I wish had mod points. I'm glad someone else spotted this.

The parent comment comparing BBT to blackface is so wildly offensive and off base that I'm inclined to not be part of a community that would excitedly express their agreement (+5 insightful) for such a comparison. I mean, I know we're pretty out-of-the-loop with pop culture as nerds and geeks, but making comparisons like that is a great way to alienate huge swaths of the population.

Glad to see that there are a least one or two other reasonable people on this site still... :-)

I think the other point of the "attack" (and I admit that this is pretty flimsy) is that an attacker could make malicious code *look* like signed and verified code, defeating the whole purpose gatekeeper helping prevent you from accidentally running bad things.

I'd think the only solution would be to make every single executed snippet of code signed. I don't really know if that's possible though.

It's not signed code per-se, but nvidia does provide checksums from the website:

cuda_7.5.18_linux.run (md5sum: b22ef6bc073f7cf767f547a84fb0e3c2)

(see https://developer.nvidia.com/c... for more versions)

If your unfamiliar with how to use a checksum, I suggest reading http://lifehacker.com/247262/h...). Basically though, if they don't match, don't trust it.

The 80s was when Bob Lutz was an auto exec at Ford (1974-1986) and Chrysler (1986-1998) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Not great years for American cars in my opinion.

I feel disinclined to listed to old, white CEOs about where the future of things are headed in just about any industry at this point. These guys, time and time again, have shown themselves to be more interested in their bottom line at all costs (take the recent VW incident) than trying to do anything creative, different, or forward thinking. For most, it's all about cutting costs, not building better products.

I would give you so many mod points if I had them. I actually recently went out on a couple of dates with a woman who did just the type of "time trimming" work you describe. Even the producers and directors of TV shows don't know it's happening. It's the epitome of absurd and dishonest and makes we want to burn every bit of advertising I see to the ground.

I think that presenting ads mixed in with the main content of Slashdot, albeit in a different color is BS. It's just an extension of "video bytes" in a way, which was probably a test bed for all of this (and how well has that worked out for you, Slashdot?). I should add that I've taken to blocking the video bytes content, and I will do my best to make sure that these new paid "stories" are blocked too. You claim that it's to streamline the ad experience and prevent content like autoplaying video, etc. but I'm pretty sure it's actually just a way to camouflage advertising as actual content to those who don't know better.

What do you want Slashdot? Are you not earning enough money to stay afloat? I'll happily kick a few dollar a month your way for something where I have full control to opt in or out of seeing anything and everything that I want (apologies if you do, but I have yet to see such a thing presented clearly here). But it seems more and more you're just trying to fatten someone's wallet, and that's starting to piss me off. I'm offered the options to disable ads because I "help make Slashdot great!" but I'm going to stop providing comments and/or story submissions if you keep doing things like this. I come here because of what it has been; I contribute to help make it better and because I think that I benefit from what I learn on Slashdot. The more you do stuff like this though, and the more you force changes like these, the more you are going to alienate your primary user base (who are somewhat ironically among the few people these days who know how to block the bullshit you're trying to force on them). AC above has it right, as do so many other non-AC users who have been saying the same thing: it's possible to exist and be successful without doing this.

Stop trying to monetize your community. Maybe try supporting your community and then you'll start finding some results you're looking for.

These people also "sensitive" to the following:

data, facts, statistics, double blind studies, and science.

;-)

I can't fathom how they think this makes sense, or that there won't be pushback. Welcome to the police state.

Can I shoot at your "non-lethal" drone with my non-lethal weapons?

The reason the "scale isn't big enough" is because they're charging so damn much for it. I'm perhaps not a great test-case, because I refuse to pay for wifi anywhere and everywhere, but last time I was on a delta flight they wanted $8 for an hour. ONE hour. They wanted some outrageous price for the entire flight ($20 or more, I don't remember the exact number). For those of us who only fly a couple of times a year, the monthly and yearly passes don't make any sense either.

The only argument that I would buy for pricing this high is that there is currently NO existing infrastructure that could support a plane full of folks using wifi and they need to discourage all but those willing to pay the highest prices from using it... but I don't believe that's the case.

Let's face it, if they wanted to bring wifi to everyone, they would figure it out. It must just not make sense for their bottom line right now to do so.

Let's just cherish the last few years before we have to listen to dickheads facetime throughout the entire flight.

In fact, I'd say the only thing proven about it is the likelihood of failure! We have TONS of evidence supporting that.

Against this:

"Both men stand accused of distributing knowledge and guides on how to obtain illegal content online and are reported to have confessed."

?

If there is, then they are probably in violation. But aren't there other resources on how to do illegal things that don't get shut down? Plenty of folks have written about how to get onto Silk Road and buy drugs and yet we haven't seen those sites disappear... curious. Just goes to show they don't care about whether its illegal or not, only if it *slightly* affects their bottom line. But we all knew that already, didn't we?

Pardon my ire, but Uber's management has clearly demonstrated that they are interested in the exact opposite of sharing. They can go fuck themselves and stop pretending that they're interested in helping anyone other than themselves.

Nothing. I meant "shitty" as a modifier to individual instances, not Wordpress as a whole. I was merely illustrating that the internet today is largely people who are not "computer people" and the bar for "tech savvy" is shifting for many.

The author is worried about the centralization of the internet, but much of the internet usage is concentrated on "platforms" (e.g. wordpress, facebook, squarespace, twitter, etc.) and "tech savviness" concentrated on a platform is not going to help decentralize things again.

I so desperately wish I could mod this up!

I completely agree with the author's point. MOST people rely on a few social media sites for almost all of their internet surfing, and as others have pointed out, Slashdotters are almost unanimously going to agree that social media sites are not how we prefer to use the internet.

Perhaps though the underlying internet hasn't changed or disappeared, it's just that social sites are so much "friendlier" to use that folks that didn't use the internet a long time ago are now using the "internet" and the increase in their traffic has dwarfed the less "friendly" (although I disagree that it's less friendly), link-ier part of the internet the author references.

I have no numbers or citations, just wanted to throw that thought out there. I know people who consider themselves very computer savvy, but couldn't do much beyond set up a facebook profile or a shitty wordpress blog, but that doesn't mean that they've taken our "home" away.