Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment That's not what they did though. (Score 1) 423

They went in and searched everyone's phones. Unless there's an important detail we aren't being told here, that's unconstitutional. The 4th amendment says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The important part there is "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That is in there specifically to ban general search warrants. The idea is the police can't go to a judge and say "We think there is something illegal in a house somewhere in this 500 home neighbourhood, we'd like a warrant to search the houses," and the judge issues them a blanket warrant allowing them to search any home there, and look through anything in said home. That isn't allowed. They have to say specifically where it is they want to search, and what it is they are looking for, and also why they have probable cause to believe that what they are looking for is there.

If you read the article they say right at the bottom "I think it's very questionable whether the 4th Amendment" -- which protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure -- "allows such an open-ended extension of the search warrant."

Comment 5th amendment and it would seem so yes (Score 3, Informative) 423

It isn't 100% clear, there is no cut and dried supreme court ruling and there have been some conflicting lower court rulings but in general the opinion of the courts seems to be that you can't be forced to hand over a password/code/etc because that is something in your head, which falls under 5th amendment protections against self incrimination.

The 4th amendment is what would be used to challenge a broad search warrant like was issued in this case. Without knowing the specifics I can't say for sure but this sounds like it would be an illegal search since it was a general warrant and that isn't allowed. The police aren't (supposed to be) able to get a warrant to just search anyone or anything in a given place, they have to be specific. This doesn't sound like it was, and so would probably be a 4th amendment violation.

Comment Skyrim is a 2011 game though (Score 1) 269

I mean nothing wrong with having it on the platform, but it isn't exactly the pinnacle of modern tech. It was released in 2011, and the console versions were designed to target systems with 512MB of RAM (unified for the 360, 256/256 system/GPU for the PS3) at 1280x720@30fps. That was fairly low spec then, since the consoles were old (remember Oblivion released in 2006 as one of the first flight titles on the Xbox 360) and is really low spec now. It wouldn't at all surprise me if my Shield Tablet could handle it easily. It has more RAM, and its GPU seems to be at least as powerful as the 360/PS3 era stuff.

So while there's nothing wrong with Nintendo getting games like this, it isn't really some major win, or proof of a high spec system. We saw the same kind of thing happen with the Wii U where it got games that previously the Wii hadn't because of a lack of power.

The issue in the long run is that being too low spec can exclude games from being released on your platform. While people like to claim "graphics don't matter" they do and they sell games. That aside, there are a lot of things you could want to put in a game that will require more memory, more CPU, more GPU and so on. Developers aren't always going to be interested in either compromising on what they want to make, or producing a cut-down version to target the lower spec hardware.

Comment Ahh yes, the most accurate source of infomration (Score 1) 315

The AC who posts doomsday scenarios with absolutely no sources :P.

Seriously man, if you think this crap you are peddling is real, then some sources please. If not then fuck off.

I'd imagine the reason you don't is because, of course, the real story is far less dramatic than you make it out to be. NatWest is closing RT's account why is not known, as they haven't said. There is no "at the behest of the US" reported anywhere. They also aren't doing anything dodgy like seizing funds, they've notified RT "We don't want to do business with you anymore," and they will close the account down next month.

Here's a source, since you can't be bothered:

Comment It does feel that way (Score 1) 315

Particularly with the "state actor" thing. I mean there is no reason to use that language I can think of other than to insinuate it was the US (or maybe UK) that did it. Yes, it is correct, that Ecuador is a "state actor" but if you knew it was them, well the just say so up front. If my ISP cut off my Internet access I would say "Cox cut off my Internet," not "A corporate actor cut off my Internet," even though both are true.

Now if they didn't know who cut it off, fair enough, but then saying a state actor did it would be again misleading, implying knowledge they didn't have. Then it would have been accurate to say "Assanage's Internet was cut off by an unknown party."

To me it seems like just another way to try and drum up more attention, which is all these leaks have been so far.

As I said in my other post, the leaks have been exceedingly "meh" for anyone who's looked at Clinton with anything even approaching a critical eye in the past. I can't see them changing anyone's mind. Die hard Clinton supporters will ignore them, claim they are made up, or claim they don't matter. Die hard Trump supporters will scream and shout about how evil Clinton is... just like they have been since day one, they have convinced themselves she's done much worse. All the rest like the Bernie supporters will just say "Ya, we knew all that shit, that's why we wanted Sanders. What a crap election. Oh well, better her than Trump."

Plus if they had anything major they'd really better reveal it now-ish. Early voting is already happening in many states.

Comment You can buy them for like $20 (Score 2) 204

And they'll dump the data out as keyboard output, if you like. We used to use them at the university I work at to do pay for printing. You'd swipe your student ID which would feed the info to the print program that could then contact the card office database and look up your account. Same idea as a credit card terminal, but just for printing (Pharos, if you are wondering).

