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 Re:Hold down power button and ... (Score 1) 268

Let's take this backwards.

Real abuse comes from congress and the supreme court as brought to you by [corporation].


Lack of power.

The President has a certain amount of power to do things or not do things, and that power can be wielded on behalf of corporations — especially when done in concert with [corporate stooges in] congress [but I repeat myself].

Comment Re:gloves? (Score 1) 309

Pretty much this. Aren't these the FIRST areas where I'd WANT a personalized gun? Rifles that cannot be looted by the enemy and be used against you? Undeniable proof who used the pistol to fire the shot in a shootout in a seedy neighborhood?

That is where anyone who puts his money where his mouth is would WANT such personalized and traceable guns.

Comment Re:You're being silly (Score 1) 309

The evil libtardos aren't coming for your guns.

Well, Hillary Clinton thinks the Supreme Court is incorrect, and that we don't have the individual right to own guns. That what she says to her money people when she hopes the press isn't listening. She's also said she'd consider confiscation, a la Australia. And the left is cheering her lying, corrupt self into office - not least because they agree with her on this - the constitution is there to be "reinterpreted," as Clinton puts it.

Do you have any idea what you're chances are against a modern, mechanized army?

What does that matter? That's not why millions and millions of Americans own guns. They use them for sport, for hunting, and - as record numbers of recent buyers are showing in research - for self defense, especially in the context of social unrest. That's EXACTLY what the founders had in mind when they said that the government could not be allowed to have the monopoly on keeping and bearing arms: so that individuals could exercise their own rights to do so if and as they see fit. For whatever reason they see as appropriate. A standing army being necessary for the country, it's not to be considered justification for infringing the people's rights to their own tools of self defense. Sound familiar?

Stop caring so damn much about your precious firearms and start doing something about oppression brought on by wealth inequality.

Ah, I get it. Because someone else is prosperous, your right to vote is being oppressed. Or your right to assemble, or freely speak. Or your ability to go to school. Or your ability to ... which ability is it that you're being denied because someone else has money, again? It's not a fixed-sized pie, dude. If it was, we'd all be living in total poverty. But we're not. The standard of living has never been higher in human history. The "poor" live better than the vast majority of humanity ever could have dreamed.

Wage slavery? Get rid of nonsense like Obamacare, which went out of its way to entrench the system that prevents you from shopping across state lines for health insurance, and went out of its way to keep such services expensive by carefully avoiding tort reform at all costs. Or... do you mean that people who haven't trained themselves to do something valuable are finding it hard to move on in life? Yes, getting rid of our ability to defend ourselves will definitely fix that. We can only do one thing at a time, right?

Voter disenfranchisement? Yes, this is a real problem. We have millions of dead an ineligible people registered to vote. Every time a vote is cast in one of their names, that disenfranchises a person who is voting legitimately. When the Clinton campaign spreads around information, as we've just seen, about how to get illegal immigrants into the voting booth, that disenfranchises people who play by the rules. Definitely a serious problem, I agree. But the disenfranchising actions of voters mostly as encouraged by liberal activist groups go largely unprosecuted because that task would fall to the very party in power that encourages the crime. So, we have to live with it. Steps to mitigate it, like having to show who you are when you vote, just like you have to when you cash a government check, are considered "racist" by disingenuous people who know perfectly well it's not, but there you have it.

Hell, there are folks who matter talking about taking away women's right to vote.

They only "matter" in the sense that you're enjoying mentioning them. There is nobody with any prospect of infringing that liberty calling for that. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who certainly leans towards infringing constitutionally protected liberties and says so out loud, to great applause from the usual would-be little tyrants on the left.

It's been 8 years. Don't you think if he was going to do it he would have?

He knows he can't get what he wants past a legislature more inclined to protect those rights. He fails on that front because what he proposes - usually in the wake of some broken person killing some people - fails on the face of it to even address the actual problem (broken people). He doesn't propose making it easier to lock up crazy people, he proposes making it harder for law abiding, non-violent people to possess or transfer a firearm ... even though that would exactly nothing to stop, say, a Sandy Hook type incident. So every time he talks about "using his pen" to limit rights, it fails because, of course, people see right through the total lack of causality in the chain of things he pretends he's addressing. He's had multiple unconstitutional executive orders smacked down in the courts, exactly as they should have been. Hillary Clinton wants a court that would prevent those checks and balances from impacting her agenda (see above-mentioned confiscatory sensibilities and assertion that, for example, the second amendment doesn't mean what the founders said it means).

