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


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

Comment Re: Equal amounts? (Score 1) 300

This is basically what I take from your position:

Sacrifice our principals to stop Trump? Never!

Sacrifice our principals to stop Hillary? Hell yeah!

Well that's a glorious way of summing up your own bias that you could possibly parse it that way. Advocating that people vote for a third party is clearly not favoring one of those over the other. Advocating people vote for Johnson or Stein is obviously a way to not sacrifice my principles to either.

It's ironic that you complain of how I parsed your statement, because you completely misparsed mine.

I didn't say you were abandoning your principles by supporting a 3rd party.

I said you were abandoning your principles by endorsing the actions of a major power using spycraft to try and sway the election.

Neither candidate so dangerous as to be worth sacrificing one's principles over. At the end of the day they are both pathetic and craven. Neither one will cause armageddon; they're too vain to.

GWB went into Iraq based on his gut feeling that it was the right thing to do.

As a result of that action hundreds of thousands have died, the EU is experiencing a migrant crisis that threatens breakup, and the global recession was a lot worse than it likely should have been.

And GWB was orders of magnitude better suited to be president than Trump. Don't underestimate just how much damage Trump could cause.

What a shocking revelation! Next you'll tell us that wrestling is fixed!!

Actually, it is a bit shocking. Most politicians are not so pathetic and chameleon as to openly state this to their backers.

How would you know? We've only seen Clinton's dirty laundry.

Romney for certain was at least as guilty as Clinton with his 47% comments.

There are ways to openly and honestly separate one's personal opinions from one's politics whilst not lying to the people about the positions one will be fighting for.

If you're looking to confuse the public and cause needless controversies. Do you really think Obama only came around to the idea of gay marriage in 2012?

Clinton's personal opinions are kept personal because they're irrelevant. It's the positions she campaigns on that will show how she'll govern.

Even Trump managed to do this, at least once and at least briefly regarding the transsexual bathroom thing. He's for letting transwomen use the bathrooms in Trump Tower, but he defers to the party when it comes to national policy--he'll veto legislation that tries to protect transsexuals on the national stage because he's "in favor of letting the states decide." (Maybe he's walked this back since then; I don't know.)

That's not nuance, that's incoherence. On everything except immigration Trump's policies are under-defined and incoherent. Unless it has to do with immigration, Muslims, or the military, Trump is just trying to repeat what he thinks the GOP wants to hear.

I don't respond well to this sort of fear-mongering or this protectionist attitude toward unrepentant liars. Leaks have always happened. They are an essential tool for keeping our democracy at least semi-functional. But suddenly they're not leaks any more--they're "hacks" ! Oh noes!

And there's a strong ethos that the media, who is the one typically digging for and exposing leaks, will pursue both sides more or less equally. Because the power to expose leaks is the power to sway elections.

I appreciate lies being exposed. If it's true that the Russian government is the only one doing it at this moment in time then kudos to them! I encourage anyone and everyone to leak/hack Trump's dirty little secrets as well, though I must say that (as I am with Bill Clinton) I'm much more interested in his lies on policy than his lies about his personal affairs.

Except few entities other than the Russian government have the resources to leak/hack on this scale. This isn't just one phishing attack against one campaign chair. It's months of well crafted attacks against a multitude of people including a series of technically advanced hacks.

You're also advocating for a system where parties would be encouraged to encourage a group of unethical extremist supporters who will carry out their dirty work for them.

I'd be fascinated to see what emails were going around the Trump Org, but that no one has hacked and leaked them is a good thing.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 215

Arguing a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his ethnicity is the very definition of racism. The textbook definition mind you of what Racism is.

Correction: He argued a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his parents' nationality. Mexicans are not necessarily Hispanic, just as Americans are not necessarily European, African or Asian.

It was because the judge was of Hispanic ethnicity and still embraced some portion of Mexican culture. Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico, did you hear Trump bring it up once? No? Ok. I hope we can forget about that absurd position and agree that Trump was talking about race and culture, not the nationality of the parents.

Note that Rubio and Cruz probably escaped similar remarks because they've publicly embraced white European culture.

And even *if* he had made a racist statement, that still doesn't mean all of his supporters are racist. That's a hasty generalization.

No one sane claims all of his supporters are racist, just a lot of them.

Oh, and this is a lovely flip of the standard "just because a lot of Trump's supporters are racist doesn't mean he is!"

It just floors me when liberals are for free speech *except* when it's speech they disagree with...

If floors me when some conservatives demonstrate that they have no clue what free speech means.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 215

Wanting to keep out members of a "religion" that openly-stated goal of which is the takeover of the world

Islam is a political philosophy of conquest that happens to contain a religion. It's one of several political philosophies that we could live without.

Islam is whatever the hell the particular believer happens to believe.

