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: Great! (Score 1) 228

Yeah, Dyn is just a bunch of clueless amateurs. If only they'd asked you how to mitigate a colossal DDoS flood. You'd tell them: security! Because ... the problem with a publicly exposed service that doesn't work if it's not publicly exposed, is that it doesn't have good enough security to keep the public traffic out. Gotcha.

Comment Re: Great! (Score 1) 228

Brave words in defense of a social media platform ...

I'm not defending Twitter, I'm defending YOUR right, and mine, to be free of script kiddies trashing things just because they can. And I was replying to a user here who was cheering on a DDoS attack and hoping it permanently destroyed something he doesn't like. I didn't see that user, or you, proposing or providing an alternative that unicorns its way past your standards.

So, you don't like SV's social media systems. What have you got designed that will work better? Be specific.

Comment Re:AI -- FAR more hype than substance (Score 1) 131

But the things you listed aren't features of intelligence, they're bugs in our brains (or simply, things that natural selection de-emphasized out of comparative irrelevance in your basic cave man survival scenario).

If those short term memories were more reliably committed to long-term, or there was no real distinction between those things, would that really be a disqualifyier for intelligence?

Comment Re: Great! (Score 2) 228

You can't conceive of an individual or gradiated reaction

So what is your "gradiated" take on whether or not malicious script kiddies should burn down Twitter's DNS provider? Personally, I think that's a black and white issue. I responded to someone who was cheering on the script kiddies doing the damage. You, with your advanced and clearly superior intellect and sense of nuance, obviously think it's kind of OK that the script kiddies wreck things like that. Can you elaborate please? Be sure to use simple words to describe the part where launching a DDoS like that is a good thing, so that us simpletons can keep up with your anonymous, cowardly self as you teach us more about our irrelevance. Or will explaining the ethical merits of the DDoS attack on Dyn fail to provide you with a proper venue for your pretentious faux condescension? I'd hate for you to have to just simply get to the point - that might hurt your tender, advanced, nuanced feelings.

Comment Re:Great! (Score 4, Insightful) 228

Torrent, cryptocurrency. Spotify uses DRM. DRM is evil. I am surprised to see someone on Slashdot supporting these muppets.

I'm supporting your CHOICE to use whatever services you like, and to move to something else if you prefer. Wishing for the destruction of such services by a malicious third party is BS. If you want them to go away because you philosophically disagree with, say, musicians choosing to whom they license their works ... then offer a service that musicians like better. Some don't license their works to Spotify. That's different than cheering when some script kiddies act to destroy access to it.

Comment Re:Great! (Score 5, Insightful) 228

Paying money every month for a couple of sine waves coming out of a cheap tinny Chinese speaker.
Paying money to paypal for the privilege of paying. Paypal fees are f**ing ridiculous

Here's an idea: don't use those services.

Obviously you are personally running a much better music streaming service that you'd like to offer to Spotify's millions of customers. Can you provide a link to something that they will find persuasive? I'm sure your system is easier to use, less expensive, widely available, performs well, pays the artists who create the material they license to you, and in all other ways is superior to Spotify. Looking forward to your offering! Right? Yes?

And, obviously you have never been involved in any sort of commerce there in your mom's basement. Or, are you offering the infrastructure, security, staff, and other resources that will allow individuals and businesses the means by which to handle financial transactions on the fly, a million times a day, but at no cost to any party involved? Fantastic! Please provide a link to that other service of yours, too. That would be awesome. Right? Yes? No? I see.

Comment Re: Great! (Score 4, Insightful) 228

You really need to be less of an absolutist

See, my perspective is that you absolutely should have the choice to use PayPal or Square or what have you, if you choose to. You ... absolutely think they should be shut down? In what way am I over-reacting to someone who thinks that Twitter should go away? Why not simply offer a better choice, or at least ignore the thing they don't like? The world view that calls for the destruction of businesses that whiners resent or wish were different is a fundamental problem with our current culture. So yes, it's worth reacting, and pointing out the baseline trollishness of such perspectives. Because the little baby tyrants that live inside people who think like that are poisonous to everyone. "I don't like that thing! I hope it dies!"

No, I'm not confused. But I see that you're trying very hard to avoid the big picture.

Comment Re:Great! (Score 5, Informative) 228

Hopefully they never come back up! It would be great to live in a world with the above gone.

Right! Because we sure wouldn't want small businesses to be able to do business using a payment mechanism they choose to use, or people to conveniently communicate from their phones using a service they choose to use, or listen to music from a source they choose to use. Definitely, all such things should be destroyed. What the hell is wrong with you?

Comment Re:But . . . (Score 1) 409

So: you receive an email that specifically discusses the considerations surrounding drone strike targets, or which include high quality satellite imagery specifically labeled as including sites in North Korea. You're suggesting that the Secretary of State wouldn't be aware, as she saw those things on her internet-connected home computer, that it was classified material that should never be traveling or stored in that context? Yes or no.

Comment Re:But . . . (Score 1) 409

I like the way you're skating around the central matter. It very much IS HER JOB to know that satellite imagery of North Korea and discussions about prosoectuve drone strike targets in the Middle East are classified material. It doesn't matter how it's "marked," it only matters what it IS. She was extensively briefed on such matters, just like everyone operating at that level. There was SAP-level material involved, here. There was material that was so sensitive that mere redaction of content wasn't enough - the source agencies insisted that even the meta-level nature of the documents be completely clamped down because of the level of secrecy involved. That's not some exercise in hair-splitting over how classification is graded - it's to point out that anyone serving as SoS has ZERO excuse for pretending they don't know that stuff is classified when they see it wandering through their email. And they are legally required to make a big freakin' stink about it with their own agency's security people.

But no. She just let it linger on her home computer, allowed her non-cleared staff to paw through it, and made copies of it which she then handed over to third parties (like her lawyers) where it was yet again stored in a non-secure location.

She wants to be commander in chief of a couple of million federal employees who would be spit-roasted for doing exactly what she did. And then she set about lying to all of us about it, over and over again, for months on end. The only thing sparing her from the indictment that anyone else would have suffered was political cover from the Obama administration.

Slashdot Top Deals

I've looked at the listing, and it's right! -- Joel Halpern