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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Russian Fingerprints (Score 1) 308

Not wanting people to find out it was CIA is not equal to framing another state. Most of it has to do with simple code reuse and developer efficiency by re-appropriating existing or stolen malware.

Confidence in who did what in terms of state-backed hacking is already bordering on impossible. Nobody really knows who did Stuxnet, for example, except for the fact that the US and Israel practically brag about it every chance they get and that its target was Iran.

Comment Re:Whay should I? (Score 1) 308

No i'm not fucking explaining and arguing it to you, you lazy bastard,

This release, and Wikileaks "recent" release about the CIA "infiltrating" French elections are transparent ploys by the attention-seeking Assange to focus news on his possible eviction from the Ecuador embassy, which both remaining Ecuadorian candidates have promised to do.

This release has had all kinds of editorialized end-of-the-world dystopian future headlines, including falsely smearing quality apps like Signal with nothing to back it up besides a link to a giant dump of data. For all of Assange's preaching, he doesn't believe a word he's saying: he just thinks people should listen to him. Their own summary even betrays their shortcomings:

Has WikiLeaks already 'mined' all the best stories?
No. WikiLeaks has intentionally not written up hundreds of impactful stories to encourage others to find them and so create expertise in the area for subsequent parts in the series. They're there. Look.

The cult of wikileaks is seeking new members! No time to fucking explain and argue it to flink.

The "release" about the CIA "infiltrating" the 2012 French election was especially pathetic. I'm sure infiltrating an election sounds spooky to people who don't want to read through thousands of pages of documents but all it really amounts to is reading their newspapers and getting "inside-the-beltway" info so as to not be shocked by the outcome.

Comment Re: Probably should have focused more (Score 1) 319

FF started its precipitous drop in market share around the second quarter of 2009.

So you mean Firefox started losing marketshare to Chrome not until after Chrome was released? Thanks for clarifying that.

It's not like there's a single cause but people who are pretending that getting a guy fired because of his private political views didn't matter are insane. Of course it did. Firefox had been mostly stagnant until then, undergoing a slow but sure decline.

http://infographic.statista.co...

As you can see most of Chrome's growth was at the expense of IE. Not only that, but it didn't seem to start a decline until almost Q2 2011.

Comment Re:Thanks, Obama! (Score 1) 205

I agree, because I'm the opposite - I'd feel wariness over a potential attack but it wouldn't stop me.

I didn't even go inside the Louvre when I was in Paris. Those pictures that come out every once in a while showing how small the Mona Lisa is compared to the gaggle of tourists all gawking at it are pretty funny. I'd love to go there during off-hours or something when you could take your time and appreciate it all rather than be bumping into people constantly

Comment Re:Thanks, Obama! (Score 1) 205

These things you're listing are all vastly more under your control

vastly more under your control

Your local government influences road and building safety, you can take steps not to be caught in a precarious place during a thunderstorm, you can take good care of your body and build up solid preventative health habits...........

I don't understand the point of your post. Do you disbelieve in shelter or something? All of these things you have some semblance of influence over, unlike foreign persons, such as terrorists, who are not beholden to the laws of your country. The control you exert over this is your government establishing and funding defense forces.

Thanks for your amazement, though, it took lots of hard work and self-development not to put my tent under a tree.

Comment Re:WTF case is closed (Score 1) 139

The FBI closed the case, so now they're outsourcing it?

No

Trump should shut that FBI office down as a warning to the other ones

The DB Cooper FBI office? Even pretending that there was one specifically dedicated towards finding DB Cooper, it presumably would have been shut down when they closed the case

and bank robberies

What do you think the DB Cooper incident was?

You almost understood any single part of this story. Keep working on it bud. You'll get there one day.

Comment Re:Thanks, Obama! (Score 1) 205

I'm going to come out and say it. I am not concerned about Muslim terrorists.

Lots of people say and feel like this, and yet, tourism at the Louvre was still down 15% in 2016. It defies reason to complain about wasteful spending with arguments like these because threats are out there and threats can appear in the future. Government is our major way of handling this, an organization created by us for collective defense. I feel like there are lots of people who fundamentally misunderstand some aspect of society to think that this, or things like controlling our borders, are some crazy and unnecessary fad.

But then again, there's nothing to say that I don't walk out my front door tomorrow and get struck by a bus or tomorrow at lunch choking on a chicken wing, or that as we speak a tumor is growing in my prostrate.

