Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:Pen Test Effectiveness (Score 1) 138

When conducting White Hat penetration testing, it's important to get an official OK to conduct those operations. It is not legal or ethical to conduct them otherwise.

Were I to go back through very old access logs, I could point you to at least one or two Universities that disagree with you. I caught them testing my servers (and a lot of desktop systems) and they didn't have my authorization to do it. No, sorry, authorization from an admin at a different University to scan systems here isn't valid.

And I've caught my own university scanning my home system without my permission. When I reported THAT the response was "meh, so what?".

Like I said, the days of moral outrage over one government agency scanning another one are long gone. If your system faces the public, it faces the public -- all of them.

Comment Re:DHS bot (Score 0) 138

You don't comprehend well do you? The Brian Kemp knew it was happening because the cyber security provider detected the intrusion.

You don't comprehend well, do you? That's what I said. The third party provider detected the intrusion attempt and notified their customer that it happened.

Not because anyone was notified.

Of course someone was notified. Don't be stupid. Brian Kemp didn't write the letter to DHS based on nothing. His security company NOTIFIED HIM of the event.

Comment Re:Different rules would see different vote counts (Score 1) 72

In a popular-vote election, those Republicans would've had the incentive to go and vote, and the vote count would've been different. Trump could've won the popular vote.

Under a different system we could have had a different result. That's why is it ridiculous to pretend that the results of a different system today mean anything. Ignorant people didn't know what they were doing when they voted; they are not a reason to assume they meant something specific and coerce the result to match. ("Dimpled chads" is one of those kinds of things, too.)

I'll just point out that even the "popular vote" system that the losers want to convert to for this election is a "winner-takes-all" system. It isn't a "coalition government" system where three losers can get together to run the government in place of the candidate with a plurality. And how you'd do a "coalition" president is pretty hard to imagine, but I'm sure if it meant that the current losers got to be in charge, someone will come up with a way.

Comment Re:DHS bot (Score 0) 138

and the customer was notified of the attempt.

Oh really?

You don't read even the summary, do you?

Brian Kemp issued a letter to Johnson on Thursday after the state's third-party cybersecurity provider detected an IP address from the agency's Southwest D.C. office trying to penetrate the state's firewall. How do you think Brian Kemp knew it was happening if he, as the head of the agency that is the customer of the third-party security firm, wasn't notified of the attempt?

As I wrote: ... the commercial service provider was doing its job. They were; nobody got broken into, and the customer was notified of the attempt.

Comment Re:Happy to donate your money (Score 2) 384

What makes me laugh is nobody's actually stated the obvious, looking after the poor and the needy is the Government's job.

Except it isn't obvious, and it isn't the government's 'job'. Looking after the poor and needy is why charities exist.

The reason the charities aren't able to do their job is because of people like you who think their tax dollars are all they need to "give" because "it's the government's job" and donating to charity is just "a tax dodge." I.e., the reason why donations to charity are tax deductible is specifically because the it is their job to help the needy and the government wants to promote that activity.

Comment Re:So many people don't understand tax deductions (Score 4, Insightful) 384

So it doesn't matter whether the company or the employee gets the deduction - it works out the same either way

It isn't the same. It can matter alot.

First, the company is picking the charity, not you. For example, someone impacted by breast cancer may want to donate to a charity related to that instead of handing more money to schools. I know at least two dozen charities that are more appropriate than throwing more money to my local school district which has already gotten a tax levy to spend $1.2 MILLION on giving students iPads. (I would be VERY unhappy if my employer said they valued my work so much they were going to give more of my money to a "charity" that was already taxing me to do the same thing.)

Second, if you get the money it may put you in a status where it makes sense to itemize, and you may then deduct a lot of things that would otherwise not be deductible. It may increase your giving because you know that you can deduct it.

Third, it will appear on your annual income statements, which are used by the SSA to determine retirement payments, or if a year counts towards retirement at all. It can also have an effect on how much you can borrow as it will be shown as income.

But overall, giving the money to the employee means that the employee chooses where his money goes, not the company. It may help the tax liability of the employee by allowing itemization to increase deductions after donating the money. Or it may simply be a really useful $3000 if it isn't donated.

In either case, it isn't the same thing even if in some cases the ends are the same. The ends don't justify the means.

Comment Re:DHS bot (Score 1) 138

I'm not sure which is worse: 1. The DHS servers are really botnets


2. The DHS tried to do this

Sorry, I don't see how this is bad. One government agency that does this pen tested another government agency that had refused "cyber hygiene" support to see if the commercial service provider was doing its job. They were; nobody got broken into, and the customer was notified of the attempt.

3. The "DHS servers" likely succeeded else where

Yes, that is second worst of the three, and it and option 1 are truly bad. Then we have option 4: DHS failed elsewhere but the server admins didn't notice.

I run a few servers at a university. I used to catch other universities doing pen testing on my servers. When I reported it I was told this was "official network research" being conducted by those universities and it was ok they were doing it. Not from MY admins, but from the admins at those other universities. No permission was ever asked nor was it granted. Admins at school X were telling their people it was ok to pound on my servers at school Y and my opinion on the matter was irrelevant because it was "research" .

The days of outrage over outside groups pen testing servers are long gone.

Comment Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score 1) 72

OK, here's me dealing with it. The actual word "boo hoo" has very little to do with your lack of civility, and it doesn't indicate a lack of civility on my part.

