Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



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

Comment Re: drone ship landings require a lot less fuel? (Score 1) 103

I have the front panel of the VAX 11/780 used to render that scene hanging on my wall, but I got to Pixar after that project. This year and last I've contributed some designs that will fly on a FEMA satellite, and a long time ago did a little work to support the Biosciences mission on the shuttle.

Comment Re:Russia, DNC, and NATO (Score 1) 555

He gave another speech that day where the doors were open to admit hundreds of mouth breathers into a crowded ballroom. Trump got hot and sweaty, decided the HVAC wasn't working, and threatened not to pay the hotel.

Why would any country accede to this guy's demands when he always finds a way to renege on his promises?

Comment Re:Why is this not bad for Drumpf? (Score 1) 555

Hey the Republican establishment is not in love with Trump. NeoCons are not for Trump. PaleoCons are not for Trump. Social Conservatives are not for a planned-parenthood, abortion loving Trump and small-government Libertarians are not for a big-government, eminent-domain grabbing, gun control type like Donald Trump.

The religious hard-right is for him. Not because of his faith or righteousness, but because he offers them the hope of power.

(As if they will be able to control him after he gets elected.)

Trump brought in disenfranchised voters in from the cold (as did Bernie). Look at closed caucus states and see how well Trump did. (He did not do well). If the Republican party was proportionate as the Democrat primary was (as opposed to winner take all/most) then Trump would not be the nominee. It would have been a contested convention with Trump barely having 1/3 of the total delegates.

I suspect the RNC will have a superdelegates mechanism in place before the 2020 election.

Most Republicans seem more worried about him winning than about him losing.

Comment Re:So that makes it OK then (Score 2) 555

The Russians want Trump to be President. That bears repeating a couple of times. Just think about why that might be.

Devout Republican George Will[*] is saying that he thinks the reason Trump won't release his tax returns is because they would show how much he is in bed with the Russian oligarchy.

[*]Think what you will of Will, but he's got putdown-fu. After some recent fuss with Trump he said "He has the advantage on me - I can't say everything I know about a topic in 140 characters."

Comment Russia, DNC, and NATO (Score 3, Interesting) 555

I rifled through the emails eagerly looking for stuff, but I was disappointed- I couldn't find anything except suspicious use of pronouns (we/us vs they/them). It was all fluffing up of bland talking points. These clowns couldn't rig an election if their life depended on it.

And I also said that they shouldn't be claiming their emails are hacked by Russians, after all we've been hearing about hacked emails for the past year. They may be telling the truth, but making the argument at all is bad optics.

But then I hear this from Trump yesterday, clarifying his previous statements on NATO, which makes the Russian involvement seem more suspicious:

NATO. They ask me about NATO. Right? You saw that the other day, Meet the Press.

"Well, I hear you want to give up NATO..." I don't want to give up NATO. I like... NATO's fine. But they gotta pay. They gotta pay.

So we have all of these countries, and they're not paying. They're not paying. And we're protecting them.

And the question is: "If such-and-such a country were attacked, are you willing to start World War 3?" Because that's essentially what's happening. They don't pay.

They say, "Well, we have a treaty!" So they have these articles: "Donald Trump wants to give up NATO." No no no. I don't want to give up anything. I want them to pay.

We're a country. It's not 40 years ago, 50 years ago. And now, most people in this audience don't even know, that we're protecting Japan, China, we're protecting Germany! Nothing but money.

We're protecting Saudi Arabia. If we weren't around, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia wouldn't be around for two weeks. We protect Saudi Arabia. They don't pay us what that should be paying. We're losing everything. Folks, we lose on everything.

We protect South Korea. We have 28,000 soldiers on the line, against the maniac on the right. We have 28,000 soldiers against North Korea, separated. Pretty dangerous stuff, considering he's got a million-person army. Pretty dangerous stuff.

So we're doing all this, and yet they're paying us a fraction of what it is.

I saw it with Japan. And by the way, I think it's fine- but they've got to pay us. We don't have the money. They gotta pay us. And they will pay us if the right person asks. If the right person asks. They will. They will.