If you're a member of ISIS, Islam is the one true faith and should be spread by the sword.

If you're a farmer, Islam might be a religion preaching peace and compassion.

If you're a student, Islam might be an annoying set of dietary restrictions.

To claim that Muslim is a political philosophy of conquest is no more valid than an atheist like myself claiming that Christianity is a political philosophy that demands theocracy, the repression and even killing of gays, and Jews should control Biblical Israel to bring the Second Coming.

Those Christians exist, but if you claimed those beliefs broadly represented all Christians people would rightly regard you as a lunatic.

Assuming that anyone who embraces the label Islam is a member of your "political philosophy of conquest" is inaccurately stereotyping a lot of people (probably over a billion). It is the definition of bigotry. If you object to that label then reconsider how readily you categorize 1.7 billion people with a very diverse set of beliefs.

Comment Re:Clinton is a politician, Trump is not (Score 1) 167

> actually seems to garner extra support from their followers by being outlandish.

I wouldn't say extra support. Trump absolutely knows his fanbase, the reality-tv loving, racially insecure (but not financially insecure, trump primary voters average $11K more in yearly income than both clinton and sanders primary voters) authoritarian-leaning types. For them it is not about policy, its about the feels and he gives them the best feels. But they only make up about 40% of the republican party, and everybody else is pretty much grossed out instead of turned on by that shit.

I think this is the key.

Ever since Trump went after the Khan family it's been obvious that the general electorate does not like Trump going after private citizens.

Yet that's exactly what he did after the first debate with Alicia Machado and again after the second debate with the women who accused him of assault.

The first debate proved that the general electorate does not like him acting unpresidential.

Yet he keeps doing it and ended the first debate by calling Hillary "a nasty woman" and creating a completely unnecessary controversy by talking about contesting the election results.

All of his advisors would have told him these were bad ideas ahead of time and would cost him votes. And it's not like they asked him to memorize the constitution word-for-word, avoiding these controversies would have been trivial.

I honestly see two main possibilities for his behaviour:

1) Trump really does have a major deficiency, either comically low levels of self-control or he's living in a massive bubble and somehow thinks these are brilliant ideas.

2) Trump has no intention of winning the election and is just trying to preserve his fortune. He lost his TV show and realizes he's destroyed the mainstream appeal of his brand (possibly his biggest asset), so he's now trying to transform his new base into a market for TrumpTV.

Submission + - Google takes aim to put down Samsung and Apple | Foxmediatv.co.in (foxmediatv.co.in)

Foxmedia Tv writes: Google has planned to launch two devices Google Pixel and Pixel XL. Primarily, both the devices are differentiated on size and screen resolution. Pixel is 5-inch 1080p display, while, Pixel XL is slightly bigger with 5.5-inch quad HD display. Both the devices run on Snapdragon 821 processor and have a specialized version of Google’s android software. The devices also support Daydream virtual reality platform which was announced in summer by Google I/O. For More Info :- http://www.foxmediatv.co.in/go...

Comment Re: Equal amounts? (Score 1) 300

Why is attacking the Hillary campaign a bad thing?

Because it's a one-sided effort driven by a rival power. Say Russia has pushed the polls by 1% to the Republicans by releasing DNC communications, they could have redirected their efforts the other way and done just as much, if not more.

An entity who sees you as the enemy is trying to manipulate into a certain course of action, don't you think it wise to resist that manipulation?

We now know they corrupted the democratic process in the primary to deliver her the nomination. And we know from the latest Wikileaks release that Clinton has been openly talking to Wall street about the fact that she's been routinely lying in public, saying what is necessary to get elected.

What a shocking revelation! Next you'll tell us that wrestling is fixed!!

Why are you attacking someone for attacking this loathsome woman?

Because even if you were right that she was loathsome (she isn't, but your other wrong ideas take precedence), that doesn't mean the ends justify the means.

What happens when someone decides your favourite candidate is loathsome? Do you still think the Russian government is justified in hacking their internal communications and dumping them to the Internet to look for dirt? Do you want a political system where no one can have an honest discussion over email because a state-sponsored hacker might dump it and cause a scandal?

I even think that would be a more important goal, long term, than sacrificing literally every shred of dignity and concern for the truth and the future of our democracy just to stop some shock-jock version of George W. Bush (i.e. someone who is almost certain, at the end of the day, just a lazy puppet.)

This is basically what I take from your position:

Sacrifice our principals to stop Trump? Never!

Sacrifice our principals to stop Hillary? Hell yeah!

Submission + - Would redundancy and really long TTL have countered a lot of DDOS effects? (medium.com) 1

marmot7 writes: My primary takeaways from this article was that it's important to have redundancy (additional NS's) and that it's important to have a very long TTL when you're not actively updating something. Would the measures in this article have at least limited the damage of these attacks? The long TTL change alone would have made the cache likely covered the entire attack, right?

