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:What a dumbass (Score 1) 79

Now the Ruskies will be patching the server (and maybe other insecure servers) like crazy.

I wouldn't count on it. People in Russia are just as lazy and arrogant as Americans, and twice as drunk.

That's why Russia has an economy about the same size as Spain's.

When we try to put forward Putin as some sort of brilliant super-leader, let's not forget that it was guys like him who got his country bogged down in Afghanistan and allowed his country to get head-faked into flushing their economy down the toilet trying to keep up with a non-existent "Star Wars Initiative", which led to their collapse as a superpower. They can't even field a respectable Olympics team any more.

Comment Re:gloves? (Score 1) 302

Pretty much this. Aren't these the FIRST areas where I'd WANT a personalized gun? Rifles that cannot be looted by the enemy and be used against you? Undeniable proof who used the pistol to fire the shot in a shootout in a seedy neighborhood?

That is where anyone who puts his money where his mouth is would WANT such personalized and traceable guns.

Comment Re:You're being silly (Score 1) 302

The evil libtardos aren't coming for your guns.

Well, Hillary Clinton thinks the Supreme Court is incorrect, and that we don't have the individual right to own guns. That what she says to her money people when she hopes the press isn't listening. She's also said she'd consider confiscation, a la Australia. And the left is cheering her lying, corrupt self into office - not least because they agree with her on this - the constitution is there to be "reinterpreted," as Clinton puts it.

Do you have any idea what you're chances are against a modern, mechanized army?

What does that matter? That's not why millions and millions of Americans own guns. They use them for sport, for hunting, and - as record numbers of recent buyers are showing in research - for self defense, especially in the context of social unrest. That's EXACTLY what the founders had in mind when they said that the government could not be allowed to have the monopoly on keeping and bearing arms: so that individuals could exercise their own rights to do so if and as they see fit. For whatever reason they see as appropriate. A standing army being necessary for the country, it's not to be considered justification for infringing the people's rights to their own tools of self defense. Sound familiar?

Stop caring so damn much about your precious firearms and start doing something about oppression brought on by wealth inequality.

Ah, I get it. Because someone else is prosperous, your right to vote is being oppressed. Or your right to assemble, or freely speak. Or your ability to go to school. Or your ability to ... which ability is it that you're being denied because someone else has money, again? It's not a fixed-sized pie, dude. If it was, we'd all be living in total poverty. But we're not. The standard of living has never been higher in human history. The "poor" live better than the vast majority of humanity ever could have dreamed.

Wage slavery? Get rid of nonsense like Obamacare, which went out of its way to entrench the system that prevents you from shopping across state lines for health insurance, and went out of its way to keep such services expensive by carefully avoiding tort reform at all costs. Or... do you mean that people who haven't trained themselves to do something valuable are finding it hard to move on in life? Yes, getting rid of our ability to defend ourselves will definitely fix that. We can only do one thing at a time, right?

Voter disenfranchisement? Yes, this is a real problem. We have millions of dead an ineligible people registered to vote. Every time a vote is cast in one of their names, that disenfranchises a person who is voting legitimately. When the Clinton campaign spreads around information, as we've just seen, about how to get illegal immigrants into the voting booth, that disenfranchises people who play by the rules. Definitely a serious problem, I agree. But the disenfranchising actions of voters mostly as encouraged by liberal activist groups go largely unprosecuted because that task would fall to the very party in power that encourages the crime. So, we have to live with it. Steps to mitigate it, like having to show who you are when you vote, just like you have to when you cash a government check, are considered "racist" by disingenuous people who know perfectly well it's not, but there you have it.

Hell, there are folks who matter talking about taking away women's right to vote.

They only "matter" in the sense that you're enjoying mentioning them. There is nobody with any prospect of infringing that liberty calling for that. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who certainly leans towards infringing constitutionally protected liberties and says so out loud, to great applause from the usual would-be little tyrants on the left.

It's been 8 years. Don't you think if he was going to do it he would have?

