for picking regardless of the actual votes cast by the public.

It's the same reason that Al Gore never had any legitimate chance of winning the presidency in 2000 via his court battles, but we could have seen a Bush/Lieberman administration.

Comment Re:More proof (Score 1) 414

Here's a radical idea: why don't we do a decent job of educating early teens of what fields are hiring out there and how rewarding they are, then leave them the hell alone and let them choose what they want to do? This whole "diversity is our goal" crap is morphing into a grand social engineering project where young girls are going to be told "you must be an engineer so you can better represent females!" and young men are going to be told...well, I'm not sure other than "you represent oppression and the male patriarchy and must be punished."

Comment Re:More proof (Score 1) 414

What I see is that women who are very smart get hired, average and dumb women don't get hired. However average and dumb men do get hired. Just look around and see all the idiots you have to work with and ask yourself if those idiots are more qualified than every woman or minority who wanted those jobs.

Given that hiring an unknown is always something of a gamble, wouldn't this outcome be the EXPECTED outcome when there's an oversupply of male candidates and relative scarcity of female candidates? By Jove, yes it is! The scarcity of female candidates virtually guarantees the vast majority of them are in the field because it is a passion for them. The overabundance of males also virtually guarantees many are there because "I need the money" and have no real interest in what they do. Certainly there are outliers in each category but they are, after all, outliers; they make the exception, not the rule.

Comment Re:More proof (Score 1) 414

The hiring managers have no incentive to do anything other than pick the candidate they think is best.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the point of hiring one candidate over another, because one of them is the better candidate?

Put another way, if you're about to have life-saving brain surgery and you're given the choice between a highly-skilled, top-of-his-field, well-paid neurosurgeon and a diversity hire who made it in to fill a quota, who are you going to choose? High-flying ideals are all fine and dandy when it's someone else's skin on the line, but they crumple when made to apply to those same idealists.

Comment Re:A priori analysis (Score 1) 240

Occam's beliefs are relevant in that he correctly applied his Razor, which contrary to common incorrect restatement, does not make any claims to determine the likelihood of a particular model's correctness, or exclude his own theistic model.

All else being absolutely equal between two competing models, Occam's Razor specifies that the simpler model be used -for the purposes of conceptual economy-. The simpler model is used because it is simpler. That implies greater ease of further use in analysis, again, all else being completely equal.

It speaks to a model's straightforward use, not its preferability as representing fact. Were that the case, scientific progress would come to a halt, because in the great majority of cases (i.e. Newtonian physics), the simpler model is simply the inaccurate one.

"Presumptive path" would be a separate heuristic from what Occam's Razor addresses, and I suggest care in not conflating the two such that one's argument is equivocating from "useful" to "true".

Comment Re:A priori analysis (Score 1) 240

The application of the standard model would say nothing about the content of Dark Matter, any more than by saying if we stipulate X amount of matter within Y space, you can thereby say what that matter contains in our "everyday" observable universe. That is the statement of mine you are responding to, not what physics applies. Does it contain complex structures? Life? We have no idea. You appear to be angling for a categorical dismissal you have no basis to make based on a red herring of what system of physics may apply.

As for your question, though, what is your position on the scientific validity of considering "random" as an analyzable, hence scientific, causal factor?

Slashdot Top Deals

If we could sell our experiences for what they cost us, we would all be millionaires. -- Abigail Van Buren