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


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

Comment Re:So... (Score 2) 1321

No one said the elections are based on 'after the election was called by all the major news outlets'. Nice strawman though

You did. You said, and I quote: "over nine hours after the election was called by all the major news outlets." Who cares when the election was called by all the major news outlets?

Actually, I didn't say it and your quotes show it. You seem to be conflating "based" i.e. legally based upon, with "called" i.e. projected/determined/announced, which is why your retort is a strawman. The elections are legally based on the outcome of the electoral college vote on December 19th, where the electors are decided by the separate states based on the results of the state elections on November 8th. This is why a candidate can receive more overall votes yet still lose the election. What the news outlets do is CALL the election, sort of like an announcer does during a ball game, following all the moves and explaining the significance. In general the announcer is educated regarding how the game is played and their analysis is to be taken seriously since they have a need to be as accurate as possible to avoid losing their job or their listeners. The networks are the same - they need to provide trustworthy results so people will tune in again next election. They don't decide the election, they provide the data and analysis of what is happening, including when it appears one side has beaten the other. It is their track record since Dewey, a lesson they learned well, that make people have confidence in what they are saying. That is why when most or all of them are projecting which candidate has won, the candidates accept it since they know is a virtual certainty. It is still the electoral colleges job to make the official decision though.

So in your country there is no speculation or projection about who won until every single vote is counted? No one looks at the data available to see who is, within a truly negligibly small probability of error, the winner, and then that person begins the planning for assuming power? Sounds very inefficient and rather authoritarian actually.

Well, it doesn't take that long to count votes, if you do it properly.

Maybe we don't do it properly. There are ballots still being counted in places, and it has been over two weeks since they were cast. For example, some organisations have still not called Michigan.

We generally have projections that night, sure, but who the hell cares? Lets say Fox is projecting the R will win, and CNN is projecting the D. Should both concede? What about MSNBC? Who the hell cares?

Normally, the candidates care, as do their closer supporters since they have to hit the ground running, and the longer it takes to know who won means less time to get everything setup. That was a major problem for Bush in 2000. For example, when the president changes, every single Executive White House staff position (including Executive Office Building) needs to be restaffed by the new president's team, and that is a lot of people. They only have a couple months to figure it out, while also figuring out whom to nominate for all the cabinet and other presidential appointment positions.

Regarding different networks calling a different winner, name me an example in the last 50 years of that happening. It hasn't. And even if they all somehow did got it wrong, the incorrect projections would be discovered soon after and the real winner announced (followed by a lot of press shaming), and the true winner would be voted in by the college. The incorrectly called candidate would have spent wasted time while the actual winner would be facing a shortened time to organize. But then under your system of waiting until absolute certain, the winner would have had to wait anyway, so our system is at worse like yours.

I find it interesting that you think 'actually counting the votes in a democracy and using those to determine a winner' is 'authoritarian.'

Not sure what you are quoting since those are neither what I wrote, nor what any of the parent posts wrote. But again you misstate what I said. I was saying that telling people they have to "wait until the votes are actually counted" before "the loser says 'congrats, you won' and the winner says 'thanks, you ran a great campaign?'" was authoritarian. People want to know sooner than later so they can make plans, and to help with the "smooth" and "peaceful transition of power"[Obama 11/9/2016].

Better than CNN, Fox, MSNBC literally making up a winner, changing their minds multiple times during the course of the evening, and people like you thinking that there's some nefarious reason why a candidate would say 'well, the votes aren't in yet, but gosh darnit, I'm giving up.'

1. The networks aren't "literally" making up a winner, they are providing their forecast based on available data, and based on their track record, people give a lot of faith to their accuracy. The official legal determination happens later.
2. The networks didn't change their minds multiple times in the course of the evening. If I missed it, please provide me specifics of which networks and when so I can look. In other words, citation please.
3. All I said was Clinton knew she there was almost no hope of winning by 1:35am, yet at 2:07am Podesta comes out and declares there won't be any speech that night, and Clinton did not appear for more than 9 hours after the election was called at 2:30am, despite calling Trump and conceding to him. This goes against a long tradition, one that Obama directly referenced in the speech he gave on November 9th immediately after the one Clinton finally did. Contrast this to Romney conceding in 2012 at 1am after the election was called at 11:14pm, or McCain conceding at 11:20pm after the election being called at 11:03pm, or Kerry conceding at 2pm the next day (scheduled for 1pm but delayed) following the election being called at 11am (blame Ohio). Skipping 2000 due to the contested Florida votes, the list goes on for many, many elections. Why do you think Hillary's decision to ignore this long-standing tradition isn't a flag about her temperament?

