Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Re:Thanks to (Score 2) 605

In the last year, I've run across *so* many people posting on sites like Ars Technica, The-Kinja-Formerly-Known-As-Gawker and other places where every single post was either an attack on Clinton or a pro-Russian promotional. It's just mindboggling that this is happening. I always took the whole "There are paid shills all over the place." viewpoint as being rather paranoid, and in most cases I still do. But this? I swear, this has me worried about just how many Americans really have turned off their brains and just follow the herd they think they're in, if they can be led around on a leash by Putin's troll army.

Comment Re:This is silly (Score 1) 315

Apple's only real competition is itself, and comparisons to Windows PCs are always going to be incredibly flawed because of that fact. The reasons why a person would choose macOS/OSX over Windows are pretty straightforward.

1. It's not Windows
2. It runs Final Cut/Garageband/iMovie/Photos/SomeOtherOSXOnlySoftware
3. I want to have what the cool kids have.

Lots of people choose reason #1 or reason #3, many users might choose #2. But none of these reasons can be logically countered by Windows based machines. If you do so little on your computer that OSX or Windows doesn't even matter at all, then you probably don't need application software and should just buy a Chromebook and call it done.

Comment Re:This is silly (Score 1) 315

Your viewpoint made sense a few years ago, but Mac ownership and use has evolved. OSX/macOS has several advantages for security, including lack of commonality and the unix base code and security structure. However, it's an increasingly visible and profitable potential target for malware because people who have Apple hardware are a bit more likely to actually have money.

And don't forget, if you're running a system that doesn't get attacked because it's got a low market share? That is *still* some form of effective, if accidental and more fragile, security. Evading 95% of the threats in circulation just by choosing equipment that isn't vulnerable is a benefit. No, it doesn't mean you should get sloppy, but it's peace of mind.

Personally, macOS/OSX just bugs the hell out of me for some reason and gives me a headache every time I launch Finder, so I stick with Windows and don't download things like an idiot.

Comment Re:I'm al looking to move away from the Mac (Score 1) 315

So ZaReason is Yet Another Clevo Resller, it appears. You say they thoroughly test builds, but c'mon. Clevo hardware is pretty much fucking reference parts to begin with. Oh, and battery life ranges from "Acceptable in a budget machine." to "You're only gonna unplug to move it across the room, right?"

All that said, I have a Sager branded model from 2011 that was an absolute beast for performance at the time I bought it, and still runs well today if you don't care about battery life.

Comment Re:Actually Very Comparable (Score 1) 315

It's always funny to read anecdotal evidence like yours, because the experience is just so absolutely terrible that if it were somehow endemic to the entire platform there would be literal torches and pitchforks involved.

That said, unless you specifically bought an HP machine in the absolute top tier of the product lineup you're comparing a Camry to a Cadillac (Not the best analogy considering that Cadillac makes terrible SUVs these days) and Windows hardware tends to top out at the midrange for Apple's overpriced gear in the vast majority of cases.

Comment Re: Wikileaks is a toxic organisation. (Score 0) 338

The media, including the "MSN" has reported heavily on every single claim and investigation on Hillary Clinton for the past 30 years. There has been no covering up anything, and every report about this election calls out how disliked she is. There's just nothing there that makes her corrupt in any way that the whole system isn't as well.

Comment Re: Equal amounts? (Score 2) 338

I dunno. On one hand you've got a former first lady, successful senator and secretary of state, and on the other side you have a former reality TV show host that won't prove he's not broke or in debt to foreign powers. I think one of those choices is pretty damn good and it's not the guy that lost money in the casino business.

Comment Re:If the point was ... (Score 1) 338

You hit the nail on the head there, but most of us trying to point out the moral issues with the way Wikileaks is conducting themselves now are getting modded trolls.

I don't imagine that Wikileaks has anything to do with causing the DDOS, but wouldn't be surprised at all if someone claiming to be behind it contacted Wikileaks to take credit as a sign of support.

