Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Spotify? (Score 1) 50

I am not sure how old you are but that is the story of one of the first cable companies as well.

It wasn't just cable companies -- the first cable channels distributed widely often had significantly reduced ad time (commercials maybe every 30 minutes or every 15), or no effective advertisements at all. (Well, even the ones without ads might run an ad for other programs on their channel or related ones every 30 minutes or hour or something, or sometimes between movies.) Here's an article from the New York Times in 1981 speculating about how cable TV will be transformed if it's "invaded by commercials."

Comment Re:More political redirection (Score 1) 351

I guess the people that are making accusations over that are either ignorant, or disingenuous.

Here's the problem -- Clinton deleted these emails AFTER they were requested from the House as part of an official investigation. She chose to print out everything she claimed was relevant (probably to avoid giving away metadata in headers, etc.) and then effectively "burned" the server, including (by her lawyer's own admission) tens of thousands of messages.

FBI investigations have now come up with thousands of emails which were NOT turned over in that paper dump. How many could have been part of those that were deleted and then lost when the server was wiped? We'll never know. Many of them were likely deleted in error, with her lawyers not realizing which ones should have been retained as they were going through tens of thousands of documents. But were ALL of these official state department emails recovered by the FBI (now 15,000+) deleted "in error"?

That's what's troubling about all of this. We have no way of knowing whether there may have been significant spoliation of evidence here (that's the legal term for intentionally, recklessly, or negligently destroying evidence). If this were a corporation who had been issued a subpoena and they acted in this manner, and it was later proven that they "lost" over ten thousand relevant documents in the process of their destruction of "irrelevant" documents, they would likely face significant legal sanctions, perhaps even criminal charges.

Legally, the safe course in this instance would have been to put the server in a secure location with legal supervision by Clinton's counsel until the matter could be resolved. Clinton's use of BleachBit is not surprising here -- not because it's proper protocol to delete secure information, but because it's the only reasonable way to delete potentially incriminating evidence of spoliation (even if most of it was accidental or whatever). If they hadn't used a very secure deletion protocol, then Clinton's attorneys would have been doing a VERY poor job at protecting her legally.

Personally, I'm not sure it's likely there was any "evil memo" buried among the State Department correspondence that could prove anything. (And if there were, I'm not convinced Clinton realized it.) On the other hand, I'm sure she had a bunch of private email dealings that she wouldn't want to get out -- if for nothing else then for bad public relations. Hence the destruction of everything on the server -- it's in line with the privacy paranoia that likely caused her to set up the server in the first place. But could there have been worse stuff there too? Maybe. Doesn't seem like we'll ever know, though, does it?

Comment Re:Really (Score 1) 351

So I'm afraid I must repeat (and I take no pleasure in saying this, believe me) your only three options this election are Trump, Clinton, or throwing your vote away.

That logic only follows if you believe that voting for any losing candidate is "throwing your vote away."

I completely agree with you that we have a horrific two-party duopoly and that it is reinforced by the first-past-the-post voting.

HOWEVER, that system only indicates a trend toward a two-party system -- it doesn't guarantee that those two parties will be the only parties for all time, nor does it guarantee that the platforms of those parties will remain stable for all time.

The losing party in a Presidential election will most certainly pay some attention to what went wrong in the previous election, and if a huge number of votes were siphoned off to a third party, they might consider taking some action to prevent that from happening in the future. That might involve tweaking the platform or something to avoid losing those voters again.

Or, even better -- a large enough showing by a 3rd-party candidate could finally break the MEDIA reinforcement of the duopoly, since that's truly where the problem lies today. Perot's run was essentially a one-off, but the alternatives in most election years are durable parties (like the Libertarians, the Greens, etc.). If one of them actually could succeed in getting even 10% of votes, it might be harder for media folks to ignore them continuously as they do in most election years.

That's the real battle -- trying to get media attention. Because this year is truly a year that anything could happen. It's why the two parties fought so hard to keep the 3rd parties out of public debates. (That's the big mistake the parties made with Perot in 1992, and had he not dropped out for a while before rejoining the race again, he likely would have ended up with even higher numbers of support.)

So many people hate BOTH Clinton and Trump that if you put a better option on a national stage with them, a significant number of people might actually start thinking "Huh, maybe there are better options out there!" Recall all the massive swings in support that happened during the primaries this year due to the debates... now imagine you actually put somebody on stage that starts making sense next to the person the majority of Americans think is a liar and the person the majority of Americans think is loud-mouthed blowhard.

But go ahead -- keep up your "throw your vote away" nonsense and reinforcing the duopoly.

