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


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

Comment Re: So basically ... the attack wins? (Score 1) 206

You don't implement BCP38 and any new DDoS prevention and mitigation standards, you become the first to be blocked upstream

The only ones who can do that are the large backhaul providers. Why would they annoy their customers by enforcing a policy that means they have to move less data? That would be a daft business move.

Comment Only the proprietors know the details. That's bad. (Score 2) 120

This sounds like another instance of proprietary malware to add to the list. And nobody should trust a proprietor to "roll back" their malware (just as some of the Twitter.com followups suggest), regardless of whether they say this was a mistake. There's no reason to trust unvettable, uncorrectable, unsharable code and there's no reason why people should have to live with months-old backdoors while the only programmers allowed to inspect or fix the code apparently don't fix that code.

Comment Re:What's our take away on this supposed to be? (Score 1) 86

Even if they document the tests, if they can be gamed in a test representative of "normal usage", then the same gaming will kick in on actual "normal usage", and so the test will not have been gamed.

Normal usage will be viewing a different movie than the one they test with. If you can get viewers to only watch the test signal, over and over, then sure there is no variance between expected use and actual use. However, I did not buy my TV to watch a specific set of video clips in a specific sequence, repeatedly.

Comment Re:Even bad its good (Score 1) 86

Your sound bar would be only using max 20 to 30 Watts, Peak is a useless measure because it is a measure the power the sound bar can pump out for a moment, if you try to drive it hard continuously it will just crap it self and you will very soon find yourself pushing the volume down to a level it can actually handle.

The AC has it right. 180W is marketing. It will never take that from the socket.

Comment Re:Even bad its good (Score 1) 86

My supposedly "smart" Samsung TV detects when power saving activates on the attached device and puts up a bright white logo to inform me. The logo does not go away. At least it moves around, so the wear on the screen is somewhat even.

The only way to do power saving with modern TV's is to use ARC, and ARC support is just not very widespread yet.

Comment Re:No end... (Score 2) 86

But Power Companies, who rely on Energy Usage Tests to forecast demand and allow for it, do care.

You imply that power companies try to guess which items people buy, and how much they use them, and then use the Energy Usage Tests to figure out aggregate demand. This sounds highly improbable.

Comment Re:Does it.. (Score 1) 129

Does it come with a real menu bar with file, edit and other proper menus? Or do I have to play "hunt the secret glyph" to unlock a menu?

It has never not done that. Just right-click... in the right spot... and select "menu bar" - and there it is again. The right spot may be tough to find though. The plus-sign next to the tabs works, at least.

I do agree completely that it should never have been hidden to begin with.

Comment Re:As easy as talking English (Score 2) 241

I found the following example on wikipedia:

    repeat ten times

        put "Hello world at" && the long time & return after field 1

        wait 1 second

    end repeat

So what does this magical natural language-based language do? It uses the same keywords you find in other languages ("repeat", "end repeat"), it still requires quotes around quoted text, it still uses weird symbols ("&&" and "&"), and no doubt there are still significant restrictions on language structure because otherwise it would not be parseable without ambiguity. In other words, it is like every other computer language out there, except perhaps slightly more verbose in places because most other computer languages have done away with sticking "the" in front of nouns.

Comment Former CIA Officer: President Obama Should Pardon (Score 5, Interesting) 278

Former CIA Officer: President Obama Should Pardon Edward Snowden

Barry Eisler spent three years in a covert position in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations and is the author of 12 novels, including The Detachment

                        He let Americans evaluate omniscient domestic surveillance for themselves


This week, Edward Snowden, multiple human rights and civil rights groups, and a broad array of American citizens asked President Obama to exercise his Constitutional power to pardon Snowden. As a former CIA officer, I wholeheartedly support a full presidential pardon for this brave whistleblower.