Submission + - Spare the Screen Time, Spoil the Child?

theodp writes: For years, the conventional wisdom has been that too much screen time is bad for kids. Indeed, the Obamas famously limited their 11- and 14-year-old daughters' use of technology to weekends, and banned watching TV on weekdays. But now, Engadget reports, new guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics studies suggest we were wrong about limiting children's screen time. So, with new Google-Gallup research suggesting that students deprived of daily use of a computer at home are placed at a disadvantage when it comes to learning CS, could it be that the President's well-intentioned screen time limits contributed to his daughters' failure to take to coding in the way he'd like? Might he have been better off to emulate the Onion's 'Craig Georges' ("I've never once considered monitoring my child’s screen time. I guess I’m a better parent than I realized.")?

Submission + - How a deftly crafted botnet toppled top internet sites (networkworld.com)

tdog17 writes: Attacks that overwhelmed the internet-address lookup service provided by Dyn were well coordinated and carefully plotted to take down data centers all over the globe, preventing customers from reaching more than 1,200 domains Dyn was in charge of.

Comment Re:He's an obvious risk (Score 1) 40

Re "And how do you then get him out of the country?"

Like "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/József_Mindszenty" József Mindszenty , if you can get to a great embassy your safe.

"... he was freed in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and granted political asylum by the United States embassy in Budapest, where Mindszenty lived for the next fifteen years"

Having a person be fully protected in an embassy becomes a great political talking point and keeps the reason as to why in focus.

Great for Russia, not so much for Harold Martin.

Once he walks into that embassy the only way he's leaving is in a hearse or a police car.

Comment Re:He's an obvious risk (Score 1) 40

You need a passport to stroll up to an embassy and claim asylum/defect?

Disingenuous of his defense to claim a lack of a passport diminishes flight risk. We're not complete idiots.

And how do you then get him out of the country? Is living out the rest of his life in an embassy really a preferable alternative to standing trial and spending some time in jail?

The bigger risk is a state actor (ie Russia) uses some real spy craft to sneak him out of the country and bring him to Moscow.

Submission + - A peek into the future of lithium batteries (newatlas.com)

Eloking writes: In a great example of a low-cost research solution that could deliver big results, University of Michigan scientists have created a window for lithium-based batteries in order to film them as they charge and discharge.

The future of lithium-ion batteries is limited, says University of Michigan researcher Neil Dasgupta, because the chemistry cannot be pushed much further than it already has. Next-generation lithium cells will likely use lithium air and lithium sulfur chemistries. One of the big hurdles to be overcome in making these batteries practical is dendrites — tiny branch-like structures of lithium that form on the electrodes.

Submission + - "Most serious" Linux privilege-escalation bug ever is under active exploit (arstechnica.com)

operator_error writes: Lurking in the kernel for nine years, flaw gives untrusted users unfettered root access.

By Dan Goodin — 10/20/2016

A serious vulnerability that has been present for nine years in virtually all versions of the Linux operating system is under active exploit, according to researchers who are advising users to install a patch as soon as possible.

While CVE-2016-5195, as the bug is cataloged, amounts to a mere privilege-escalation vulnerability rather than a more serious code-execution vulnerability, there are several reasons many researchers are taking it extremely seriously. For one thing, it's not hard to develop exploits that work reliably. For another, the flaw is located in a section of the Linux kernel that's a part of virtually every distribution of the open-source OS released for almost a decade. What's more, researchers have discovered attack code that indicates the vulnerability is being actively and maliciously exploited in the wild.

"It's probably the most serious Linux local privilege escalation ever," Dan Rosenberg, a senior researcher at Azimuth Security, told Ars. "The nature of the vulnerability lends itself to extremely reliable exploitation. This vulnerability has been present for nine years, which is an extremely long period of time."

The underlying bug was patched this week by the maintainers of the official Linux kernel. Downstream distributors are in the process of releasing updates that incorporate the fix. Red Hat has classified the vulnerability as "important."

Submission + - Cryptographic proof Wikileak podesta emails have been modified? (pastebin.pl)

An anonymous reader writes: Downloading the raw email from wikileaks directly and running it through opendkim-msgtest will on a suprising number of "raw" emails from wikileaks indicate that the DKIM signature is incorrect. eg.

curl https://wikileaks.org/podesta-... | opendkim-testmsg


curl https://wikileaks.org/podesta-... | opendkim-testmsg

There is a list of modified emails posted on a pastebin right now http://pastebin.pl/view/351dca...

Because the DKIM header contains the checksum of the message body and is signed with the servers public key it would seem to be irrefutable proof of email tampering before the emails were given to wikileaks.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (8) I'm on the committee and I *still* don't know what the hell #pragma is for.