This is exactly the major difference. These things you're listing are all vastly more under your control than are being the target of something like a terror attack. You can be a safer driver, purchase safer vehicles, practice more safety, train yourself for awareness, take less risks, etc. You are in control of your diet, you are in control of your exercise regime. You have some control over your health and health policies. You can go for routine prostate checks, you can check yourself for testicular cancer, etc. There is no control over organized terror that you can conceivably obtain other than that which we're already doing: organizing our society to collectively protect ourselves from foreign threats.

For fucks sake, the sugar industry probably kills or harms more people in a month with its now-revealed war on dietary science than all the terror attacks in the US, Canada and Western Europe in the last half century. If you want to find evil villains, I'd argue you'll find more in a half mile stretch of Wall Street than in half the hell holes of the world.

All of those things you've listed are local problems which are all subject to local laws and local justice. The FBI, for example, could surveil and arrest "the sugar industry" at any moment if they are committing acts which society has deemed to be illegal. The FBI, on the other hand, can't just ask a judge for a search warrant and then waltz in and arrest al-Baghdadi and other IS leaders.

These are two fundamentally different problems: in the case of a health crisis, like diets and health habits of the late 20th century, the problem is not that there isn't enough being done about it but that people had not yet collectively decided on what is wrong and what is harmful. Everyone in our society can agree that terror organizations like al-Qaeda or IS are wrong, the question is what to do about it and how to combat it. Funding to fight something like that is so entirely different than exerting enough citizens' will to convince our governments collectively on something like a health crisis that comparing the dollar values spent on them is meaningless.

Comment Re:Clinton Lost. (Score 1) 404

That's not how you compare per capita voting power. It's well known that the most populous states have less voting power per capita, because you need to compare number of voters to number of electoral votes.

I brought that all up in my original post, which is why I'm confused here. I said people who were calling Trump's election illegitimate were being idiots about it when someone else brought up his complaints about the EC and how that did make Trump's victory not a legitimate victory. It was a very close election but perfectly legitimate. Not only that, but the Great Lakes rust belt states playing a key role in the outcome makes perfect sense considering how they have largely been abandoned by everything good that has happened in this country for the last 30, 40, 50 years.

and yet the "swing" quarter of the country in reality matters more to the election than the biggest states (excepting Florida) and the smallest states.

The states I listed round out the top 10 in population, and Florida at #3 is a per-election contender for most important state. As for the smallest states, who cares? They already get proportionally more power according to slashdot posts.

(1) I think the system made more sense when the Constitution was ratified than it does today, with the federal government much more powerful today the reason for splitting things along state lines makes less sense

I disagree completely, but whatever. I find it hard to believe you can contemptuously look down on rural, out-of-state voters while simultaneously clamoring for a federal election or stronger federal powers. Every so often I read about state politics from other states and I often come away thanking god that they have no influence over my state government.

(2) I live in a large state and am unhappy that my vote proportionally counts for less.

This is where you're wrong: your vote counts for the ~15 or so EV that your state is apportioned. That is more influential and more powerful than any smaller states, no matter the per capita difference. There is no federal election, there is no national popular vote. It's a TV fabrication.

Trying to make reality fit to your imagination is working backwards, here, and comparing your vote within your state to another person's vote in another state is comparing apples to oranges, or your dollar purchasing power to their dollar purchasing power. A national vote tally would only simplify away people's opinions and concerns, not amplify them as you seem to think it would, thus diluting both your voting power and your actual enfranchisement. There's basically no realistic scenario where you would come out with more influence than you have under the EC.

Just take another look at this election: Clinton focused heavily on some swing states, but she also catered to progressive ideals that are highly popular in the states she dominated but which didn't resonate at all with millions of Midwesterners, even though the EC supposedly suppresses the influence of non-swing states! Not only that, but she basically ignored Wisconsin, choosing not to spend much resources or any time there, taking it for granted as a gimme. If the EC suppresses gimme states in favor of swing states, how did Wisconsin end up being one of the most important votes? Turns out their vote, which should have been marginalized and not mattered as much according to this anti-EC hypothetical, ended up mattering more in reality.

If you live in a high population state which is a gimme for your party, then your vote already matters: you are already being catered to. If you live in a high population state which is a gimme for the opposite party, then your vote already matters: the threat of any kind of swing turns your "ignored", but actually important, EVs into supremely important swing state EVs. If you live in a low population state, you generally don't get these benefits, since a low pop swing state has minimal impact, but you are already over-represented in government, so who cares?

Comment Re:Clinton Lost. (Score 1) 404

No, whoever leaked the DNC emails showed how our system of government is already delegitimized.