So that would be, of course, the thing you use as an example.

When you said "boo hoo," you implied that my complaint against you was based on the notion that I support efforts to foster faithless electors

You want to put words in my mouth, and you're being civil? No, sorry. I said "boo hoo" because you said it, and you were accusing me of being uncivil. I implied no such thing.

My perspective has nothing to do with which candidate will become president,

Other than supporting the changes to the rules that would allow the losing candidate to become the winner, no. It doesn't matter which one won or lost, changing the rules after the fact so the loser wins is wrong. It is a bad thing. I don't care whether it was Trump people challenging Hillary had she won or the other way around. It is interesting that all of these issues weren't issues when Obama won, but they are now because Trump won. That does lead to interesting conclusions.

If you hadn't already demonstrated your meddle when you dragged this discussion into the gutter with your political bent,

Saying that we need to follow the rules as they exist is not a "political bent", it is a simple statement of fact. I've followed the rules so many times when my favored candidate didn't win that it is simply ridiculous to claim that trying to follow the rules is some political thing.

Changing a law and challenging the constitutionality of a law are not the same thing.

They are both means to changing the results of an election after it is over, done by people who just don't want to accept the result. If the laws were unconstitutional two weeks ago, they were unconstitutional four years ago, and yet the people who are in court now weren't in court four years ago. They are in court today ONLY because their candidate lost and they think they can get the results changed. THERE is the political bent you accuse me of.

any hope of civil discourse went out the window when you flatly denied your obvious lack of civility after treating me like the political enemy

I didn't treat you like a political enemy. You replied to a comment to someone else, and you're unhappy that it made you are a part of that discussion?

you'd identified by checking the other guy's post history.

I didn't "check the other guy's post history". I've lived through it.

You've inferred what you want to read, and don't know what has been said. Why do you post?

Comment Re:We can afford to give away $30 Million (Score 3, Insightful) 384

Dear employee:

As a way of thanking you for working hard for our company all year to help us be a success in our marketplace, we are giving other people a buttload of stuff on your behalf.

Hope you saved enough money so you could donate to a charity that you want to donate to, because, well, screw them.


The ABC Grinch

Comment Re:I Would Rather Go To Theatres (Score 1) 337

I had a bad experience back in 2007 watching JJ's "Star Trek" and my movie-viewing (in-theater) went way down after that.

I had a bad experience watching that movie, too, but it was because of the deliberate lens flare that some moron thought added to the realism and wouldn't destroy the illusion of reality. Every time you can trivially recognize that "there's a camera involved" you lose.

Comment Re:Depends on price (Score 1) 337

Do you really want to train your kids to spend their entire lives inside the same four walls?

If the only time your kids see the outside of your house is when you take them to the movies, there's already a problem.

And sure, why shouldn't they learn early how to live inside the same four walls? It will get them ready for when they are unemployed adults living in their parent's basement.

Comment Re:Depends on price (Score 1) 337

Sure you save a drive but otherwise why would you not go to the movies if it is the same price.

1. You save a drive, which is time and money.

2. You can watch it without being disturbed by those awful "other people" who might have a cellphone vibrate when they get a message.

3. You can have your cellphone set to play The Star Spangled Banner as a ringtone at full volume and not disturb other people.

4. You can have a beer or wine or hard liquor while watching the movie.

5. You can shag while watching the movie with impunity, barring other legal issues like age or consent.

6. Most important, you can watch the movie in your underwear and scratch whatever parts of your body you want to when you want to.

I think the intent of the question about paying more than a movie ticket price to see a current-run release at home is intended to allow those who to keep up with the water cooler chatter about current events a convenient way of doing that.

Comment Re:It wasn't tax free money being stashed (Score 1) 266

Wrong, federal bonds (government bonds) are taxable at the federal level, but not at the state or local level.

The point was that the foreign earnings were not being tax sheltered by the purchase of government bonds, which is what the summary alleged. But thank you for the correction.

Comment It wasn't tax free money being stashed (Score 1) 266

By taking advantage of a provision in the American tax code, Bloomberg says that Apple has "stashed much of its foreign earnings -- tax-free -- right here in the US, in part by purchasing government bonds."

The interest on government bonds is tax-free. The money used to buy them is what's left after paying taxes on it. I.e., the earnings were not exempt from taxes because they were used to buy bonds.

And "yawn."

Comment Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score 1) 72

All? Nope. Not everybody accepted it,

Sigh. In context, please. "All" refers to everyone who was subject to the process. The electors, for example. The people who voted knowing that they were picking electors who voted in the Electoral College.

I don't care if ignorant people who don't understand the Electoral College don't agree to what they tacitly approved of when they cast their ballots. I don't care if YOU don't accept it, because you don't define the process.

It's fascinating to watch the tiny minority of people who actually object trying to change the process after the fact when their candidate loses, but who are otherwise silent when it works out ok for them.

As a matter of fact, the right of revolution already exists, for example, in Kentucky:

The "right" of revolution wasn't under discussion. The right of the losers to jump up and down and shout and scream and get their losing candidate put into power in the US system of democracy was. That quote talks about the "power of the people", and this is the system in place, today, to represent those people. A vocal minority who don't like the result don't have the right to change the result, even if they have the right to scream about how the process should be changed.

Slashdot Top Deals

To get back on your feet, miss two car payments.