Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:For those people not in the USA (Score 1) 70

It sounds like a stretch, or this person was just extremely unlucky in which recycled phone number they received. It sounds like he may have been using some ultra-cheap MVNO based on the Google Voice limitation.

I've never seen a USA-based number that couldn't be registered with GV, nor have I ever gotten a number that upon receiving a few unwanted calls (not robocalls, but usually bill collectors, banks, and other services the previous owner of the number signed up for) I couldn't just call up and get the credit refunded and be assigned a new, fresh number.

Comment Re:There goes the foundation of the Web (Score 3, Insightful) 56

And that's why real world experience always trumps what you're taught out of a book. Yes, in theory, all physical addresses are unique. But in practice this has really never been the case. In the mid-2000s I remember tracking down an issue with two brand-name (3Com) NICs having identical MAC addresses.

On a large wired LAN, duplicate MACs can cause issues. Beyond Layer 2, it shouldn't make one lick of difference whether your physical address is unique or not. Of course if you spoof your MAC, you're probably using the MAC of another device, somewhere, out in the wild. But unless they're on the same physical segment (or for cases of large scale DHCP and static leasing, the same LAN) no one will ever know. Any network admin worth their salt already knows that address can very well be duplicated and should have taken steps to mitigate any issues it might cause.

Or are you under the impression that somehow MAC addresses are important to TCP/IP routing on the open internet? Because trust me, it doesn't matter at that level. That's what TCP/IP is for!

Comment Re:It does not matter. (Score 1) 445

Union? Confederates?

What in the everloving fuck are you talking about?

You shouldn't smoke that high-test shit before you post on the internet, especially this early in the morning. Get a cup of coffee and try to get the buzz to wear off a bit before you make anymore comments on the internet that you can't delete!

Comment Re:Why is this news? (Score 1) 553

Many tech folks I've met are Pro-Trump. Not all, and maybe not even a majority, but it's a sizeable chunk. However, amongst the "tech" people I know (you know who I'm talking about), it's almost 100% against him.

It's almost as if people (across any given field) who have no real skills or understanding of business are threatened by someone who would rather see equal chances given to everyone instead of being forced to provide everyone with equal outcomes.

Comment Re:It's just a power grab (Score 0) 126

Wait, do, do you think that an 80% failure rate is good just because there are courts with HIGHER rates?

I see you use the classic communist tactics of building up a strawman (highest rate, Breitbart, etc. none of which I mentioned) and somehow proving how smart you are by knocking it down.

Obviously, many of the courts are fucked. And the Ninth is by far and away one of the most batshit-insane groups of assholes in the nation. The fact that you stick up for them speaks volumes.

Comment Re:It's just a power grab (Score 1, Insightful) 126

Oooh, beat me with a clue stick oh wise one! How kinky.

All that bullshit aside, the Supreme Court takes so few cases per year that EVERY court's number of cases appealed up is so small as to almost be negligible. The fact remains that when the Ninth Circuit's cases get to the Supremes, they're overruled in 8 out of 10 cases.

That should scare you, because how many people just plain don't have the resources to appeal a case to the Supreme Court, or how many cases are just unable to be heard by them because of time restraints?

Would you trust a police officer whose cases only made it to a jury a small number of times, but 80 percent of those times the jury found he had made a wrongful arrest? Or would you want him fired from the force?

Comment Re:It's just a power grab (Score 0) 126

They're already forming a new court to get around the more liberal ones that run out of California...

Bwahaha, you mean the fucking Ninth Circuit? The one that, on appeal to the Supreme Court, gets overturned a whopping 80 percent of the time? Yeah, I think any court with that kind of failure rate should be disbanded, as well.

There's some supreme nuttery going on out in California these days...

Slashdot Top Deals

Take an astronaut to launch.