How?

Trying to minimize and cover it up with xenophobia is disgusting.

Xenophobia????????

Foreigners are not citizens of our country. They cannot vote. They are not beholden to our laws. They have no responsibilities to us, other than what treaties their representatives and leaders have signed in their names. They do not pay our taxes. They act in their own interests, often conflicting directly with our own interests. Sometimes they even organize together to wage war against us. Foreigners, by definition, exert no control over our internal political mechanisms by virtue of them being foreign. Foreigners don't get to take part in our democracy just as a freebie because we're so nice.

Foreigners intervening and influencing internal politics is, by definition, subverting our democracy. Citizens taking part in our democracy aren't subverting it, they're just verting. A nation-state with thousands of nuclear warheads pointed almost solely at us cannot be trusted as a friendly participant in our government. You're a fucking moron for believing anything else.

Comment Re:Clinton Lost. (Score 1) 404

Of course there has. Are you dense?

Do you think the FBI fabricated a warning to them this spring? Do you think CrowdStrike fabricated their entire investigation, coming up with malicious software which never existed? Do you think the spearphishing emails and the discussion about them, which you can read online, have been fabricated?

I think you meant to say that there hasn't been much evidence presented proving WHO the DNC was hacked BY. Which, of course, you're still wrong about. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

Comment Re:Clinton Lost. (Score 1) 404

You make that point the California has ~20x more electoral votes than Wyoming and from that seem to conclude that a California voter is more powerful than a Wyoming voter.

They are more powerful. If you and your friends can buy a fancy dinner or rent a small apartment together, are you more powerful than a city full of people that can build bridges and subways?

If you care so much about the per capita power of your vote, why do you want to dilute it from 1 in 40 million to 1 in 350 million?

How can you make these kinds of arguments which try to claim that states don't matter if your latent distaste for rural voters means you should be over-the-moon happy about them having their fuckoff little state and not being able to influence your state's politics?

Right now Presidents must cater to swing states in their campaigns, some of which are small states.

3. Florida
6. Pennsylvania
7. Ohio
9. North Carolina
10. Michigan
12. Virginia
20. Wisconsin

Pretty fuckin big states!

anyway, I'm not sure what your point is here -- the electoral college exists because states are the fundamental unit of our union. Even with the histrionics about disenfranchisement or whatever because people found out their vote didn't count for as much as they feel like it should, there aren't many ways of looking at this election as having an illegitimate outcome without doing some serious mental gymnastics. That's cool that you want to change the EC, I guess, but as I said the EC is only "rigged" because some states don't disagree internally nearly as much as others.

Comment Re:Clinton Lost. (Score 1) 404

Of course I'm fine with it. Bernie Sanders wasn't even a democrat until they decided to allow him to run as one. The primary election "rigging" that you're talking about happened in the 1970s, when the Democratic party decided to put rules in place so that they don't lose every state except Minnesota because of a weak candidate who polled well within their base but had no general appeal. It might be a dumb process, but it's perfectly legitimate. If the Republicans had that kind of foresight they wouldn't have been so embarrassed to be stuck with Trump for so long.

I don't even understand your point, though. Foreigners don't have any input on our elections. American citizens do. That's what sovereignty means. If an election process were rigged -- truly rigged -- we could arrest them and have our justice system handle it. They would be citizens betraying our society with their corruption or greed or partisanship or whatever, and our society could deal with them.

We cannot do that with foreigners. Foreign interference is an abject evil to a democracy. It is by definition subversion, unlike fellow citizens simply disagreeing with each other.

Comment Re:Bigoted much? (Score 1) 404

So you only disbelieve those two pieces of evidence, choosing to deliberately ignore the existence of any other?

How about you try reading the CrowdStrike report that was published in June? How about you read some of the other security firms analyses of it?

What is your explanation for the smiley faces?

Why do you keep trying to assert that google translate does an adequate job of emulating typical Russian ESL grammar errors when it plainly does not? Your own post shows that it doesn't. Did you even read the Guccifer2.0 blog post that I'm talking about?

Comment Re:Watergate (Score 1) 404

Of course they are going to come up with a scenario that makes the leaks somehow not the DNC's fault.

So if the DNC contracted CrowdStrike back in June to find out what the FBI was talking about when the FBI warned them they had been hacked, you think that CrowdStrike would try to figure out what it was?

Thanks for agreeing with me, I guess.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your mode of life will be changed to ASCII.

Working...