Comment Re:Correlation (Score 1) 1321

Does not imply causation.

Umm, correlation actually DOES imply possible causation by the common use definition of "imply", meaning synonymous with "suggests". It is only when using the logician's or statistician's definition of "imply", meaning "sufficient to require", that it isn't true. And since this is a lay discussion, the common definition is applicable, and inferring possible causation from a correlation is entirely appropriate. That being said, the summary is a misrepresentation of the actual claims and even the original author says he doesn't think hacking was the cause.

Comment Re:So... (Score 1) 1321

I'm glad that, I personally, live in a country where elections are based on counting ballots, not 'after the election was called by all the major news outlets.'

Also, 9 hours isn't an unreasonable delay. 8 months, like the Coleman vs Franken Senate race, was a fine example of what you're describing, though.

So in your country there is no speculation or projection about who won until every single vote is counted? No one looks at the data available to see who is, within a truly negligibly small probability of error, the winner, and then that person begins the planning for assuming power? Sounds very inefficient and rather authoritarian actually.

No one said the elections are based on 'after the election was called by all the major news outlets'. Nice strawman though. Of course they are legally decided by the actual vote tallies which happens later, but that doesn't stop the winner from being known before all the votes are counted. Nor does it explain why Clinton deliberately chose to go against the well-established tradition regarding giving a concession speech immediately following the election results becoming obvious. One hour, or even two hours, would be consistent with tradition, while waiting until the middle of the following day clearly is not. It is that behaviour that demonstrates her true character, or maybe just her mental and physical state at the time.

Comment Re:So... (Score 1, Informative) 1321

Well, not giving a defeat speech is a little out of "best standard".

Oh really..I suppose the liberal media just staged this whole event then?

The tradition is to give a concession speech as soon as practical after it is clear you have lost. In Clinton's case, it was clear she had lost at 1:35am ET when Pennsylvania was called for Trump making it virtually impossible for her to win, but the fate was sealed at 2:30am when Wisconsin was called for Trump giving him the 270+ needed. What happened though is at 2:07am Podesta came out and told the crowd "Let’s get these votes counted and let’s bring this home” despite Trump’s victory being all but certain and only one state call away, and told the crowd to go home and there would be no speech that night. It is reported that Clinton called and congratulated Trump at or before 2:35am, just half an hour later, but still she did not offer any public speech, either in person or even by phone, until 11:40am the next morning (the speech your link is to), over nine hours after the election was called by all the major news outlets.

I think that excessive delay is what poster was referring to. Of course, there have been reports that she was not in any reasonable shape to appear publicly by that time in the morning so it may have been more of a need to hide rather than a refusal to speak.

Comment Re:how do they know this is the university? (Score 1) 123

Either companies are honeypotting Bittorrent emissions themselves, which would be entrapment

Honeypots are not entrapment. They have not forced or coerced you into doing something you weren't setting out to do anyway. I believe the concept of entrapment can only be applied to law enforcement entities, as well.

Mostly true. To oversimplify it, entrapment is the idea that everyone has their price, so if you make something attractive enough even an honest person becomes tempted and may succumb. Joining a bittorrent swarm and seeing who else (by who I mean what IP addresses) is also in the swarm isn't in any way an enticement, let alone an unreasonable enticement, so isn't entrapment.

However, entrapment is an affirmative defense, meaning the accused admits doing it but claims a mitigating factor that excuses it. This rule applies both if law enforcement does it, and if a private entity does it. You just have to convince the Court or jury that it excuses the action.

Comment That is going to leave a mark (Score 3, Insightful) 126

This whole thing has been a fiasco. Bad engineering. Bad public relations. Hiding their knowing that there was a problem. Being forced into a recall, and even then, botching the "fix". I am sure there are a number of people now considering if they want a Samsung phone, whether Note 7 or other, now, or ever, to reside in their pocket. This is definitely going to leave a mark.

On the flip side, Apple really appreciates that they decided to torch their sales (literally) right as the iPhone 7 was coming out. Glad Samsung decided to join team Apple. :)

Comment Re:Twitter? (Score 4, Informative) 49

I have only read the summary but I think the title is misleading. This doesn't mean people can now use Twitter for serving, just that in this one case a judge signed off on it due to circumstances.

The law spells out how a person must be served, but if you can show the Court that you couldn't do it as prescribed, you can ask the Court for permission to do it another way which is what I think happened here. They presented the Court with an argument for why they needed to use an alternative means of serving, in this case using Twitter, and the Court approved the plan. If the defendant later wants to argue they were unaware of the suit then they can, but for now it is considered a valid serving since the Court gave it its stamp of approval.

