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


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment This entire story is a mess... (Score 2) 61

So wild guessing again, likely piggy backing off the erronious statements that the Times itself made regarding the sources of these hacks...

Hackers thought to be working for Russian intelligence have carried out a series of cyber breaches targeting reporters at The New York Times and other US news organizations, according to US officials briefed on the matter.

The intrusions, detected in recent months, are under investigation by the FBI and other US security agencies.


Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said the company had seen "no evidence" that any breaches had occurred.

"We are constantly monitoring our systems with the latest available intelligence and tools. We have seen no evidence that any of our internal systems, including our systems in the Moscow bureau, have been breached or compromised,"

So no hack?

The Times has brought in private sector security investigators who are working with US national security officials to assess the damage and determine how the hackers got in, according to the US officials.

So they were hacked?

Attention has grown on the hacks thought to be carried out by Russians since Wikileaks released a trove of emails stolen from the DNC in the weekend before the Democratic Party's convention to nominate Hillary Clinton for president. US intelligence officials say there is strong evidence showing Russian intelligence behind the DNC hack. The Clinton campaign has claimed the hack as proof that the Russians are trying to aid the election of Donald Trump.

Thought by who? Is there some official statement that the earlier hacks of the DNC and DCCC are the work of the Russians (with proof?). Likely no, more than likely this statement is based off the flawed TrustConnect analysis which assumed Russian intelligence services had something to do with this because the originating IP of the hack was hidden behind Russian VPN.

And there we have it folks. News! Predictably from CNN they have to of course point out that the Evil DT is the one responsible for all of this, according to a documented liar.

Comment "A Russian cyberattack that targeted Democratic.." (Score 4, Informative) 285

Huh? Because VPN IP address? Again, TrustConnect's analysis was good, it traced back to a Russian VPN service provider. The rest of their analysis was best wild guessing.

The NYT article (which IMHO has become a water carrier for the Clinton's) references it's own story, which again incorrectly assumes that Russia is involved because of the TrustConnect's best guess. But TrustConnect even acknowledges that the originating network is obfuscated behind the VPN provider.

I hate this tactic of the main stream media outlets. They take questionable information, then report on it as if it was fact, then pile onto that by continuing further reporting all based off of the original questionable information by citing earlier articles they've produced.

Comment Re:"What Difference Does It Make?!?!?!" (Score 4, Insightful) 704

Who got caught? Did you read the article? Did you actually visit ThreatConnect's website and read their best guess? Based on the evidence they presented, it only suggests that a Russian VPN provider was involved in the obfuscation of the originating network. The rest of the analysis is click-bait speculation and should be disregarded.

Comment Comcast is a GSM yet not regulated under the PUC (Score 4, Interesting) 61

So Comcast is a government sanctioned monopoly, but some how are not subject to PUC regulation. This results in the garbage plans I'm forced to buy. Someone please explain to me why I can purchase a bundled package for $70 or so with internet, a rented cable box, and HBO, yet if I just want internet it's $150 a month. Why is such a bullshit pricing scheme allowed to continue? If Comcast can deliver the service for $70, than a lesser service should never exceed that price. Where's the PUC when you need them? Nowhere, as most of them are bought off. I sure as hell don't expect anything to change if the NBC/Comcast candidate wins the presidency.

Comment Rope-a-dope (Score 1, Insightful) 321

So a few weeks ago we hear stories all over ./ about Hillary (you shouldn't be able to buy a gun if you're being investigated by the FBI but running for the most powerful position on the planet is fine) getting really friendly with the big tech companies, in fact, if you look at who runs these companies and where they donate to you find they're already in bed with each other. Now rides in the Native American (very white) knight to the rescue blasting the unfair competition, which can of course only by fixed with more government interference and of course control (because it's working so well with our health care system). So should we expect Warren (who by the way made her millions throwing poor people out of their homes) to rail against the huge Wall Street banks next? I mean how many millions did Clinton receive from them? Can we expect Warren to rail against Clinton? Nope, not at all, because that doesn't provide the means to consolidate more power under her control.

Comment Re:Yep - impersonation (Score 3, Insightful) 565

The very first few frames of the video have a statement which reads

Paid for in part by National Rifle Association of America with additional support form Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation. All Rights Reserved C. 2016 Share The Safety

Seems pretty clear that this is not a parity but more of an attempt to damage both brands.

Comment Re:Is this what they've determined we want? (Score 1) 125

Do we really need 6 GB of RAM on a phone?

Yes, because java.

Until Android gets something like Continuum on Windows phone, where you can dock the phone and use it like a desktop, there seems little reason to have that much RAM.

Been there, done that, webview or deskview or whatever it was called on driod's. It sucked.

I guess they've just run out of things to upgrade to justify the high price. Personally, I won't spend much more than $200 on a phone at this point. Things are changing too fast on the software side, and updates to operating systems are often not available. You basically have to get a new phone every year or two to be guaranteed having the latest OS, and spending $400+ on a new phone every year or two is a little rich for my tastes.

$400 is a great price for any phone, try and get anything other than a cheap ass tract-phone and you're into the 5 6 and 7 bills territory.

Comment Re:Anyone know.. (Score 1) 125

My OPO is running cyanogen as well, however I did play around with oxygen. It's basically a derivative version of cyanogen with a different theme and less functionality. Aside from being deprived of some useful settings features I liked a lot, the OS's were nearly identical on the phone, and I've read many OP2 users switching back to cyanogenmod. Unlocking the phone was trivially simple, as well as rooting it. To this day, I still use the OPO (but seriously considering the OP3) and I can say that this has been by far, the best phone I've ever owned.

Comment Rational behind the major syntax changes in 6? (Score 3, Interesting) 281

Hi Larry, As a long time perl hacker, and contributor of various modules to CPAN I'm wondering what the rational was behind the major syntax changes in perl 6? I've read various items trying to explain it, but none so far have done a very good job. Admittedly I haven't fully grasp perl 6 yet (mostly because it involves learning a new language I thought I knew well).

Slashdot Top Deals

"Pull the wool over your own eyes!" -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs