Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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

Comment Yes, deleted files are (sometimes) recoverable (Score 3, Insightful) 59

In most cases, the data is marked as deleted by the app itself -- but because it has not been overwritten, it is still recoverable through forensic tools.

For the record, this is exactly what happens when you "delete" any file. The file system just goes to its little index of disk locations in use, and marks the ones the file's data is sitting in as available. Quick and easy. The data is all still there until the filesystem happens to give those locations away to a new file some day. There's nothing at all special about WhatsApp here. This is just how filesystems work.

Security professionals (eg: when I was working COMSEC jobs for the DoD) know to "zeroize" old data you really want to be non-recoverable. When last I checked, that's a matter of writing patterns of 1's and 0's repeatedly to the disk enough that the old data patterns are no longer recoverable. But typical OS's don't have that as a native operation, and it would be fairly unreasonable (not to mention dangerous) to expect a simple social media phone app to be jumping around the OS to do things like that itself.

Comment Re:Wasserman-Shultz will get a job in administrati (Score 1) 769

A better example of my point is what happened to Cruz's polling numbers when it was just him, Trump, and Kasich. The party aligned behind Cruz, not behind Kasich (with the message being "he's the only one that can get the votes to beat Trump"). And the effect was obvious

Sure is. Trump got a MAJORITY of the delegates from every single state from April 19th on. Pretty much the entire last 2 months. All consolidation did was make Trump stronger. So if anything, "insider support" only helps alternate candidates.

If you want another example of perception vs reality, just look at third parties. ... because mainstream opinion has ...

No, because of an effect called Duverger's Law. Any elective system with first-past-the-post voting is subject to it, and no amount of railing against the people trying to accurately report how voters behave is going to change that. The best a 3rd party vote could hope to do is destroy the weakest of the two existing parties, and the last time that happened in the USA was the middle of the 1800's. Give it a shot today if you like. Its your vote. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

Comment Re:"What Difference Does It Make?!?!?!" (Score 1) 693

A) I'm not sure why that "credibility" exists in the first place. Russian Intelligence services aren't exactly known for their honesty.

B) If you are the DNC, how are you going to prove a fictitious email from this packet never existed? Even if no such email exists on your servers, that doesn't mean it never existed, and besides people will just claim you purged the evidence and it's all part of your conspiracy.

Comment Re:If you can't attack the message... (Score 1) 693

I haven't noticed anyone asserting the emails are not genuine.

...and why is that? Honestly curious here. Emails are plain text. So trivial to modify that it hardly merits the word "hacking". The Russians who are currently the only source of these emails certainly had the motive, means, and opportunity to modify them.

Comment Re:Wasserman-Shultz will get a job in administrati (Score 1) 769

You seriously underestimate the power of perception in this country. The vast majority of the superdelegates (of which Debbie Wasserman Schultz is one of, btw) supported Hillary from day 1 of the primaries, with the prevailing message being "Bernie stands no chance at winning the primaries because of the massive delegate gap

Go ask Republican Nominee Jeb Bush how much perception and blatant support from the national committee dictates everyone's votes.

Comment Re:Wasserman-Shultz will get a job in administrati (Score 1) 769

Oh, I'm sorry. Were you unaware the system was rigged long ago? Between the DNC's internal schemes to anoint Hillary and whole idea of "superdelegates," you don't have much in the way of say-so about who gets the DNC nomination.

Sanders didn't lose because of any "internal schemes". He lost because less actual Democratic voters preferred him. That's all on him.

Let's look at the Caucuses and Superdelegates. Caucuses are every bit as "undemocratic" as the Superdelegates, but you don't hear complaints about those, because Sanders used that fact to win most of those. Then in the last month of the campaign, there was an active campaign from the Sanders people to get SD's to switch their votes to him, and ignore how their states voted. For that one glorious month, the Superdelegates were just great according to Sanders.

Sander's people's real problem isn't that the "system was rigged". Never has been. Their problem is that the system wasn't rigged enough in their favor.

Comment Re:What is the appeal of these things? (Score 1) 129

  1. I'm a watch person, so I'd be buying a watch either way.
  2. If I get a phone call or text while driving, I don't have to pull over to check to see if its safely ignored (the typical scenario), or something I'll get in big trouble if I ignore until I'm at my destination (always possible with the spousal unit).
  3. I never have to set the time
  4. I can change the face look to suit the occasion, rather than having to purchase multiple watches for the purpose. So its like I have a whole drawer of watches to chose from, but without the clutter or expense.
  5. The fitness/sleep tracking stuff is nice too. Particularly sleep. I often have a surprisingly wrong view of how much sleep I'm getting.

Comment Re:The price hike is minimal... (Score 1) 460

That is a damn shame. As someone living smack in the middle of the US, the first two shows I got addicted to on Netflix were Irish and Kiwi. Part of the attraction to me is the idea that I can pick pretty much any show created by any mind in the English-speaking world. More if I don't mind subtitles.

I guess its probably a contractual issue with the producers (typically in the US different people own the domestic and foreign rights), but that still massively sux.

Comment Re:No Thanks (Score 1) 80

And on that note, there are lots of things that are bigoted that the left doesn't seem to have a problem perpetuating. For example, it's considered totally acceptable to bash rednecks and Christians, even though doing so is by definition bigotry. How many times on an internet forum do you see people say "murica'"? Again, by definition that is bigotry. Have a look at the "unfair campaign"; again, bigotry. Need I go on? Why is bigotry acceptable so long as it's popular?

If by "acceptable" you mean "most people don't have a problem with it, or at least don't find it appalling", then I think you just defined "popular". Still, that doesn't prevent you from being bothered by such things, and telling people why. Again, freedom of speech means we both get to have our opinions. If most of the country finds yours appalling, I'd postulate that's probably your problem, not theirs.

If you're curious specifically about those specific things, I'd suggest contemplating for a few minutes why its funny when a little kid gets angry and punches an adult in the groin, but not funny at all when an adult does it to a little kid. Context matters.

Comment Re:The Guardian again ... (Score 1) 85

Frequent posts from The Guardian and BBC cover important events in the US that local media fail to report. This should make us wonder why American news media aren't on top of these stories.

One thing I'd suggest any American try: Find yourself a local broadcast of BBC America and listen to them interview someone. They actually follow-up their questions if the subject isn't answering, and if the subject is BS'ing will freely tell them so to their face. Its like reporters are supposed to be.

The best is when they interview an American populist politician. One of those people who is used to spouting coded racist/classist language, or even flat out lies, without the interviewee calling them on it. There's always that moment of stunned silence where the subject realizes they are actually going to have to think in this interview.

I'm not sure what's happened to their American counterparts. I think there's a culture of deference that perhaps owes a bit to our cultural desire to keep things polite. Also, I think here an interviewer realizes the person they are talking with is way more popular than they are, and they really don't want to deal with legions of ticked supporters. Those BBC interviewers just don't care about any of that.

Comment Re:Yes it is a straw man argument (Score 1) 1141

So now we are down to $500 billion in extra costs, which is a much more realistic figure. The federal government collects $2.4 trillion in income taxes, so the 50% of households and companies which pay any incomes taxes today would need to pay 20% more. I pay a little over $30k per year in federal income taxes, so this would mean almost $6500 in extra taxes for me personally.

But I would get something for this money

About $10,000 according to the article. Not a bad deal.

Slashdot Top Deals

Can anything be sadder than work left unfinished? Yes, work never begun.

Working...