Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the brand new SourceForge HTML5 speed test! Test your internet connection now. Works on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Data Driven? Bullshit. (Score 4, Insightful) 196

There's also the problem of ex-convicts being looked upon as "damaged goods" by companies. If you say "I've previously been convicted of a crime" during a job interview, you might as well tell the hiring manager "Never hire me, ever." People who have served their time in jail find it hard to locate honest work, which pushes them back to crime, which leads to them going back to jail. It becomes a vicious cycle.

Comment Re:Subscription depends on how it is done... (Score 4, Insightful) 272

I'd rather just use OpenOffice.org or LibreOffice than paying Microsoft $100 or more. I'm still using Windows, but if Microsoft decides that all future Windows computer sales need a monthly "Windows license fee" to operate then I'll look into a Mac or will buy a Windows laptop and will put Linux on it.

Comment Re:This was expected (Score 1) 272

Well, if Microsoft meant that this was "the last windows you'll ever buy" because future ones will be per-month rentals, then they're right. The version of Windows that many people "bought" (in the price of their computer) will be the last version they ever buy. People will flock to Apple instead of paying a monthly fee for the "privilege" of being able to boot up their computer to check their e-mail and Facebook.

Comment Re:FTA: (Score 2) 108

That's the other reason this debate is pointless. Even if the US government could, tomorrow, declare all non-backdoored encryption illegal AND every company complied immediately (a turn of events that would make me looking for airborne S. Domesticus), there would still be open-source, non-backdoored encryption hosted in other countries. How would the US force all websites in every country into backdooring all of their encryption? And why wouldn't any hypothetical terrorist use this non-backdoored encryption instead of using the official, US Government approved encryption?

The people that are in favor of US government backdoors in encryption either don't know how encryption works or are merely making a power play. Or both.

Comment Re:But the Paris attackers DIDNT use encryption (Score 5, Insightful) 108

I was going to say that but you beat me to it. The Paris attackers used burner phones and SMS. Unencrypted SMS. If worldwide police agencies can't detect the digital equivalent of postcards being sent through the mail, what makes them think that a) terrorists will care enough to go through the trouble to encrypt their communications and b) they could even find the supposedly encrypted messages when they're just tossing more hay on the pile while searching for the same needle.

Comment Re:FTA: (Score 5, Informative) 108

They are more blurry than "Western Governments are good guys/other governments and hackers are bad guys", but the overall point is that even if you COULD trust all western governments to never abuse their encryption backdoor (a huge assumption), the mere presence of a backdoor would lead to hackers exploiting it. And, walking back the assumption, let's say you (for some reason) trust the current administration with an encryption backdoor. Do you trust the next one with it? What about the one after that? How long until an administration comes along that abuses the backdoor (whether Nixon-Whitewater level abuse or slowly encroaching on what is acceptable abuse)?

Comment Re:Interesting to note (Score 1) 284

Or, even if it is about religion, it's about divisions in the religion which doesn't fit into the "all Muslims are the same and are all blood-thirsty terrorists come to kill you so ban 'em all" narrative. Worse (for the right-wing talking heads), it sympathizes Muslims which turns them into *gasp* ACTUAL PEOPLE instead of some shadowy enemy to fear and hate.

Comment Re:Could have occurred anywhere... (Score 1) 284

Remember that the group of people with the largest casualties to terrorists ARE Muslims. They are declared to be the "wrong kind" of Muslims and are treated just like anyone else - perhaps even worse. It's not enough to follow Islam in the eyes of these radicals. You have to follow THEIR version of Islam. And if you have the misfortune to live in an area that ISIS controls or is near an area that ISIS controls, you risk death for speaking out against them. And if you don't speak up, you are accused by people (in the US or other areas that enjoy much greater freedom of speech) of not speaking up enough against the radicals. Too many people don't get that not every place is as good as the US is with freedom of speech.

Comment Re:The TSA increases the risk. (Score 1) 284

There was also the fear of "when will the next plane hit?" The first plane hit and that was bad, but there was some sliver of doubt saying "maybe this was a horrible accident." Then the second plane hit. Then the third. Then the fourth crashed in the field. By this point, we were paranoid about all flights. Would any plane in the air suddenly veer off course and crash in random locations? Would they be taken over the minute we resumed flights?

This is what the terrorists want to inspire: fear. Fear of how much worse the situation could get. Don't get me wrong, they love the deaths they cause, but the fear really drives their cause.