Comment Re:Only SOME Optical Media Is Durable (Score 1) 334

They can also have issues with lower-quality drives - they offer dramatically lower contrast than dyes do, so the signal-to-noise ratio is much lower, to the point that many/most drives created before CD-RWs hit the market were unable to read them at all.

Personally, I've had lots of -Rs fail, don't think I've ever had issues with an -RW written in a standard single-session format. I seem to recall that the crystal actually needs to be heated to a few hundred degrees to change state - easy enough to do for a fraction of a second with a tightly focused laser beam, but not at ambient temperatures.

Comment Re:Too secure for insecure? (Score 1) 351

A similar situation: The tea party folks were incredibly upset that Obama ran a big deficit. You wouldn't know it to listen to them now, but for many years the deficit was the most important thing in the political world and proof that Obama was trying to destroy the USA.

But the deficit under Obama shrunk every year, while the deficit under Bush Junior grew every year. Yet the tea party folks never made a peep of complaint when Bush grew the deficit.

So the most likely explanation is that the tea party folks never really cared about the deficit; they are just whining partisan idiots.

I'm neither a fan of Bush nor Obama, but what you've stated here is incredibly misleading (as well as factually inaccurate).

According to the non-partisan CBO data, the on-budget deficit under Bush began at $32 billion in 2001, ballooned to $568 billion in 2004, then decreased again until 2008 (the 2007 deficit was "merely" $342 billion), after which it spiked (due to the financial crisis, bail-outs, etc. with 2008 concluding with $642 billion deficit).

Under Obama, the deficit began at $1.55 TRILLION in 2009 and stayed above Bush's 2008 maximum of $642 billion in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Only in 2014 and 2015 has Obama's deficit dropped below the MAXIMUM Bush ever attained in deficit spending. Now, you might argue that inflation should be taken into account, but you'll come up with somewhat similar figures if you take percentage of GDP instead of actual deficit amount -- the first four years under Obama all were above ALL of Bush's deficits in percentage of GDP.

Or, another way to see this is that the total debt under Bush grew from $3.4 trillion at the end of 2000 to $5.8 trillion at the end of 2008, an increase of about 70%. Under Obama, the debt has grown from $5.8 trillion at the end of 2008 to $13.1 trillion by the end of 2015 (and he still has a year to go), an increase of 125% (more than doubled).

Personally, I think a lot of the Tea Party's logic makes no sense, and I think deficit spending is really essential for all sorts of reasons.

But you've also just outed yourself as a "partisan idiot" for attempting to make it look like Obama's deficits are less concerning than Bush's (to people who might care about stuff). Except by any metric the Obama deficits have been much larger, regardless of whether they are trending up or down... so to me it seems pretty logical that people who actually care about deficit spending might be concerned about the fact that it more than quadrupled between 2007 and 2009 and has stayed above 2007 levels ever since.

Comment Re:Lies (Score 1) 351

Intent comes to play in guilt or acquittal in accordance with the charge. Intent to kill marks the difference between murder and manslaughter, for example. Holding some coke and possessing with intent to sell are wholly different charges, applied well before the penalty phase, turning on the question of intent, which is a question for the fact-finder (don't confuse this with plea-bargaining).

Intent is important in some charges. I don't know whether or not it is relevant to the Clinton case or not, and frankly I don't care to bother trying to sort it all out. However, it is clear the "negligence" or "gross negligence" can result in conviction for mishandling classified information, regardless of intent.

And as long as it's literally a Web Search away (shill?), howabout a link to this story about that Navy person who facing 20 years to life for disposing of a phone.

I'm not sure whether this is the case or not (I don't follow such cases), but literally the first hit that came up in a web search is this one, where a navy sailor has now been sentenced to a year in prison (had been facing 5-6 years under federal sentencing guidelines) for taking photos on a submarine. According to the link, he actually made a legal appeal for probation based on the recent precedent set by the FBI ruling on the Clinton investigation!

Anyhow, you can easily find dozens of cases like this one where people end up with prison terms for mishandling classified information in relatively "innocent" ways.

Comment Re:Free space wiping controversial? (Score 1) 351

I haven't seen any evidence that the wiping was done during the email investigation; do you have a citation that says otherwise?

It wasn't done during the FBI investigation, but it seems to have been done after the State Department requested her emails pursuant to an investigation by the House about Benghazi.

According to Clinton's lawyer, the emails must have been deleted sometime between December 5, 2014 and March 27, 2015. That article is from last year, so perhaps they've managed to narrow the window further.