Comment Re: Wikileaks is a toxic organisation. (Score 1) 338

Unless there's a conspiracy to alter the evidence on the part of the people whose information was leaked. Google can't get involved without protracted legal action and a forced reveal, otherwise they'd lose any shot at trying to be a trustworthy service for *anyone*.

If you send me an email, someone hacks into my computer and distributes it, and then we both go "Oh, shit, that shouldn't have gotten out there!" and modified our copies of the original mail - you get a complete stalemate, because it's an easy argument that the hacker is the one that changed the file.

Comment Re: Wikileaks is a toxic organisation. (Score 2) 338

Where does Wikileaks or Assange claim to operate as a neutral information broker? I think you'll find that newspapers across the world often have an editorial page, and even their headline stories, as you may have noticed, can seem to fortuitously appear at opportune times.

When Wikileaks made it big, they had a simple claim of "no filter" access to leaked documentation and at the time, there were no signs that Wikileaks sourced information from anyone other than insiders.

1. There's really no way to differentiate between the two, as a large proportion of hacks originate from someone with inside knowledge. If this was 20 years ago, it would have been a simple "leak", not a "hack". It's not like we're talking about nuclear launch codes here.

2. Cry me a fuckin' river. When it comes to peoples' privacy rights that I'm concerned about, a future POTUS is at the absolute bottom of that list. This disturbs me slightly less than leaks disturb the characters on Yes, Minister. May we never live in a world without political leaks (and/or "hacks") of this nature.

So you're saying that the motivation of a person distributing private documents has absolutely no bearing on whether or not those documents should be given scrutiny for truth?

Once again, I find it most disturbing that you choose to focus on the unspeakable crime of someone showing evidence that Hillary is a completely self-aware, unrepentant liar. I don't mean "caught in contradicting statements"; I mean, she was actually talking about the art and necessity of lying as a politician. And you really think the most damning and horrible thing in this situation is that this astoundingly frank little speech of hers wasn't hushed up for all eternity?

I'm sorry, but I haven't seen any actual evidence of what you're claiming. Do you know about politics at all? I mean that seriously, do you know how it works? Have you ever taken a PoliSci class? I haven't, but based on many years of studying politics and the history of the American political system for fun (yes, some people do that) I've found it pretty clear that such things happen *all the damn time*. Politics is a dirty, ugly business and in order to get even the greatest and most altruistic things done, you need to make deals with the devil.

Is that your roundabout way of saying you think it's fabricated? Even though the Clinton campaign refused to deny or comment on its authenticity? Because if someone called me a liar and put words in my mouth that were definitely unfavorable, I don't think I would hesitate to mention that it was a lie. Pleading the fifth is fine for an actual criminal court, but you cannot possibly expect any thinking person to take seriously the possibility that this was a fabrication if she and her people completely refused to comment on it, especially seeing as how Wikileaks is not particularly well known for publishing fabrications.

Honestly, at this point, I have no idea. I won't accuse Wikileaks of publishing *known* fabrications, at least. Given Assange's personality and the grudge he has against Clinton, I wouldn't entirely put it past him. But even saying that, I wouldn't make that accusation.

However, with the information we have about the *source* of this data? And the known history of Russian information warfare should lead anyone to being concerned about what they're taking at face value. See some of the links on this page for a bit of background on Russia's recent history in this area.


The way Clinton's campaign has responded to the information leaked so far, wouldn't lead me to think it was falsified in any large way. But, the risk is there and if people get into the habit of taking everything Wikileaks publishes at pure face value, what happens when something *is* modified and the injured party has to defend themselves against something grievous?

Really, the best way to survive American politics is to avoid black and white viewpoints. Never let yourself fall into the trap of feeling like everything has to be good versus evil, or that every argument has two equally valid sides. Be careful, be reserved, and be watchful. But don't be paranoid, and don't get worked up.

Slashdot Top Deals

A rolling disk gathers no MOS.