We also used them just to let students register for events. When they'd come to an open house they'd sign in, which in the past meant writing their name and e-mail on a sheet, which got entered manually later. Now instead they could just swipe their student ID and the data dumped in to a text file. That could later be fed in to the student information database to get an e-mail address (the whole point of signing in was because you wanted your e-mail on the list for contact with job recruiters). Made it much easier for the students.

The actual data on the card was nothing more than your name and the card number (both printed on the front) and a checksum to validate. Credit cards tend to be the same, just name and number matching what is embossed on the card, plus checksum. There's no security or special hidden information, mag stripes were developed WAAAAY back in the day and it just stores identifying information. Hence the push to move to chip cards.

If the purpose was just to verify that the information on the mag stripe matched the information on the card, one would need little more than the reader hardware and text editor of your choice.

Comment Doesn't really matter how she comes off (Score 4, Insightful) 315

The real thing is so far, I haven't seen anything I didn't already know. I mean maybe some of the "bombshell" revelations are news to some people, but not to anybody who has followed Clinton for any amount of time. She's cozy with Wall St.? Oh so fucking shit, tell us something we didn't already know :P.

Perhaps I've just missed it (I haven't gone and read everything, I've been relying on synopses provided by others) but I've seen nothing that would change my opinion, nor would I think anyone else's. Everything "revealed" was already known: She's cozy with big business, favours free trade, had the Democratic establishment behind her, etc. All the reasons why I would much prefer that Sanders was the Democratic candidate.

However, none of it makes me think any better of Trump. Like Senator Sanders himself, I can be pragmatic about what happened.

Comment Precisely (Score 3, Insightful) 394

The issue is NOT language, that's something that Trump's PR people have been trying to spin it as, and you are eating that spin if you believe it. The issue is what he's saying: That he commits sexual assault because he's a star, because he can. THAT'S the deal. The terminology he used isn't the issue, it is what he's claiming he's done.

Trevor Noah put it pretty well:

Anyone who thinks this is just "normal guy talk" needs to reevaluate who the fuck they hang out with. None of my friends have ever said anything like this. We've said vulgar things to each other, we've talked about sex, but none of us have ever said we have forced ourselves on a woman without consent. If your friends talk about doing shit like this, no matter if the language they use to describe it is crass or refined, you need better friends.

Comment So far there has been nothing interesting (Score 1) 394

At least nothing interesting to people who have looked at Clinton's past at all. She's cozy with Wall St. Well no fucking shit. Nobody except for everyone knew that one :P

I've been very underwhelmed with the leaks given the "bombshell" claims about them. It's all shit that was already known about her, or shit that is totally unsurprising about any politician. I can't see it changing anyone's mind.

Now maybe I've missed something juicy or there's something major yet to come, but if there's a big thing they think will change shit, they'd better release it soon since the election is very near. A non-trivial number of people have already voted by mail, or will in the next few days.

It seems like Wikileaks didn't really find anything great in the e-mails, and so instead is playing a PR game with them, since they don't, in fact, have a bombshell that'll have any effect on the election.

Comment Also (Score 4, Informative) 169

Richer areas often newer areas. Not always, of course, there's plenty of "old money" areas but you also see plenty of cases of new development particularly for middle and upper middle class. They want nice new homes, those homes are built in new developments.

Now why's that matter? Well when you are building a new development, you usually use the most current technology which often means FTTH, or at the very least higher quality category cable and fiber out to the box. That lets them offer higher speed. The big cost is running the lines, not the material used so you do it with better materials. You have to spend the money to lay the lines, or you can't offer service.

However in old development, well that has old shit. It can be replaced, of course, but that is a lot of money. It can cost more than a new run because tearing shit up in a developed area can be pretty costly. So they are reluctant to do it.

This of course goes double if you are talking areas that are poorer. The improved infrastructure would allow them to offer faster speeds, but the reason they want to do that is because they can get more money. People who live in poorer areas are not as likely to want to spend more money and will just elect to keep slower speeds. A good number of them might not even be on the fastest speed available to them already because they wish for something cheap.

Thus it makes sense why it happens like that. The reason cable companies offer faster speeds is it is generally much easier for them particularly with DOCSIS 3. All they really have to do is put more channels on their CMTS. It isn't free, but doesn't cost a ton and doesn't require redoing lots of buried cable. The coax out there is already good to a gigahertz, maybe more.

You even see it in middle class neighborhoods. I live in a decent condo complex, and right next to me is some pretty upscale housing. However, both here and in the houses, 6ish mbit DSL is all you can get. Reason is it is old construction, 1970s. So the telephones are all copper, straight to the CO, and not very high grade cable. The cable company will sell you 300mbit though, no problem. That said the same cable company offers fiber in new developments, many of which cost less than the houses near me.

It is just what we are going to see with for profit companies. If we want an "equal speeds for all, don't worry about the costs" setup then it is going to have to be publicly funded and run.