All nations require some secrecy. But in a democracy, where the government is accountable to the people, transparency should be the default; secrecy, the exception. And this is especially true regarding the implementation of an unprecedented system of domestic bulk surveillance, a mere precursor of which Senator Frank Church warned 40 years ago could lead to the eradication of privacy and the imposition of “total tyranny.”

That today we are engaged in a meaningful debate about whether such a system is desirable is almost entirely due to the conscience, courage and conviction of one man: Edward Snowden. Without Snowden, the American people could not balance for themselves the risks, costs and benefits of omniscient domestic surveillance. Because of him, we can.

For this service, the government has charged Snowden under the World War I-era Espionage Act. Yet Snowden did not sell information secretly to any enemy of America. Instead, he shared it openly through the press with the American people.

For this service, Snowden has been accused of having “blood on his hands“—the same evidence-free cliché trotted out every time a whistleblower reveals corruption, criminality or anything else the government would prefer to hide. That this charge is being aired by the very people responsible for wars that have led to thousands of dead American servicemen and servicewomen; hundreds of thousands burned, blinded, brain-damaged, crippled, maimed and traumatized; and hundreds of thousands of innocent foreigners killed, is more than ironic. It’s also a form of psychological projection, or propaganda, intended to distract from where true responsibility for bloodshed lies.

And for this service, the usual suspects have claimed Snowden has caused “grave damage to national security.” As always, the charge is backed by nothing but air, and ignores—in fact, is intended to distract from—the real damage caused by metastasizing governmental secrecy. This includes not only disastrous government mistakes and cover-ups (see the Bay of Pigs, the “missile gap,” the Gulf of Tonkin, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, etc.), but also the ongoing strangulation of democracy itself. The nation is not made more secure, but is instead more fragile, when the government knows more and more about the people and the people know less and less about the government.

Even well-meaning media personalities fret over questions like: “But what would happen if every top-secret cleared intelligence employee decided what secret information to unilaterally declassify?” In fact, whistleblowing is extraordinarily rare, in part because of the draconian penalties the government metes out to punish it. What’s rampant—and real—is over-classification. An insistence on discussing a fantasy hypothetical of radical transparency, when the world we actually live in is one of radical secrecy, seems a strange way to frame a debate.

If leaks really are so terrible that the government conflates them with espionage (and even with terrorism), why isn’t the government prosecuting the thousands of leaks that insiders dole out to favored reporters every day? It’s almost as though leaking isn’t really the problem, but rather the nature of leaks—with leaks that assist favored government narratives encouraged, and ones that challenge those narratives prosecuted.

It’s important to understand that Snowden violated no “oath” of secrecy—because there is no such oath. The only oath is the oath to defend the Constitution. With regard to secrecy, there is only an NDA. So anyone who suggests that Snowden violated an “oath” of secrecy is either ignorant or lying. Faced with a choice between an oath on the one hand, and an NDA on the other, Snowden chose the oath—the real oath, the only oath—and alerted the American people to what the government was concealing from us.

In other words, Snowden followed his conscience. Authoritarians might condemn such a choice. Americans should celebrate it. After all, in his seminal essay “Civil Disobedience,” Henry David Thoreau wrote, “It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.” And indeed, if people were intended to only and always obey the law, why would we have been given the power—and burden—of conscience? Similarly, if the president were intended always to hew to the law even at the expense of justice, why would the founders have vested the office of the president with the power of pardon?

Without question, history will vindicate Edward Snowden as it has Daniel Ellsberg. President Obama has a chance to be on the right side of that history. In doing so, he would do his legacy, and his country, a great service.

Comment Re:and then block porn / 3rd party candidates / fr (Score 2) 194

English politics are strange.

Conservatives and Lib Dems set up a coalition, Conservatives do a lot of bad things and Lib Dems only prevent some of them: Lib Dems collapse.

Conservatives and Labour jointly try to run a campaign to stay in the EU, to deal with the mess that the Conservatives created: Labour collapse.

Slashdot Top Deals

A freelance is one who gets paid by the word -- per piece or perhaps. -- Robert Benchley