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:Snowden also did something illegal (Score 1) 331

And how do you think the media would have reacted if the Trump campaign did something like this to elicit a violent response?

They covered it, which is why you're being obtuse and this entire "scandal" is an exercise in BS designed to muddy the waters and give cover to Trump by creating a false "both sides" narrative.

There is precisely one side, one side, in this discussion where the CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT has SUPPORTED VIOLENCE ON HIS BEHALF. You know that. O'Keefe knows that. It's precisely why most of us are so fearful he might become President. It's unheard of in modern political history for a Presidential candidate to incite violence on his behalf.

And while he's constrained - a little - by the law right now, the fact he's willing to support violence by his supporters means we have good reason to believe that - if Trump wins - there will be no fair elections in 2020. Because as President he can and probably will prevent any legal consequences for those who threaten and deal out violence against his enemies.

Hillary Clinton has not in any way endorsed violence. And frankly, the best Trump's supporters can do to muddy the water is find some low level operative who says he might hypothetically support an operation designed to expose the fact that Trump's supporters are violent.

So with respect, stop pretending you're arguing any legitimate point here. You're not. You're trying to normalize violence in an election. You need to ask yourself if you're going to continue to do so, or whether you have the guys to re-evaluate what you've been calling for.

Carry on down this path, and you, and America, are in serious danger.

Comment Re:Snowden also did something illegal (Score 1) 331

Sure, here's a top official in the Trump campaign offering to pay the legal fees of anyone who beats up protestors at a Trump rally:


Notice, incidentally, that this isn't some low level idiot in the campaign brainstorming about ways to make their rival look bad by taking advantage of a group already known to be violent, but a high up official promising that those who instigate violence on Trump's behalf will be shielded legally from the consequences of their actions.

Comment Secure the gateways (Score 3, Informative) 170

Reading this is fairly eye opening as it explains the different methods attackers use to gain access to your NAT-"firewalled" IoT device. It was also a useful reminder that IoT items aren't just "IP cameras", but routers, printers, and other stuff that most people have had for years.

You can skip to page 34 for the most important problem with most of the headline devices though (which also explains why owned cameras is a big thing, but less so owned routers): insecure "cloud" servers that provide connectivity to your IoT devices when you're off network. For example, it provides the connectivity that allows an app on your phone to access your baby camera remotely.

The servers typically provide way too much information, and often provide access to the entire camera, not just the video stream. As a result, hackers can, by scanning a range of camera IDs using the server at minimum find out what the public and NAT IPs are. They may be able to send arbitrary packets, including those to backdoor debugging ports, depending on the server, without even needing passwords.

Outside of using that server, hackers become more dependent upon heavy, probably noticeable, scanning, making it increasingly difficult if you don't already have compromised hardware.

My takeaway? Go after the manufacturers. There's stuff they can do right now by patching just two things: the gateway servers they are running right now, and the apps that use them. Yes, in this case, it's worth doing - those here saying "Oh they're all fly by night, you can't reach them" forget that if that were truly the case, there wouldn't be a problem, because the gateways they're running wouldn't be up.

Someone is running the gateways. Those people can fix them right now, and need to.

Comment Re:Why does the ESA have a worse record of landing (Score 1) 89

Also, I really don't understand how IP applies since these are not products for commercial sale nor used for commercial purposes

Even if only NASA buys a specific component from Boeing (for example) it's still a commercial product. While NASA has I.P. sharing arrangements with it's suppliers the diplomatic pissing contest excluded the ESA from that.
The ESA did it quickly, got Russian help and thought it would work but it was still the first of it's kind. NASA was building on stuff going way back to Viking and before.
It also turns out that parachutes are not as simple to get right as we would think, especially when the air is not very dense. It took a few splats of test rigs before the Apollo parachutes were ready.

Comment Re:Why does the ESA have a worse record of landing (Score 1) 89

what is it that is lacking in the ESA program that is not able to get landings right?

In this situation they were originally going to use NASA's landing system, and worked with NASA for a few years on it, but then had to develop their own from scratch after a diplomatic pissing contest led to NASA's support being withdrawn. Even worse they couldn't use any good ideas they had picked up from NASA for I.P. reasons.
Their new system didn't work first time. It's not a matter of fucking up on attempt three after two good landings but a fuckup first time on a new system.

Telling the diplomats to fuck off will help both NASA and ESA.

Comment Re:You're being silly (Score 1) 384

Chile has a VERY well armed population with many guns that are currently banned for civilians in the USA. It's a perfect example. Even with that they could not stop the vicious and dictatorial regime coming in and disarming them.

which is why the Second Amendment specifically mentions "militia."

So where is your local well organized militia that is going to work together and work as you are suggesting? They don't exist! Looks like lone gunman getting picked off one by one to me.

Comment Re:No they won't. (Score 1) 384

Apparently you are not familiar with the English language as it was used in the 1700s. "Well regulated" meant "in good working order, well-organized".

Ah yes - the excuse that relies on the founding fathers being fucking idiots - how insulting.
Read a fucking novel from the 1700s and you'll see that you have been lied to and the language has not changed that much at all.

Comment Re:Fog hod sake People (Score 1) 340

I'm sorry but that makes zero sense. Steam is a well defined phase of water. Please try again.

thinking so hard over a trollish slashdot post

Feel free to once again add a patronizing link, suggestions about my education and how wonderful your father, but not you, is if you are unable to think of something sensible to write.

It's out of depth power station management such as Johnson that resulted in TEPCO's fuckup at Fukishima in Japan by cutting corners that non-technical management has no clue that they should not have been cut. It's people like that the cost us the manned space program by ignoring their engineers warnings about not launching when it was too cold. When they know so little about what they are responsible for that they start talking about steam coming out of cooling towers they are a danger. A simple half hour briefing on how the entire place works would have cured that mistake, but such types don't even take that time.

Slashdot Top Deals

The confusion of a staff member is measured by the length of his memos. -- New York Times, Jan. 20, 1981