Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment I know I'm not alone... (Score 4, Interesting) 71

...but when I hear of new technology in this arena, I don't really think "Ooh Dual Channel DDR400!" or "Finally USB 3.1!" or whatever.

I just want to get my hands on some of this stuff and build a new system with it. Or several.

I don't even need to replace any of my current computers. I just love building them, and getting to build stuff with new components (be they AMD- or Intel-based) is just fun.

The last system I built was my gaming rig, and it's the most powerful machine I've ever made. As soon as it was up and running I wanted to sell it so I could use the money to build another one.

Kinda wish I could do that for a living, really, but the market for Artisanal Hand-Crafted Desktops is kind of rough ):

Comment Re:Oh great. (Score 1) 227

This is around the time where they cancelled Farscape, their highest rated show ever, claiming nobody was watching it. When they got over a million fan letters asking them to reconsider, they said that "rating figures don't correspond with that many people watching the show".

So they were saying all kinds of things that made no sense.

Though one might postulate that perhaps they thought "SciFi" appeals to males, so they were divesting from that.

Comment Re:Oh great. (Score 1) 227

I couldn't get into The Expanse and never even tried The Magicians. Killjoys is fun, but honestly the SyFy Low Effort is visible in it. I think the only way these shows are at all decent is the cheapo CG they use has finally got to the point where it looks decent.

Comment Re:Oh great. (Score 1) 227

I lost all respect for "SyFy" when they changed their name to that "to appeal to women".

Also when they cancelled Farscape to churn out crappy movie after crappy movie.

That said, I did enjoy Childhood's End, but to call it "pretty dang close" to the book is pretty far off. "Inspired by", maybe. "Kind of similar", perhaps. "Shares some plot-points", definitely. But it also varies immensely from it, and while some of the story might be the same, it tells a completely different narrative.

Comment Oh great. (Score 4, Interesting) 227

I'm going to assume this is going to be a "Based On The Novel By" kind of thing, where they basically have a couple of plot elements from the book and nothing more. I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the book, nor that it's not an important book in science fiction history, but I'm not really sure the story holds up for the 21st century. Some of the themes that were controversial at the time, and which I'm sure Heinlein thought that by now would be the norm, kind of went the other direction, too.

It's one of those times where they should just call it something else rather than name it after a famous work.

Comment Excellent (Score 3, Informative) 153

Red Dwarf is one of my favourite shows, ever.

Yeah, series 8 was... well, bad, and most people are content to ignore (mini)series 9. But season 10 was pretty good and had some really, really funny moments (Lister's Father's Day thing, for example, took one of the more hilariously messed up aspects of the show and built on it).

So more Red Dwarf? I'll take it.

Comment Re:You missed a couple of sections (Score 1) 309

In finding no Fourth
Amendment violation, the Western District of Washington noted that "in order for [] prospective
user[s] to use the Tor network they must disclose information, including their IP addresses, to
unknown individuals running Tor nodes, so that their communications can be directed toward
their destinations." Id. at *2. The Western District of Washington noted that under "such a
system, an individual would necessarily be disclosing his identifying information to complete

Sounds like it makes sense to me

Thus, hacking resembles the broken blinds in Carter. 525 U.S. at 85. Just as Justice
Breyer wrote in concurrence that a police officer who peers through broken blinds does not
violate anyone's Fourth Amendment rights, jd. at 103 (Breyer, J., concurring), FBI agents who
exploit a vulnerability in an online network do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Just as the
area into which the officer in Carter peered - an apartment - usually is afforded Fourth
Case 4:16-cr-00016-HCM-RJK Document 90 Filed 06/23/16 Page 52 of 58 PageID# 1134
Amendment protection, a computer afforded Fourth Amendment protection in other
circumstances is not protected from Government actors who take advantage of an easily broken
system to peer into a user's computer. People who traverse the Internet ordinarily understand the
risk associated with doing so

Well yeah if you don't patch your system, you know you're going to get hacked right? So, boohoo, you got hacked by the gov should have been surfing kiddy porn

Comment Re:You missed a couple of sections (Score 1) 309

"Furthermore, the Court FINDS suppression unwarranted because the Government did not need a warrant in this case. Thus, any potential defects in the issuance of the warrant or in the warrant itself could not result in constitutional violations".

This language is particularly specific and narrows the ruling to this case and only this case. The fact that the FBI got a warrant to allow them to run remote exploit code on an individual's computers that had downloaded the exploit (which was only available on PlayPen) means that they didn't need a warrant.

The individual was exposing himself to this exploit of his own actions, and thus didn't require a warrant. Let me put it this way, the FBI takes over a drug dealer, and has him continue sale, but under the new watchful eye of cameras that collect identifying photos of individuals who purchase drugs. (Not only that, but the person has to go into a room that specifically says, “illegal drugs” on it in order to even end up on camera.)

Do law enforcement REALLY need a warrant when the person is incriminating themselves?

This is like arguing that law enforcement had no right to put a tracker in the cash bag of a bank that they took. It's BS. It required active agency in acquiring the exploit code, and a clear intent to obtain child pornography.

a) You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're committing a crime, and b) if you walk into someone else's house and demonstrate direct intent to commit a crime without knowing that you're identifying yourself to police, well, TOO BAD

Comment Re:The message is clear: (Score 1) 309

The site was actually protected by the Tor network (and despite an error in configuration allowing it to be accessed outside of Tor for a bit) was only available through the Tor network.

They then attached the callback program to trigger upon downloading known child porn, and voila your computer happily reports to the FBI that you've just downloaded child porn.

This is actually pretty solid law, and entirely reasonable warrant and execution of that warrant

It looks like (so far, I'm only part way through the actual ruling) one of the chief objections is that the warrant identified the website with the wrong type of logo. The text on that logo, had however stayed the same. This is not a good argument for why a warrant shouldn't be valid

Comment Re:What Constitution? (Score 1) 309

Even though the warrant authorized the FBI to deploy the NIT as soon as a user logged
into Playpen, SA Alfin testified that the Government did not deploy the NIT against Mr. Matish
in this particular case until after someone with the username of "Broden" logged into Playpen,
arrived at the index site, went to the bestiality section - which advertised prepubescent children
engaged in sexual activities with animals - and clicked on the post titled "Girl 11YO, with dog."
In other words, the agents took the extra precaution of not deploying the NIT until the user first
logged into Playpen and second entered into a section of Playpen which actually displayed child
pornography. At this point, testified SA Alfin, the user apparently downloaded child
pornography as well as the NIT to his computer. Thus, the FBI deployed the NIT in a much
narrower fashion than what the warrant authorized.

I dunno, that's pretty compelling reasonable suspicion there for a warrant which is what they actually had

Slashdot Top Deals

Computer programs expand so as to fill the core available.