Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Blame Internet Brands (Score 1) 85

Both the recent VerticalScope hack and this have one thing in common: vBulletin. It is a pile of junk, and especially since it was acquired by a firm known as Internet Brands. It is awful software, and a forum about an open source product which uses proprietary components is ethically unsound.

Comment Needs to be re-thought (Score 2) 278

Reading about failures like this makes me appreciate that both Canada and the United States have mandatory systems for the interruption of programming across all broadcasters, regardless of platform, in the event of a public emergency. Apps can help disseminate information, but they should not be constitute the only distribution path besides the media.

Comment Snappy is non-free anyway (Score 4, Interesting) 170

Only the client portion is free software. It only works with a proprietary, Canonical-run package repository. Canonical does not offer source code for the server aspect, and thus, does not offer the ability to create third-party servers. The entire system is subject to Canonical's walled garden.

Comment Re:DMCA Safe Harbor Provision in Jeopardy (Score 1) 156

If Google, Facebook, and Twitter are editorializing content, such as silencing right wing views and anti-immigration sentiments (Zuckerberg met with Merkel to discuss implementation of this, for instance). Then theses companies lose their DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions which safeguard a platform provider from being liable for user generated content. Under the DMCA such media platforms are not responsible for the content posted by their users so long as they are not editorializing the content, such as filtering posts along political lines to present a political bias.

If DMCA Safe Harbor provisions are stripped from Google, Facebook and/or Twitter then THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SPREADING ISLAMIC TERRORIST PROPAGANDA AND INCITING VIOLENCE.

It's not a DMCA provision. That's a safe harbor for copyrighted material. What you really want is the Section 230 safe harbor, which states that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.". A social networking service clearly falls under this provision.

Submission + - Still reeling, SourceForge looks to the future

An anonymous reader writes: More than a decade ago, SourceForge was the place open source projects formed, and their annual Community Choice Awards were a pretty big deal. Google launched the Google Code project hosting service in 2006, the same year that SourceForge started its annual Community Choice Awards. And in 2008, along came GitHub.

As of March 2016, GitHub ranks as the 79th most popular site in the world, and SourceForge comes in at 302. Despite changing hands over the years—and alienating many developers with its DevShare program—SourceForge is still alive and kicking. What does the new owner have planned?

In part 2 of her series on selling communities, Opensource.com community manager Rikki Endsley talks to Logan Abbott, president of SourceForge Media, LLC (the company that now owns SourceForge and Slashdot), about his plans for the future.

Submission + - HackingTeam Malware now Abusing Apple's Native OS X Encryption (objective-see.com)

An anonymous reader writes: OS X natively supports encrypted binaries, which is utilized by Apple to 'protect' several of their system applications. Though undocumented (by Apple), there is nothing stopping 3rd-party software or malware from using this same protection scheme to complicate binary analysis. Although it was theorized that OS X malware would eventually abuse this, turns out it now is.

Submission + - Judges don't understand robot law (boingboing.net)

An anonymous reader writes: After looking at hundreds of cases involving robots, this scholar concludes that "jurists on the whole possess poor, increasingly outdated views about robots and hence will not be well positioned to address the novel challenges they continue to pose." Via BoingBoing.

Submission + - Does Google Hate Old People? (vortex.com)

Lauren Weinstein writes: No. Google doesn't hate old people. I know Google well enough to be pretty damned sure about that.

Is Google "indifferent" to old people? Does Google simply not appreciate, or somehow devalue, the needs of older users?

Those are much tougher calls ...

Slashdot Top Deals

In space, no one can hear you fart.