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:Frank Yu doesn't know what he's talking about. (Score 1) 278

25 years ago= 1992. The year before during the Gulf War I was helping families of my father's Guard Unit send emails to their soldiers in Kuwait via a 286 and modem dial-in. Check your facts. The internet was not as widely used because it was mostly still used by academia at that point, and the www had not yet been released on the world, but the internet was there. And Personal computers (Macs and PC's) were widely used and had been for years.

You are right about the change in technology, just your baseline is off.

Comment Re:Treason ain't what it used to be (Score 1) 795

Exactly, and this is why Snowden also fails to qualify for whistleblower protections. Had he kept his revelations to the NSA surveillance program, he would have been golden and fully worthy of Whistleblower status. But of course he didn't, he dumped a bunch more, compromising legitimate and legal collection efforts ongoing in and against foreign powers (friendly and hostile alike. In the spy game everybody spies on everybody). That ruined his claim to whistleblowing. And Manning never had any claim to such. Neither truly committed treason, just espionage.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 1) 795

Petraeus did not do the same thing, not even close. He did break the law and plead guilty to it. But what he did was hand his classified personal notes to his Biographer for reference use in preparing his biography. Yes he was having an affair with her, and no he didn't get the data declassified or approved for release, but the Biographer had a clearance (though not the need to know) and she did not release any of the classified information.

Thus while he did mishandle the classified material it never hit the general public. His crime pales compared to the roughly 700k classified documents Manning stole and released to the internet. Petraeus pled guilty, and paid a hefty fine ($100k). He could not have been Trump's Sec state as he was briefly rumored to be a candidate for.

Comment Re:Biggest Question (Score 1) 181

So what if he accepted a congratulatory phone call from Taiwan and that offends China. Taiwan is not going to rejoin China, they are two separate countries. China's outrage is feigned, they need our markets just as badly as we need the stuff they sell us.

Your outrage at his accepting a phone call is as false as China's outrage. Neither means squat. He has not harmed anything, he does not yet have authority to harm anything. Once President, I hope he continues to recognized Taiwan, the One China myth needs to die whether communist China wants to admit it or not, Taiwan is independent.

Comment Re:Road Hazard (Score 1) 162

Except that decades ago the speeds were set for political reasons and are far below the comfortable and safe driving speeds the roads and modern cars. The 55mph National speed limit was arbitrary and is too low. Most states have increased it, and are increasing limits more as they try to determine the safe speed. In the west that is often 75 to 80 mph, at the comfortable speed most drivers will not exceed it. But most states aren't putting their limits that high and thus the limit is still arbitrary.

Comment Re:Annnnd on day 1 (Score 1) 338

It doesn't deny the President the authority to undo such a withdrawal therefore he has the authority. Our legal system is permissive, for something to not be allowed that must be specified as not being permitted, failure to specify permission does not indicate a lack of permission.

And it's already been done once.

Comment Re:So... (Score 1) 338

Actually he can: The relevant passage of the act states:
(a) Withdrawal of unleased lands by President
The President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.

As it does not prohibit the President from restoring lands to disposition, he can in fact restore such. For that to not be a legal act it has to be specifically prohibited. As it is not, what the President, or prior President) has withdrawn from disposition, he/she or any future president can restore to disposition.

And there is also the route of legislative reversal as well. Append a minor alteration to this bill to a critical funding bill and the power to undo it would be restored but such is not necessary.

Comment Re:America hates Hillary Clinton (Score 1) 1069

While we shouldn't just say CA shouldn't matter, in fact the point that her margin of victory is entirely within the margin of victory in CA does establish a point. The Electoral College works. If we went purely by popular vote, the candidates would have campaigned very differently. the "fly-over" states would have been totally ignored and would be every time. All of the candidates would focus on four or five states and a few other large cities. But urbanites do not make up the whole of this country and should not have total say in politics. The college requires a broad base of support across the entire nation. And Trump had that, he won 30 states to her 20. The "popular vote" doesn't matter because we don't hold one unified election, we hold 50 state elections (plus DC). popular vote only matters within each individual state or District.

Comment Re:hey, how about you don't do that (Score 1) 212

While going after botnets should be part of the plan. Going after those who hire the botnets also needs to be part of the equation. Botnets need to be attacked from both ends, both those who create them and those who use them, a botnet that never does anything wrong isn't really a problem, it could be used as a distributed computer to process complex problems with all those wasted processor cycles out there on IoT enabled devices. Only if used for DDOS or similar attacks do they become problematic. If nobody wanted to hire or use them, they would be mostly harmless. So we go after both ends, both the creators and maintainers of the nets and those who use them for nefarious purposes. And that means throw the book at the first few individuals to make the point that hiring a botnet for a DDOS is going to send you away to prison for a painful amount of time. It won't eliminate those who would do so, but it might just discourage a few more casual individuals from engaging in the crime.

Comment Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score 1) 715

Nope that is called campaigning. If you want to complain about a foreign power participating the camp you can, but it is not directly altering the outcome. That consists of changing the vote count by hacking voting machines or other direct methods. Swaying opinions with facts is not directly altering the outcome.

Comment Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score 1) 715

Please cite evidence of them directly altering the outcome. If the claim is true they hacked the DNC and revealed a great deal of corruption, but that does not directly alter the outcome. To do that would involve directly changing the vote count someway. As voting machines are not networked, and many areas use various paper ballots such is not possible.

Comment Re:Stop skimping on healthcare IT (Score 1) 69

They do health screenings for insurance purposes as well. They are thus in fact a health care organization even though they don't offer care services. They are more than just drug testing. I have to go to them every year for a health screening to get a discount on my employer's insurance.

Slashdot Top Deals

For every bloke who makes his mark, there's half a dozen waiting to rub it out. -- Andy Capp