Comment Heh, haven't heard that name in a while. (Score 1) 91

I used to follow some of what The Jester wrote. There are a number of people out there who think he's overrated, more brag than anything else. Still, I saw some pretty clever things out of him. For example, at one point he was going after some other hacking collective (I don't recall which one), and he announced a successful attack against them and posted a list of all of their names and real IP addresses. Only, the list wasn't real. Instead, anyone who tried to download the list had their connection logged and probed, an exploit used to trigger the computer to make a (real) TCP connection back to one of his computers, and a number of automated attacks launched against targets it considered particularly suspect (for example, if there was evidence of being logged into a known member twitter account). I.e., it wasn't actually a list of suspects, it was bait to build a list of suspects. I think he did the same trick with QR codes later.

Comment Re:Another obvious defense against this (Score 4, Interesting) 268

I want a "panic" finger such that it displays a "could not read fingerprint - try again" message and then immediate sets "allow_unlocking_with_fingerprint=False" internally so that a password is required. Make it indistinguishable from the usual unlock failure message so that it's impossible to tell that it was triggered (even by examining the on-device logs, if that's possible).

Comment Re:Ignore the ones that have been edited (Score 1) 268

That's a very convenient hypothetical you engage in, but some of us went through a lot of research to corroborate some of those things with the FEC records, two independent videos, etc.

This would tend to give factual support to a conclusion opposite of that hypothetical scenario in which your ideological opponents act in ridiculous ways.

Comment Re:it is as moral as police using informers (Score 1) 268

> Tell me, why have these e-mail releases only come at the expense of the Democrats?

Because nobody has sent Wikileaks any. They're a leak group, not a hacking group. They tweeted themselves that if someone had sent the leaks earlier, this could've been Sanders v. Trump.

> Do you believe that only the Dems conduct shady or embarrassing business?

Unlikely, and one of the GOP hinted as much downplaying the leaks by saying "next time it could be us." But you do have to actually present evidence before I'll go accusing anyone.

> Or is it simply that the current situation validates your political position and you aren't interested in justice?

I'm sure there may be some like that--there always seem to be. I wouldn't count myself among them, however.

> Is it a coincidence that these e-mail releases come during a political campaign?

Not at all. It should be hard to get leaks of campaign malfeasance before a campaign isn't actually going on.

> Or is it a coincidence that Donald Trump keeps making these bizarre admiring comments about Vladimir Putin?

Probably--they talk about playing up his "bromance" with Putin in the leaks, though. I won't defend Russia's actions--I don't like that at all. I greatly prefer not to go to war with them, however.

> I'll take a regulated police officer over a vigilante (or simply paid mercenary) hacker any day.

I will, too, but I'm not quick to condemn whistleblowers for releasing true information. And based on what I've been able to corroborate, it appears to be true.

> We know little about the motivations of these hackers, but logic suggests they have an agenda. And you've fallen for their agenda. Congratulations, an anonymous hacker is pulling your strings for reasons you vigorously deny! You are the perfect patsy.

Everyone has an agenda. I won't blindly believe Wikileaks any more than CNN. That's why I've gone through and verified things for myself.

What have you read? What have you researched? You can't base every decision on your priors, you have to actually test them against the evidence yourself.

Comment Re:Yes, selecting the US president isn't "gossip" (Score 3, Insightful) 268

It's not our business that the primary was rigged, that Bernie supporters were framed for the violence at Trump rallies (actually staged to benefit Hillary)? Normal people would call that newsworthy. It's also something that's been captured on video, including independent videos that corroborate the O'Keefe video. And then we have the FEC showing that person on the Democratic payroll.

What next, are you going to quote some of the joke personal emails they were talking about releasing?

Slashdot Top Deals

After an instrument has been assembled, extra components will be found on the bench.