Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:The ad hominem that ended civilization (Score 1) 821

Before we escalate to all-out cyber and/or nuclear war with Russia, will we be seeing any -actual evidence- of anything other than a very dumb phishing link clicking Podesta, or of "hacking" involving anything requiring more skill than a neighborhood high school computer club, much less a nation-state?

Nuclear war? Exaggerate much? This is the same sort of nonsense as claims that Donald Trump accepting a phone call from the Taiwanese president is going to get us into a war with China.

I'm guessing we'll see as much evidence as we did regarding accusations about an Iranian nuclear program from American presidents of both parties, which is not much.

And the opposition—the Republicans—aren't in a good position to complain about nondisclosure given the hubbub about the potential accidental leaking of government secrets via Hillary Clinton's private email server. State secrets are apparently really, really important to Trump supporters.

Although I'm sure the Democrats would much prefer the accused not be allowed to speak at all, Putin's question is still pertinent--is he responsible for Democrat losses at -every other governmental level-, as well? Were the Wikileaks e-mails manipulated or untrue, which has still not been asserted?

This red herring is becoming as dangerous as it is ludicrous.

These questions are red herrings. The important point is that the Russians apparently meddled and did so in a way that affected the election of the most powerful political office on the planet.

To address them anyway though:

(1) Yes, the emails were manipulated into propaganda by packaging them with inaccurate interpretations such as those at One of the more egregious examples uses an email received from an unknown person to assert that Hillary Clinton is racist. They link to the leaked emails, but I imagine most people would read the bad interpretations and never get around to reading the source text.

(2) Given that some of these races were very close—such as those involving Representative Darrell Issa and Senator Pat Toomey—they could have been easily affected by the release of the emails.

Comment Re:Quit treating Google with kid gloves (Score 1) 332

Your conclusion is nonsensical; WebM has nothing to do with search or personal data.

Adobe Flash is a well-adopted de facto standard that they can't just drop (particularly given that one of their properties relies heavily on it). Native h.264 isn't widely adopted yet and, thus, doesn't have that problem.

GIF and JPEG are also well-adopted standards that would have the same problems. The patents on GIF have already expired though, so there's no openness issue there. I'm not well-informed enough to speak on the patent status of JPEG.

The claim about their browser is also absurd. If everyone supported WebM, their browser would have no advantage in the marketplace. People generally don't adopt a browser simply because its native codec support either.

If you want to make the conclusion that Google is doing this for financial reasons, you really need to look no further than YouTube. It wouldn't be at all surprising if they want to avoid shelling out to MPEG LA should they decide to collect patent royalties from Google in the future.

Comment Re:Um...yeah. (Score 2, Insightful) 89

A more reasonable interpretation of "I won't have to worry about..." is that that's a figure of speech and not literal. The idea seems to be that Obama would increase people's standards of living by fixing the economy, rampant corporate greed, overpriced health care, etc. that contribute to keeping the poor poor. (She's probably a little too optimistic though, considering her statements in retrospect and two years into the Obama administration.)

Comment Re:us phone = us citizen? (Score 1) 542

According to Wikipedia, the ACLU-related person on the Supreme Court is Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "General Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union (1973-1980)" [1]; thought I'd mention this since a search for "ACLU solicitor general" turns up nothing.


Slashdot Top Deals

"If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong." -- Norm Schryer