Comment Well that and what is the cloud? (Score 1) 272

As someone I know who works for a "cloud" provider says "There is no cloud, there's just someone else's computer." So really, what are you outsourcing when you go to "the cloud"? Your servers, and associated infrastructure and personnel. Ok, great. However that's only a small part of IT needs. You still need computers and network on site to access that shit in the cloud, it isn't magic, there has to be something to get at it and you need people to support that. You can outsource that too, of course, but that doesn't quite scale in the same way datacenter outsourcing does. Then of course you need people to support your users. "The cloud" doesn't magically make your users well trained and able to use all your software with no issues, and not fuck up their computers. No, they'll still need the same amount of hand holding as before at a minimum, and probably more because now there's another layer in the mix. Likewise if you have anything custom that you need developed or maintained, you still need that done. Your "cloud" provider isn't going to provide you with free web design, free DB analytics, free custom software, you are going to pay someone to do it for you.

Oh and a lot of the more economical cloud solutions? Ya they don't admin the VMs for you. They run the physical infrastructure, but all they give you is access to a system, maybe throw up an OS at your request (which you pay licensing/support for if applicable). They don't patch it, don't update it, etc. That's all on you. So you have to have someone to do that as well, or go with a much more expensive managed solution.

So even if all companies did outsource 100% of their server infrastructure to companies like Amazon, and even if those companies didn't have to hire more staff to support all that (which they would), it still wouldn't equal a massive reduction in IT needs because you've only moved a small part of the equation off premises. So unless you are talking about people who know ONLY how to setup and maintain physical servers and that's all they can do or will do, then no they aren't going to be out of work forever.

Comment It's more he wants people to believe him (Score 1) 272

And more importantly take market positions acting on that, so that he can advise his clients to cash out. I mean let's look here: Who the fuck is "Global Equities Research "? Nobody I've every heard of, they aren't some major national or international investment firm. So you go look at their site and it is light on the information (very light) heavy on the marketing fluff. Basically, they advise their clients on what is going on with relation to trends that would be useful in making stock picks.

Right, so for that to be profitable you have to:

1) Have good information that a company can use to make stock picks.

2) Only give it to customers.

#2 is really important. For one, if you give it out to everyone, well then why should someone pay you anything? Like I'm not going to go and pay for the U1-U6 numbers since BLS gives them to everyone for free. They have to be offering something you can't have for nothing. However the other thing is that if everyone in the market knows something, you can't really capitalize on it. If I was able to say with 100% certainty that a bank will default next year, and prove it to everyone's satisfaction, well then the only people who would make anything would be the people who could act the quickest. Everyone would dump their stock and bonds, get their money out, etc and I'd actually be proven wrong by my own prediction since it would cause it to happen early. However if I held that information close and only shared it with some people, we could make money. We could get our assets out for a good price, take out options, etc since we had information others didn't.

Thus this guy is either a dipstick, or is deliberately spreading information that he WANTS to be true, rather than information that is (or both). He's advised clients to take different positions, and he needs people to take positions as though this was true to make them money.

Also, it looks like this isn't the first time he's said some really wrong shit: is an article where he's saying Apple is done in 2012 and also saying no money would change hands between Samsung and Apple (Samsung just lost their appeal and will have to pay).

Comment Also everyone has one (Score 4, Informative) 310

In the US it is getting to the point that nearly everyone has a computer. Even people who are pretty poor usually already have a computer. Probably not a great one, but they have one. There is market saturation. So when everyone has one, and the pace of hardware has slowed so you don't need a new one as often, well ya sales are going to go down. The market is mature. That happens to markets in the long run, they can't grow forever.

I get tired of this attitude that some journalists (and investors) have that the only states are "growth" and "death". No, industries can be mature, stable, lots and lots are. That's what's happening in computers.

Comment Ya pretty much (Score 1) 88

Now I'll say that some people go WAY overboard with the amount of pissed off they get at an inconvenience but simply being annoyed and complaining is perfectly normal. When you pay for a service, you expect that service to be available when you want it during whatever its scheduled hours are, which for many services is 24/7. If it isn't, you have reason to be annoyed. Not outraged, but annoyed and wanting them to fix it.

What's funny to me is the geeks that are hating on Netflix and acting like you should't care if it is down are probably the same kinds that get livid with rage when their internet connection dies.

Comment And the concept of extradition is well established (Score 1) 131

Happens all the time. If a person commits a crime against country A and they are in country B, country A may well ask country B to hand them over. If it happens or the details of it vary based off of the specific countries and their treaties, called extradition treaties. For example the US and North Korea? Ya not happening. There are no extradition treaties between those two, and the governments hate each other. so nobody is getting handed over. However EU nations? Extremely strong extradition treaties. If you commit a crime against Germany from France, Germany will have France arrest you and ship you over to stand trial.

The majority of nations have extradition treaties of some level with each other since they don't want criminals able to run off and hide from justice. It has been a thing for a long time.

Slashdot Top Deals

For large values of one, one equals two, for small values of two.