Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment I see how this works (Score 1) 69

So, Mitt Romney was an idiot for calling Russia a threat 4 years ago. But now, we have a new narrative to push: the Russians are helping Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton by releasing emails from the DNC. As part of that, now we have to push the idea that Russia has a badass hacking army that's a threat to the US. Is that about right?

Comment Re:What's the big problem? (Score 1) 489

Hyperbole or not, it appears to offer nothing but hassle to end users, which probably means it's getting unpopular.

Virtually all US credit cards are chip and signature, offering little in improved security. It's slow. Most card readers have a slot but haven't had that feature activated (honestly, the only store around here that allows chip vs swipe is Wal-Mart. Publix, as one major example, doesn't) leading to confusion. The card readers themselves seem to be bug ridden, with some freaking out if you don't insert the card at the exact moment they expect it. Wal-Mart's even, until recently, made a noise like a submarine klaxon when the payment was accepted - someone and completely unnecessarily embarrassing.

Add to that the delays, and you have the least popular technology since GMX.

Comment Terminology (Score 4, Insightful) 67

Can anyone explain why we continue to use the term "ride sharing" when Uber, Lyft, et al, have nothing to do with ride sharing? They're basic car-for-hire services. Ride sharing has always been used to mean "People who share a car to get to a common destination" (eg commuters who work together and live close by saving on gas, that kind of thing), and while Uber started by claiming that this was essentially what they were doing, it became obvious pretty quickly that the service resembles ride sharing in no way whatsoever.

Comment Re:I am with Snowden 100% (Score 1) 158

I agree with most of what you say - though hard evidence is not a bad thing, there was a lot of "He said, she said" stuff before the leak proved the DNC was rotten on this issue - but the Turkey data dump was not a Wikileaks thing, despite early reporting suggesting it was. Snowden's almost certainly talking about the release of private information - credit card numbers, private phone numbers and home addresses of donors - that was also in the leak.

Comment Re:Basic Journalism... (Score 2) 158

What modern-day journalist working for anything resembling a respectable newspaper has published the credit card numbers, home addresses, and private phone numbers of their subjects?

Snowden didn't state specifics, but the scandal around Wikileaks release of the DNC emails has generally focused on two things - the possibility it came from Russia (nothing to do with Wikileaks themselves or editing, so unlikely to have been Snowden's concern), and that it included private information about individual - often blameless - people that could cause them serious harm without having anything to do with holding them to account.

Everyone, to the best of my knowledge, is on board with the idea of Wikileaks leaking an email that says "Hi, DWS here! I need a list of ways in which we can secretly handicap Sander's campaign, but remember guys, technically this is illegal so mum's the word!". Fuck DWS. If she goes to prison over this, then nobody's shedding any tears beyond a few die hard Clinton worshipers.

What we're not on board with is "Oh, Jeff Atl called to donate $100 to the general election fund. Could you handle it? His credit card number is 4111 0291 3839 1212, expires 06/17, CVV 971. Address if you need it is 9821 SE Sunflower Rd, Trenton Gardens, NJ 19281." Even if the full email continues "I let him know that with his donation comes a 30 minute meeting with the Secretary of the Environment so he can deal with that little problem his factory is having with the inspectors", we'd at least expect the credit card details and street part of the address redacted.

Comment Re: UBlock = inferior + inefficient vs. hosts (Score 1) 183

You shut your mouth! APK is a national treasure. Like the World's Largest Ball of Yarn, or Donald Trump's toupee. Anyone who can envision a Slashdot without his enlightened and charming meditations is a dirty, dirty heliocentrist.

...

More soberly, I honestly think he has schizophrenia. His writing and formatting is consistent with that exhibited in TimeCube and bears some resemblance to that of Francis E. Dec, Esq.

Comment Re:A no-brainer... (Score 1) 480

It's not more secure than Windows 7. How can it be more secure if it leaks your information, without your knowledge, to a third party, AND if the software update mechanism is so user hostile (unrequested reboots, machine slowing to a crawl at random times) that the only workaround is to disable updates completely, either at the firewall or via hacks?

I like a lot about Windows 10, but it's less secure, more resource intensive, and less responsive. I'm keeping Windows 7 machines around in my home for a reason.

Comment Re:Naturally they'll investigate to help HRC. (Score 1) 157

They're not prosecuting, they're investigating. And in terms of them being treated equally - they did investigate HRC, but found there wasn't enough wrongdoing to make it worth prosecuting.

And... it's unlikely the FBI will prosecute any of the hackers, albeit this time because the hackers are likely not within any US court's jurisdiction.


    • .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
.
.

Comment Re: Cue the idiots (Score 4, Insightful) 157

Just because Trump asked Russia to do this, and Russian hackers did this doesn't mean there's a causal relationship.

He didn't "ask Russia to do this". He was joking about Clinton's missing 30,000 emails. Emails that are apparently now a national security concern even though they're just about yoga and Chelsea's wedding, according to Hillary.

Comment More importantly (Score 5, Insightful) 474

Every vote for a third party is a threat to a major party's political power.

As long as it's not enough of a threat to swing an election, they don't care.

What it DOES do that's useful, though, is tell them:
  - Here's someone who cares enough to take the trouble to vote, but that (both of) you weren't able to attract to your candidate.
  - and THAT (the STATED position of the minor party) is the direction you have to change in order to attract this voter later.

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 1) 251

In summary: A 3rd party candidate is statistically more likely to be closer in ideology to one of the two major parties.

If you have primary parties A and B, and C is the 3rd party, C is probably more like B than A (for this example). If you and I vote for C because we hate A and like C better than B, our votes didn't count for B. So instead of a vote being a 49% A and 51% B vote, it may well turn out 49% A, 41% B, and 10% C. Thus the party we least liked, A, is the winner.

That's actually how Bill Clinton won in 1992. Ross Perot would likely have won, but he dropped out and only reentered the race at the last month or so. He pulled far more votes from Bush than Clinton, and Clinton ended up winning because of it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of the Turing Tar-pit in which everything is possible but nothing of interest is easy.

Working...