As discussed in the New York Times timeline on the investigation, the select committee in the House to investigate Benghazi was formed in May 2014 and began negotiating with Clinton in July 2014 to obtain all of her emails. The State Department turned over "a handful of emails from Mrs. Clinton, all from her private account" in August 2014, and the House committee requested the remainder of the emails. As noted in the Politifact story above, Clinton's lawyer said the "review" of Clinton's emails to separate personal correspondence, etc. happened in fall of 2014. Clinton apparently finally turned over (what she claimed to be) the remainder to the State Department in December (almost two years after leaving office), after which she deleted the rest. On March 10, 2015, the New York Times reported that Clinton had deleted 32,000 emails. After finding classified information, the FBI began its investigation in July 2015.

So, yes, the emails were deleted before the FBI investigation began. But they were deleted after repeated requests to turn over all her correspondence by the House committee.

Personally, I have my doubts that there was some sort of "evil memo" smoking gun to be found in this mass of stuff, but the fact is that the server was wiped AFTER an investigation (at that time limited to Benghazi) and official government request for all her email happened. It at least has to go in the "somewhat shady" category that Clinton only gave paper copies of emails and wiped the server clean at this point. (Why they were delivered on 55,000 pages of paper is still unclear, but it would have potentially erased a lot of metadata -- the redigitized email I've seen had no detailed headers. Oh, and the redigitization process required more than 2400 man-hours of work.)

It seems more likely (to me) that if there were anything "shady" going it, it was probably to delete personal correspondence -- rather than State Department business -- that would make her look really bad if it ever got out. But I guess we'll never know.

Comment Re:social experiments (Score 1) 287

Of course procreation is rational - you're simply assuming that your mind is relevant, and not recognizing that it (and your body) are simply tools created over hundreds of millions of years by genes optimizing their ability to reproduce. Any individual which doesn't procreate is irrelevant to the species, and those who are particularly good at it become the ancestors of most of humanity in a few dozen short millenia.

Comment Re:cyberanarchistic freedom (Score 1) 139

Those good old days of cyberanarchistic freedom, gone forever now, I guess, but still fondly remembered.

And about as true to reality as the good old days of when people used to leave their front doors unlocked.

(1) It was "true to reality," and it likely would still be true today except router "setup wizards" started enabling security and passwords by default. (And some routers even come with preconfigured unique passwords or passphrases for wireless.) Most users have no clue and would have blithely continued buying routers and having open wireless had it not become industry standard to lock them down. (I'm sure the router manufacturers were probably pressured to do so by ISPs and folks like the RIAA and MPAA, since there were a number of copyright infringement court cases back then that were immediately tossed when an open wireless network was involved.)

That said, I don't know how many people actually realized they were effectively sharing their connection with everyone. But it was the norm for several years after wireless started to become common.

(2) People still leave doors unlocked. I have family members who live in a small town who do.

Comment Only SOME Optical Media Is Durable (Score 2) 334

Ironically enough, write-once optical discs are lousy for archiving - the organic dyes need to be kept at a stable temperature away from moisture and sunlight in order to have a fair chance of remaining stable. And even then you're probably lucky to get 5-10 years without some data loss. And definitely don't use standard permanent/laundry markers on them - the acids in the ink rapidly break down the dyes, and your data with it.

Instead use rewritable media - your data is then stored in a phase-changing crystal and requires considerable energy input to change state. So long as you avoid damaging the disc itself, your data should be safe for a much longer time.

Comment Re: Archival grade (Score 1, Interesting) 334

I assume you don't realize that "begs the question" actually originated as a mistranslation of a latin phrase better translated as "assuming the premise" - as such, the original usage is clearly flawed, and the modern usage actually better reflects the literal meaning of the words. In fighting against it, you're actually fighting to preserve a 400 year old language-butchering error.

Comment Re:Begging the question (Score 1) 334

Begging the question is NOT "Brings up the question". It is assuming a question that is not asked and assuming it to be true.

That's a pretty poor explanation of the petitio principii fallacy, but I'm going to assume that's what you were trying to say.

Anyhow, it doesn't mean that anymore. I'm tired of explaining this, so I'll just link to a previous post on the issue.

TL;DR - outside of philosophy journals and angry posts by usage pedants, the phrase hasn't meant petitio principii in a long time. If you use it that way, the vast majority of English speakers (even well-educated ones) won't understand you.

Language changes. Deal with it.

Which brings up the question of why /. editors didn't fix that :)

Well, it appears they did change it now. But it doesn't matter because I'm certain EVERYONE who read the old summary understood what it meant in this context, even you. (And by the way, I'm as pedantic as they come when dealing with English usage, but I also recognize when a battle is pointless. We have at least three or four other clear expressions for that particular logical fallacy -- choose one of them instead, rather than some bastardized English translation based on a bastardized Latin translation that never made sense anyway.)

Slashdot Top Deals

"I'm growing older, but not up." -- Jimmy Buffett

Working...