He knows he can't get what he wants past a legislature more inclined to protect those rights. He fails on that front because what he proposes - usually in the wake of some broken person killing some people - fails on the face of it to even address the actual problem (broken people). He doesn't propose making it easier to lock up crazy people, he proposes making it harder for law abiding, non-violent people to possess or transfer a firearm ... even though that would exactly nothing to stop, say, a Sandy Hook type incident. So every time he talks about "using his pen" to limit rights, it fails because, of course, people see right through the total lack of causality in the chain of things he pretends he's addressing. He's had multiple unconstitutional executive orders smacked down in the courts, exactly as they should have been. Hillary Clinton wants a court that would prevent those checks and balances from impacting her agenda (see above-mentioned confiscatory sensibilities and assertion that, for example, the second amendment doesn't mean what the founders said it means).

Comment Heh, haven't heard that name in a while. (Score 1) 79

I used to follow some of what The Jester wrote. There are a number of people out there who think he's overrated, more brag than anything else. Still, I saw some pretty clever things out of him. For example, at one point he was going after some other hacking collective (I don't recall which one), and he announced a successful attack against them and posted a list of all of their names and real IP addresses. Only, the list wasn't real. Instead, anyone who tried to download the list had their connection logged and probed, an exploit used to trigger the computer to make a (real) TCP connection back to one of his computers, and a number of automated attacks launched against targets it considered particularly suspect (for example, if there was evidence of being logged into a known member twitter account). I.e., it wasn't actually a list of suspects, it was bait to build a list of suspects. I think he did the same trick with QR codes later.

Comment That's not what they did though. (Score 1) 250

They went in and searched everyone's phones. Unless there's an important detail we aren't being told here, that's unconstitutional. The 4th amendment says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The important part there is "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That is in there specifically to ban general search warrants. The idea is the police can't go to a judge and say "We think there is something illegal in a house somewhere in this 500 home neighbourhood, we'd like a warrant to search the houses," and the judge issues them a blanket warrant allowing them to search any home there, and look through anything in said home. That isn't allowed. They have to say specifically where it is they want to search, and what it is they are looking for, and also why they have probable cause to believe that what they are looking for is there.

If you read the article they say right at the bottom "I think it's very questionable whether the 4th Amendment" -- which protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure -- "allows such an open-ended extension of the search warrant."

Comment 5th amendment and it would seem so yes (Score 2) 250

It isn't 100% clear, there is no cut and dried supreme court ruling and there have been some conflicting lower court rulings but in general the opinion of the courts seems to be that you can't be forced to hand over a password/code/etc because that is something in your head, which falls under 5th amendment protections against self incrimination.

The 4th amendment is what would be used to challenge a broad search warrant like was issued in this case. Without knowing the specifics I can't say for sure but this sounds like it would be an illegal search since it was a general warrant and that isn't allowed. The police aren't (supposed to be) able to get a warrant to just search anyone or anything in a given place, they have to be specific. This doesn't sound like it was, and so would probably be a 4th amendment violation.

Comment Re:Another obvious defense against this (Score 4, Interesting) 250

I want a "panic" finger such that it displays a "could not read fingerprint - try again" message and then immediate sets "allow_unlocking_with_fingerprint=False" internally so that a password is required. Make it indistinguishable from the usual unlock failure message so that it's impossible to tell that it was triggered (even by examining the on-device logs, if that's possible).

Comment Re:Cui Bono? (Score 1) 135

Jesus Christ, "voter intimidation" now? Does the hyperbole ever end?

Face it, your candidate played the buffoon. More than likely he was playing you, but if you want to keep blaming the victor for the loser's real or self-contrived inadequacies, that is your problem. Voters have more than once in the history of democracy been faced with the choice between a flawed candidate and a dangerous one, and in most cases they will pick the flawed one. On the few occasions that a dangerous one has been chosen, it hasn't gone so well.

As to Wikileaks, even you can only make it interesting by exaggeration, which should tell you why it isn't making much impact. But go on, blame the voters, blame the press, blame some evil secret cabal, but under no circumstances ever blame Republican voters for picking probably one of the worst big ticket candidates in US history.

Comment Re:Of course (Score 1) 135

I'm sure it can serve two purposes. Putin has greatly benefited by stocking the flames of discord in the West, whether that's Brexit or other issues between EU members, or throwing spanners in the US election. It allows him to punch well over his weight. But he certainly would more likely benefit from a Trump presidency than from a Clinton one, if for no other reason than it is likely there would be four years of chaos in Washington.

But yes, this definitely gives him some propaganda to spread at home as well.

Slashdot Top Deals

I'm still waiting for the advent of the computer science groupie.