Comment Re:Comment (Score 5, Informative) 319

This law is a violation of 1st Amendment. Pure and simple. If I were IMDB, I wouldn't comply.

Note the law only applies if the person has a paid subscription to the site. That means the site has entered into a commercial contract with the person, and the rules then change somewhat. If IMDB wants to post ages or birthdates, the law doesn't stop them, as long as they don't accept money from the party in question. As soon as they accept money, their rights fall under contract law and are subject to other laws as set forth by statute. No one is forcing them to accept the person's money.

Think of it like a person rents an apartment. Before they rent, there is a big political sign on the apartment's windows, which the renter doesn't want on HIS window. Having a law saying the tenant can decide what, if any, information is posted on the window isn't a violation of the building owner's first amendment rights, since the contract has shifted aspects of control of the property. Having a law that says if you CHOOSE to offer a certain service, like the ability to modify information about you on a website, then other requirements also come into play, such as the ability to decide whether an age/birthdate are included, is permitted and isn't a violation of the First Amendment.

Comment Re:the latest excuse for poor security (Score 1) 97

"We were hacked by Russia" seems to be the latest excuse for poor security.

Correct. Blame a security breach on an entity who people believe has advance hacking weapons, and you can claim no matter what steps you took, they would have got in. They think it will get them off the hook for their poor practices.

Trouble is, I can see why Russia WOULD do this, either to tamper with data on Russian athletes to remove harmful info, or to tamper with other athletes' info then have Russia point at the hack "by someone" and say the previous bad doping results for Russian athletes were a setup, and the database hack was only now discovered. Their athletes should be exonerated!

Comment Re:Signal-to-noise? (Score 1) 100

49,999 invasions of privacy for one apprehended suspect. suspect probably didn't harm anywhere near 50k people. Even five persons would be exceptional. The numbers don't look good for you unless your value system is fucked up.

So you are saying police cannot look around to see if they see a suspect because they will almost certainly see a lot of non-suspects before they may see the suspect? They can't look at cars hunting for the robbery getaway vehicle because all those other innocent drivers on the public road would be having their privacy violated? So police must now walk and drive around blindfolded lest they "invade the privacy" of those out in public? If police are not allowed to look for suspects, or even watch for crimes being committed (the logical consequence of you position), how do you expect them to find any criminals?

Tell me where you live because I don't want to live anywhere near it - it sounds like a criminal's paradise because the criminals are writing the rules.

Comment Re:Signal-to-noise? (Score 1) 100

>> using an array of antennae and U.S. government satellites to capture up to 335 million pieces of metadata in a 12-hour period.

Among those 335 million pieces of metadata, how many of them actually pertain to anything related to terrorism? My guess..less than .000001%.

Police believe a known terror suspect is at a football/baseball/soccer/quidditch game and scan the crowd looking for him, and eventually find him. Of the 50,000 fans in the stadium, they examined 49,999 innocent people to find the one they were looking for. Are you saying since only 0.002% of the data points examined pertained to the terror suspect, the police should be prohibited from looking through crowds for suspects?

It's like running a wireshark capture to watch connections to a server. Even though you give it filter criteria, the capture machine has to collect everything on the wire then look through it for the packets the user wants. Same idea for the satellites - they have to collect and comb through a ton of data to find the nuggets they want.

Comment Re:Wait for the conspiracy (Score 1) 285

Are you suggesting Assange is misleading people with this hint because he's actually in league with the Russians?

(Are you clutching your pearls?) Sure he is. He has a lot to lose if she's elected (he's holed up in an embassy that he can't leave unless Trump wins) and he's the guy who runs Wikileaks. Whoever hacks the DNC- Russians or otherwise- is naturally going to go to him.

Wow, the irony. When Meta-Monkey brings up how the DNC has a lot to gain from by saying it is the Russian government behind it and therefore their public statements may be biased or less than credible, you jump on him/her essentially saying potential motives don't matter since it isn't proof. Now when he/she brings up what Assange has implied is a recent interview, you dismiss it saying Assange has a motive to mislead so we can't trust what he says. Please pick a belief system and stick with it, not just choose the one that is most convenient at the time to help your argument. You do not look good with two faces.

Franky I don't see why it really matters whether Russia was involved in the hack at all. Even if it's true, I don't think it unearths anything that wasn't completely obvious to begin with.

Because the core of this thread is debating the difference between what has been claimed versus what has been proven. People claimed, and many believed, there was bias in the DNC to make sure Billary won and Sanders was locked out, but now there is proof documenting at least some bias that occurred. So yes, it matters.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It's ten o'clock... Do you know where your AI programs are?" -- Peter Oakley