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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:C-Suite Attitudes (Score 3, Insightful) 119

Dude, please! Grammar!

Twitter is a proper noun, so capitalize it. And there should be a comma between "Twitter" and "right". There should also be a comma between "petty" and "little", as they both are adjectives describing "bitch". And finally, some punctuation after the second sentence. From your tone I'd suggest an exclamation point, but a period could also be acceptable if you want to imply exasperation instead of passion.

Comment Toys, toys, toys... (Score 5, Insightful) 119

If the C-Suite wants to give the responsibility to IT for security decisions, they can start by losing their "I have to have this cool gadget, but there is no business justification" toys.

They can also stop demanding to be exceptions to any security policy that inconveniences them, like full-disk encryption, local administrative rights, multi-factor authentication and complex passwords.

Comment Re:All this has happened before ... (Score 1) 232

I suppose it means that money is too free, and I suppose the market will correct that.

You meant it sarcastically but your second point is actually correct. People who invest in startups like this have a fiduciary duty to themselves or their firms to investigate what they're investing in. It's all "buyer beware" so I have no sympathy for those who lost money; you plays the game, you takes your chances. If you win -- with a Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc. -- you win big. If you lose, you lose big. That's how it's supposed to work.

The net results of crap like this is investors (should) become more wary about what they invest in. They should vet companies before they invest and hold its executives to higher standards than this Nardone idiot was held. All of that is a Good Thing no matter what angle you look at this debacle from.

Comment Re:So now under Trump... (Score 5, Insightful) 341

I don't know if Trump supporters are smart enough to do the same, but these rioters are certainly discrediting the cause they nominally claim to support.

Funny, I saw the protesters as doing exactly what they said they'd do all along: act like a bunch of spoiled babies who didn't get their way and are now throwing a tantrum. They don't rationalize. They don't listen. They don't engage cognitive thinking skills. They distill it down to "you don't agree with me, therefore you are a hateful, mean, stupid, intolerant, bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic Hitler lover and I'm completely justified in doing whatever my emotions lead me to do and you can't criticize me because criticism is racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, etc."

It's the logical endpoint of the "there is no truth and right/wrong is an illusion" ideology.

Comment Re:Don't commit the crime if you don't have the ti (Score -1, Redundant) 341

If you want to play statistics, you could also say "billions of people did not protest Trump." Hey, sorry if you don't like it but that logic works both ways. You want to minimize the (obvious and improper) damage caused by rioting liberals, I'll be happy to minimize the (pathetically small and insignificant) number or protesters.

Comment Re:So now under Trump... (Score 5, Interesting) 341

Funny how, if we're all a bunch of racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, neo-nazi, fascist, greedy, evil, violent, intolerant bastards like you say we are, we didn't riot, burn shit, threaten to blow up the White House, dress up like vaginas, scream, whine, cry, bitch, moan, and boycott everything when Obama was elected (twice!). I mean, it's not like we AGREED with Obama's policies in the slightest, certainly no more so than you agree with Trump. Yet somehow the only time you see this behavior is when liberals lose. Conservatives...not so much.

It reminds me of the argument that gun owners are some sort of threat to the general public. We've got more than 300 million guns and several trillion rounds of ammunition. Trust us, if we were a threat, you'd know it by now.

Comment Re: Backups? (!= archives) (Score 1) 131

For me, the difference between an archive and a backup is that a backup is usually offline (i.e. unavailable and not intended to be available) while an archive is usually 'live' in some way. It makes sense to me to make backups of your archives (although possibly at a lower frequency than your 'live' data). It also makes perfect sense to use your backups to make an archive.

By this rule 'live backups' that are (semi) online and available for users without other human interaction are actually archives. They don't technically become backups until you put them in vault or take them off-site. (and put them in storage).

The reason why I make this distinction is that archives (like RAID) are still vulnerable to online corruption.

Comment Re:Judge should learn the law (Score 1) 476

You and he are quite possibly correct.

After reading thru the TRO, it seems to rest on a violation of due process, which itself would be a violation of the 14th Amendment.

The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of only citizens. It says: "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In short, the President seems to have the authority to such restrictions, however he must still follow due process. Anyone already issued valid visas, green cards, etc. can't be summarily barred by fiat and those permits can't be revoked without following the legal process.

Comment Re: Judge should learn the law (Score 1) 476

At this point we've strayed from the original comment, which was the judge didn't know the law and are down to opinions about whether the extent of the TRO was too broad.

I certainly see your point, but take a different position. i see the TRO as the only effective remedy simply because the Administration has been issued confusing and contradictory guidance so nobody really knows what it means. The TRO gives them time to get their shit together, and it can be lifted literally minutes after the Administration issues clear guidance that satisfies the judge in not being potentially illegal.

As you pointed out, the language of the EO itself seems to be perfectly fine (in our humble, non-legal scholar opinions). It is just the guidance given in its enforcement that seems to have caused all of the chaos and legal troubles.

Comment Re: Judge should learn the law (Score 1) 476

From your own quote they owe allegiance, even though only temporary.

The alien, while domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence. Carlisle v. U.S.

That quite possibly may be good enough, and would seem to need further clarification by the courts, which in turn along with the economic harm to the complainants, along with the demonstrated confusion by the Executive Branch, seems enough to justify the TRO.

Slashdot Top Deals

You have a tendency to feel you are superior to most computers.

Working...