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

 



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

Comment Re:Equal amounts? (Score 4, Informative) 338

Wikileaks hadn't been pushing Trump leaks as hard as Clinton leaks. Now its supports are trying to take down US infrastructure. I used to think that Wikileaks is a neutral organisation promoting government transparency, but not any more. I kind of feel that they are up to no good.

What do you propose? Should Wikileaks hold off on Clinton until they have an equal amount on Trump?

Is that your definition of neutral? That they must expose corruption in equal amounts for both sides?

How about not sensationalising everything they publish? How about not making political statements against Clinton? They can leak stuff without appearing to be political, you know.

Comment Wikileaks is a toxic organisation. (Score 2, Insightful) 338

Wikileaks hadn't been pushing Trump leaks as hard as Clinton leaks. Now its supports are trying to take down US infrastructure. I used to think that Wikileaks is a neutral organisation promoting government transparency, but not any more. I kind of feel that they are up to no good.

Comment As long as people enjoy exchanging things (Score 1) 563

Money of some kind will always be there as long as people enjoy exchange things, and assign values to the things they exchange.

Before the conception of money, people simply exchanged one thing for another. You can argue that the things they exchanged were money. If you use electronic payment to obtain physical goods, you are effectively exchanging information for something physical. However I think you would definitely agree that you definitely exchanged money. The point is that the money as a concept evolves over time.

I think there is a question that those people who propose moneyless society need to ask themselves. The question is whether they are willing to give away their favourite childhood toy away for free, or they want something back in exchange. The toy itself may not have any value in other people's opinion. However for the toy's owner, it may have some values because of the associated memories. I suppose this is why sometimes celebrities' possession can attract large amounts of money at auctions.

The money is only there to help the process of exchanging things. It can have many different forms. Ultimately I think as long as people need something to help them to exchange things, that thing will be called "money".

Comment Re:if that's true, (Score 1) 487

The problem is you can't enforce that you're friend didn't enable WiFi Sense without looking over his shoulder. He might end up accidentally distributing YOUR passphrase when he shouldn't be.

The only way to be sure that this doesn't happen is to add an ugly _optout line at the end of your SSID. Frankly Mr. Joe Person down the street shouldn't have to know about Microsoft's new feature to be confident that his passphrase isn't being passed around without his permission.

If you are that paranoid, you might want to implement some kind of RADIUS server. I have never looked into it myself though.

Slashdot Top Deals

"An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of code." -- an anonymous programmer

Working...