Do you have any idea the difference that makes for our country if we get countries to take care of us the way they should.

We had a general recently, because we've been doing this, and he said, "Mr. Trump doesn't understand that Japan is paying almost 50 percent of the cost of what we do for them." And I said, why not 100 percent? Why? Tell me why. Tell me why.

Folks, we're run by incompetent people and it's going to end. And it's going to end soon. Because people aren't taking it anymore.

Now, when I talk about we're going to protect Japan, which is great, now, you always have to be prepared to walk. And I said, in one of the articles, they said, "Now what would happen if they didn't pay." I said, âoeWe have to walk."

Hillary Clinton said, "He wants to walk from Japan!" Now, see, what she did, she makes it impossible to negotiate. She's not a negotiator. She's a fool. She's a fool. No, she's a fool.

Because when you tell Japan- very smart people, great people, I have many friends there- but when you say you're not prepared to walk, you'll never walk? So she said, "How dare he say that! We will never walk!"

Then they're never going to pay us. We may have to walk! Folks, we may have to walk.

But- the same thing with Germany. We're spending a fortune in Germany. Same thing with Saudi Arabia. Let me tell you. Saudi Arabia? So we'll say this: "Folks, you gotta pay us. You gotta pay us. Sorry."

They're gonna say no. Bye-bye! Within two days, they're calling back, "Get back over here, we'll pay you whatever the hell you want."

OK? One hundred percent.

But when we have a fool- when we have a fool- an absolute fool like Hillary Clinton, saying, "we will never abandon, we will never leave"- they're not going to pay. And we don't have the money to take care of every nation in the world.

We don't have the money. And the same thing with the NATO nations, and they'll pay and they'll all pay probably- and if they don't pay, you walk! And that's OK, too. That's the way it works, folks. That's the way it works.

WTF is going on here? Is this a prid quo pro?

Comment Re:If you think Twitter is bad... (Score 1) 106

Well, all this IT tech has done is forced the user to come up with a new password and WRITE IT DOWN ON ANOTHER POST-IT. He may think he is being clever, but what he has done is ensure that they will just do it again because it's a new password.

What he should do is come up with a method by which they can create a secure password and write down the hint to remember it, and distribute that process to everyone. In other words, TEACH them how to do good passwords.

1. Think of a very memorable event in your life.
2. Come up with a password based on that event.
3. Make it follow convention. (e.g. capitals, letters, length, etc)
4. Make it able to be changed easily without changing the event.

Example: My dog Daisy died in 1998
password: DaisyRIPxx98

Now when you have to change it in the future, you could "increment" the xx to yy, then zz, etc.
Or you could increment the 98 to 99, 100, etc. Or better yet both.

So next password is DaisyRIPyy99, then DaisyRIPzz00, then DaisyRIPaa01, ......
The user can write down a hint "puppy c3" in plain sight, and without knowing the scheme, nobody would ever be able to guess it. (in this case, DaisyRIPcc03)

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 1) 763

You seem to miss that HRC is not the DNC. Why would the DNC having poor network security have anything to do with Clinton, or reflect on her at all? Because they're both from the same political party? What?

I agree that HRC != DNC (...sort of...) but that level of nuance is useless for damage control since the average voter will equate the two.

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 4, Insightful) 763

The problem here is that anyone from Russia was able to read those emails at all.

I'm sure the Trump campaign is sloppy with email security as well. But nothing he writes (e.g. love letters to neo-Nazis) would surprise anyone at this point. The fact that HRC is already known for exercising poor network security has already compromised her campaign, and reminding people that "Russians love Trump and that's why they released my messages that they were able to access" is not a smart defense. (Neither is immediately hiring DWS upon her firing from the DNC and announcing that she "will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally". The tone deafness here is astounding.)

Yes, the DNC email server contained no classified information. But don't keep reminding people that anyone in the world can read your email.

Slashdot Top Deals

You don't have to know how the computer works, just how to work the computer.

Working...