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


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:(sigh) You people still think you're engineers (Score 1) 583

Instead of identifying himself as an engineer, he should have said, "You are dicks." They clearly would not have been able to argue that.

Response probably would have been somewhat along the lines of "You are fined $500 for falsely representing yourself as an anatomist."

Comment Re:Certainly job stress can contribute but... (Score 1) 174

He went from happy engineer to suicide in less than five months?

If you get hired into a job you can't handle, face losing your $170k/year salary, and are stuck with your family in a city surrounded by the ultra-wealthy? Absolutely. Job changes are extremely stressful even without all those added pressures.

Comment analogy in higher education (Score 1) 174

If he was so stressed out that he committed suicide, it means he wasn't a good match for the job. But he must have been quite a bit above average to even make it that far and he could easily have found a well-paying job elsewhere.

It seems likely, given the nature of Uber, Silicon Valley, and San Francisco, that diversity goals may have played a role in his hire. We know from academic environments (where this is easier to study) that this kind of mismatch harms its intended beneficiaries. Success at technical jobs is, after all, not just a question of privilege and knowing the right people.

Comment Re:seriously? (Score 1) 307

Lynchings are different then Riots, but I also linked to RIOTS that not only did property damage, they completely destroyed black towns.

Yes, you did. Your reasoning was something like "(1) white people attacked blacks, (2) white people attacking blacks must be conservatives, (3) therefore conservatives riot". Your error was in premise number (2). So, no support for your claim that the Tulsa riots were riots by "conservatives". Based on history and circumstance, it seems more plausible that they were whites angry at the economic success of some blacks, which would make them progressive rather than conservative, but we simply don't know for certain. Your example didn't support your point, but it reveals your ignorance about the history of racism in the US.

And what we were discussing your the claim that slavery in the 19th century caused blacks in the 21st century to be disadvantaged, which your example had nothing to do with.

I'm not commenting on this further. Your stating clear falsehoods and someday someone will find your comments and assume they have some basis in reality. You don't deserve any further opportunity to post your lies.

Look, I understand where you are coming from: I used to be a progressive and moderate leftist as well: it was the obvious choice as a gay, atheist immigrant, but that changed when I actually started reading history and political science (I'm an independent now).

There is tons of stuff you ought to read, but a good start might be Sowell, who grew up poor in the South and was started out as an ardent leftist:



Comment Clinton Foundation a scam (Score 1) 155

Do you have actual complaints about how The Clinton Foundation spends donations

Clinton Foundation was an influence-peddling scam. It was receiving money, when Clinton was a Secretary of State and seemed a shoe-in to become President. It closed down its international wing after she lost the elections.

Had it been really a charitable organization, it would have instead flourished, when the proprietors finally left the distractions of politics and could concentrate on the sincere charity work. But no, the most charitable thing you can say about this charity is that it is "at crossroads" now that they have no influence left to peddle.

Comment Re:In other news (Score 1) 155

Well, Obama is set to get about $80 total in his first year out of office. And one wonders, why — considering his past statements like this:

“We’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

Barack Obama, 2010 [emphasis mine]

Comment The next sentence (Score 1) 583

The very next sentence after the one you quoted is:

Through the use of some other title implies that the person is an engineer or a registered professional engineer

Note the "or". Engineer *or* registered ...

Bad law, IMHO, but law. Except to whatever extent the first and fourteenth amendments bar the state from enacting such a law. The Oregon statute is null and void when applied in a way the conflicts with the first amendmwnt.

Comment Two different and complementary things (Score 1) 58

Code review and pentesting are two very different, yet complementary things. As you suggested, code review is likely to find a lot more, including things some people don't typically think of as "security" - points of fragility, for example. Code review is very useful, especially when done by people trained in security.

Pen testing *after* code review is also very useful. It isn't unusual for code review to have a lot of detailed findings. As an analogy, looking at the internals (code review) might find that the deadbolt is is only held in with two half-inch screws, it's a cheap, crappy lock, and the gap between the door and the frame allows the lock to be shimmed. After you address those a pen tester looking at things from a different perspective walks right in through the side door. A concrete example is the OS. You might code review the application extremely well, then I shellshock right past it. "But the OS is out of scope!", you exclaim. So what. The bad guy and the pentester don't care about your review scope. We just walked right into your database.

Two different, complementary things, both useful.

Comment While true, that's insufficient and impractical (Score 1) 89

True, it would be much more secure (in one way) if administration was only possible from the local, lan-side port. However, that's neither practical nor sufficient.

First, some people can't effectively and reliably admin their own modem. They need the cable ISP to manage it. The ISP is on the external side. So the ISP needs access from the outside. That *should* be secured reasonably well, though.

Second, iframe src=

Putting that into any web page will cause the browser, which is on the internal network, to access the router or modem. So restricting access to be from the local network only is insufficient for security.

Comment 1st DOES protect lying, BECAUSE govt defines (Score 1) 583

> The 1st amendment does not legally "protect" you for lying. When you are saying "I'm an engineer", but the law defines

Donald Trump is an asshole and incompetent.

Do you think Trump would consider that statement untrue? A lie? There are all sorts of things that government officials have called "lying" (including the allegation that Clinton had sexual contact with Monica - Hillary called that a lie). Did King George and his government consider the things that Jefferson, Jackson, and Franklin said about him to be true, or would King George say Thomas Jefferson was lying?

It is precisely BECAUSE government defines words and tries to define truth that freedom of speech MUST protect statements that the politicians consider "lying". If you are only allowed to say things that the government agrees are true, that's not freedom of speech at all.

Think about that for a moment. The two options are:

A) Free speech only means you can say things that the government agrees are true.

B) Free speech includes the right to say things that the government doesn't consider true (including 9/11 theories).

Option A is no freedom at all - even without the first amendment, the government wouldn't prosecute anyone for statements they agree with. If 1st amendment only covered government-approved "truth", it would be pointless to even write the amendment down at all.

There is, however, a slight glimmer of truth to what you've said. The first amendment prohibits *government* from making speech a *crime*. It does not prohibit a private person from suing for damages caused by libelous speech. In a libel suit, truth is a defense. So truth matters - but that's in a civil suit, where some other citizen is suing based on damages - the first amendment's restriction on the government doesn't directly apply.

That's why most states don't have a criminal libel offense, and those that do rarely prosecute, because in most instances prosecution by the government is barred by the first amendment.

Comment Re:This is horrible (Score -1) 87

Oh, this is a wonderful comment!

Also I suggest that people who are unusually tall should be shortened at the knees because they can move unfairly faster than others and see further. People with 20/20 vision should have their sight reduced artificially by mandatory cloudy glasses to make it fair for everybody and people who are just too damn pretty should have acid splashed into their faces to make life more equitable on this planet for all.

Comment Re:Who exactly is surprised by this? (Score -1) 145

Those are not necessities. Would you defend rich people being the first to have food and water and shelter?

- of-course I would, most obviously people with more means can get food and water and shelter faster and of higher quality than others. Wealth is a way to set priorities just as well as to do a number of other things, why wouldn't the rich have first access to food, water and shelter?

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing is faster than the speed of light ... To prove this to yourself, try opening the refrigerator door before the light comes on.