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: Wikileaks is a toxic organisation. (Score 1) 326

TellarHK said:
And I'm this case the information they were given was hacked and given to them by Russian intelligence. And, they've made absolutely every possible effort to hurt Hillary's campaign by hyping releases, staggering them, and releasing them at time when they're calculated to do the most potential harm. They are in no way acting like a neutral party.

The only way Wikileaks can have credibility is if they release things on a fully non-partisan basis and that has clearly not happened here.

You are correct sir.

The headline jumped out at me and I thought it a good idea to post it here. The original story was posted by Tim Peacock at Peacock Panache. They source the following article on Motherboard by Thomas Rid: All Signs Point to Russia Being Behind the DNC Hack.

I think by now, itâ(TM)s a foregone conclusion that the bad actors that Wikileaks is releasing information from are state-sponsored and are from Russia. Putin has made no secret of his political love for Trumpâ and Republicans have used the occasion to make great hay over the DNC and itâ(TM)s terse relationship with Bernie. . . .not out of true concern for Sanders, of course, but because they have had to embrace a very undesirable candidate as their standard-bearer.

The big takeaway from the Motherboard article is the following:

        The metadata in the leaked documents are perhaps most revealing: one dumped document was modified using Russian language settings, by a user named âoeÐÐÐÐÐÑ ÐÐмÑfнÐоÐÐÑ,â a code name referring to the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, the Cheka, memorialised in a 15-ton iron statue in front of the old KGB headquarters during Soviet times. The original intruders made other errors: one leaked document included hyperlink error messages in Cyrillic, the result of editing the file on a computer with Russian language settings. After this mistake became public, the intruders removed the Cyrillic information from the metadata in the next dump and carefully used made-up user names from different world regions, thereby confirming they had made a mistake in the first round.

        Then there is the language issue. âoeI hate being attributed to Russia,â the Guccifer 2.0 account told Motherboard, probably accurately. The person at the keyboard then claimed in a chat with Motherboardâ(TM)s Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai that Guccifer 2.0 was from Romania, like the original Guccifer, a well-known hacker. But when asked to explain his hack in Romanian, he was unable to respond colloquially and without errors. Guccifer 2.0â(TM)s English initially was also weak, but in subsequent posts the quality improved sharply, albeit only on political subjects, not in technical mattersâ"an indication of a team of operators at work behind the scenes.

Rid went on to add:

        The metadata show that the Russian operators apparently edited some documents, and in some cases created new documents after the intruders were already expunged from the DNC network on June 11. A file called donors.xls, for instance, was created more than a day after the story came out, on June 15, most likely by copy-pasting an existing list into a clean document. Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with, manipulation would fit an established pattern of operational behaviour in other contexts, such as troll farms or planting fake media stories. Subtle (or not so subtle) manipulation of content may be in the interest of the adversary in the future. Documents that were leaked by or through an intelligence operation should be handled with great care, and journalists should not simply treat them as reliable sources.

(article continues.. follow the link above).

Comment Already thought of two counter measures (Score 1) 279

I just read the heading and I've already thought of two ways to beat this.

Oh wait, two more since i started the heading.

I'm not going to list them but this is pretty trivial to beat.

Meanwhile, you've created a way for any member of the general public to release vomit inducing gas in theaters, restaurants, and any other crowded spaces.

Comment Re:Were the users randomized? (Score 1) 509

I have never had those problems or had anyone on my team of 9 and my team of 15 have those problems on windows PC's either.

However, I agree the Mac has a more polished operating system. That's usually been at a higher initial cost however. I went to PC's in my personal life because Mac's were 3x to 4x the cost for less capability. The ratio is much lower today but even five or six years ago, macs were still significantly more expensive.

User Journal

Journal Journal: Agorophobia 2

“Say, Ed! How was your trip? Lager?”
“Hi, John. Yeah, I’ll have a lager. The whole trip was lousy, a journey through hell all the way.”
“Didn't you fly Green-Osbourne?”
“Well, yeah.”
The bartender swore; he was a wealthy man who owned the bar he was tending and quite a bit of Green-Osbourne Transportation

Comment Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump (Score 1) 435

No he's the bad guy for saying

There may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience. So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hellâ" I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise. It wonâ(TM)t be so much â(TM)cause the courts agree with us too.

This is almost certainly the crime of incitement to violence (or murder if they'd accidentally killed someone).

What ever the democrats are alleged to have done is a separate issue. So I'm going to ignore your attempted /pivot but I'll give you a cookie for not using "But Hillary!"

Comment Re:More examples (Score 1) 633

Good catch! Brietbart does indeed have negative credibility!

I would put the daily mail at -3 and Brietbart somewhere around -67 on a 1-100 point scale.

To be fair, I haven't researched the daily mail as much and mostly picked up it was a bad source from other people's comments.

I've actually given Breitbart a look after they took over Trump's campaign and there is a difference between the daily mail, "making shit up while high" and Brietbart knowingly passing lies as truth and actively publishing propaganda.

Comment Re:More examples (Score 1, Insightful) 633

Even the Daily Mail has more credibility than Brietbart.

"Andrew Breitbart has a job to do and he does it well. Breitbartâ(TM)s job is to lie and distort the truth in order to advance a right-wing agenda, embarrass liberals, and undermine the Obama administration.

Breitbart is not a journalist, researcher, or pundit. He is a propagandist. He operates several websites (BigGovernment, BigJournalism, and BigHollywood), where he and other right-wing bloggers spew their political pornography. The articles that appear on these websites are contemporary versions of what historian Richard Hofstadter called, in a famous 1964 essay, the âoeparanoid styleâ of American politics practiced by extreme conservatives. "

"This is what rates an article on Breitbart. âoeHey, a commenter on the internet said that some unnamed person is talking to a couple of Toronto bookstores and showing them what some of the Sad/Rabid Puppies have said and asking them not to stock a said puppies. Oh, and yeah, thereâ(TM)s no actual evidence of it having any effect.â"

This is what rates an article on Breitbart. âoeHey, a commenter on the internet said that some unnamed person is talking to a couple of Toronto bookstores and showing them what some of the Sad/Rabid Puppies have said and asking them not to stock a said puppies. Oh, and yeah, thereâ(TM)s no actual evidence of it having any effect.â

Brietbart is a racist propaganda site associated with the alt right who's "fact checking" consists of quoting stuff people say on blogs.
Brietbart makes Fox news look like liberals and socialists.

Comment Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump (Score 1) 435

Attacks actually happened at 6 different trump rallies.

That was pretty shocking. But the real issue was trump offering to cover legal expenses and encouraging violence. And taking people's coats then throwing them out into freezing weather. It was an early reveal of Trump's character and that he was pretty dangerous when he has power.

Comment Re:Clinton, Podesta, Putin and Trump (Score 1) 435

Just to put it out there (it's tangential) because it's inspiring...

Conservative and liberal; christian, jewish and people of other faiths have helped multiple times to rebuild and repair different mosques which have been attacked by extremists and racists (most apparently using using fire bombs/molatovs). Atheists were not explicitly called out but probably some of the liberals were atheists.

Slashdot Top Deals

Base 8 is just like base 10, if you are missing two fingers. -- Tom Lehrer