I doubt that terrorists could pull off another 9-11 since the "standard hijacker protocol" has now changed. It used to be that you remained seated and quiet, your flight went to Cuba where the hijacker put on a big show, and then he gave himself up and everyone went free. Yes, your plans were horribly mangled but you were safe. Now it's, sit down and stay quiet and you're 100% guaranteed to die so you might as well fight back. That doesn't guarantee your survival but a chance at living's better than certain death.

However, terrorists could pull off another event with a 9-11-level of fear. Just have shooters/bombers stationed in various large airports at a busy time (e.g. Christmas) and hit them one after another. Flights would be canceled and people would be terrified to set foot in an airport again. And there is no security that could combat this (definitely nothing the TSA could do).

Of course, this doesn't happen regularly because it's hard to plan and execute this - especially when most of your followers are an ocean away from the targets.

Comment Re:THIS DOESN'T MATTER! (Score 1) 284

Actually, I'd argue that an airport is a bigger target than an airplane. A terrorist is highly unlikely to duplicate 9-11 again with a hijacked airplane. That chance ended once people realized that a hijacking didn't mean "sit down, shut up, go to Cuba, and get released" anymore but instead meant "fight back or you have a 100% chance of crashing into a building and dying."

With an airport, you have multiple aircraft's worth of people on hand. If you hit a particularly busy time, you can not only kill a lot of people, but disrupt flights coming in and out. Time this with a few hits on other airports around the country and you could throw everyone into a panic, disrupting travel plans for millions of people.

You don't even really need to worry about security like you do for an airplane. To hit an airplane, you need to get past the TSA. (Not particularly hard, mind you, but it's still a speed bump.) To hit an airport, just walk up to the security line as if you're going to board and take your actions right when you're almost to the checkpoint.

Comment Re:yeah, my kids are on youtube (Score 2) 188

My kids keep wanting to watch YouTube videos but my problem isn't with them watching more story-based shows, but the quality of random YouTube channels. For example, they love watching people playing video games (either ones they own to get tips/tricks on gameplay or ones they know I'll never buy them because we just don't have enough money to buy every game ever released). There are some great gamer YouTube channels, but also ones where the video starts innocently enough but then delves into language that my wife and I think are inappropriate for a 9 year old and an almost-13 year old. (In the latter case, he's on the Autism spectrum and might take "person says X on YouTube" as a social cue that saying "X" is fine in a school setting - when, in fact, it will get him in severe trouble. He's almost-13 chronologically, about 15 intellectually, but only 8 or 9 socially/emotionally.)

Our solution is to have a firm "channel pre-approval requirement." If the boys want to watch a YouTube channel, they need to tell me which channel and wait for me to watch a few of the videos (without them present). Once I do, I'll tell them whether the channel is fine or not. This doesn't stop them from searching and playing random YouTube channels, but it gives us a consistent household policy.

Comment Re:If my 11 year old washing machine nets me $50.. (Score 5, Insightful) 441

My guess is Microsoft didn't quit this lawsuit because it just didn't feel like litigating that day, they did to halt the contagion of a precedent of four or five figure legal decisions over their Win 10 upgrade.

Except this woman won her lawsuit. Microsoft dropped their appeal. The precedent has been set. You might need to prove exactly what the forced Windows 10 "upgrade" cost you, but you can cite this case along with your proof. (BTW, you can't just "quit" a lawsuit if you are the defendant, but you could try to arrange a settlement to avoid setting legal precedent.)

Comment Re:Clueless... (Score 3, Insightful) 109

Feds declare that the back doors to all homes remain unlocked at all times to allow police easy access. In response to questions about home security, the government said they'd post "For Government Use and Homeowner Use Only" signs on everyone's doors. "That'll stop any burglars," CIA director Brennan said. "Not that there are any burglars. They're purely theoretical."

Comment Re:Awesome! (Score 3, Insightful) 87

I'd also add that I'd be fine with this being turned off by default (i.e. your device isn't rooted by default). Most people won't need root access for what they use their phones/tablets for. But if I want to root my phone/tablet, I can turn this on (perhaps click OK on a "this can wreck havoc with your device if you don't know what you're doing" warning) and then have root access.

Want to make it a little less likely that someone would turn on root by mistake? Do what they did with USB debugging. To turn this on, you need to go to Settings, About Phone, and tap the Build number 7 times just to get the option to display. Make it so "Enable Root Access" doesn't display unless you tap some other section like this. It would prevent casual users from accidentally getting root access while making it much easier for the rest of us to do this.

Slashdot Top Deals

Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.

Working...