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:Electoral college does reflect the popular vote (Score 1) 1429

The situation you're describing could still have happened if a few people in Wisconsin/Michigan/Pennsylvania cities had bothered to vote. The main reason why the electoral college might not be such a bad idea in general is what happens in case of a recount. Recounting Florida is already not fun, but recounting the entire country would be *really* annoying.

Comment Re:Amazing Disconnect (Score 2) 667

What do you think are the odds of voting illegally and getting away with it? Considering there's only a handful of cases that get detected for any particular election, and that you need a couple hundred thousand illegal votes to reliably rig an election, it would mean a party would have to devise a way to get people to vote illegally with only one chance in 100,000 of getting caught. And on top of that, you have to make it impossible to trace the fraud back to the party. That's just insanely hard. It's much easier to influence the results instead. Just hack a few servers and you're good.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 445

It doesn't have to be all wrong or all right.

The problem with Collateral Murder isn't that Manning leaked documents to Wikileaks that then embarrassed the USG. The problem is that the U.S. military murdered a bunch of civilians, then murdered people who tried to help the victims.

The public indeed needed to know about these civilians being killed. However, the public did *not* need to know what ambassador is calling what head of state an asshole. The idea was supposed to be WikiLeaks giving the data to journalists who then decide what to publish. That is exactly what happened to the Snowden documents, but WIkiLeaks fucked up and put it all out there.

The problem with Wikileaks publishing Podesta's emails isn't the violation of his privacy (funny how Dems suddenly give a shit about privacy after years of defending Obama's warrantless surveillance programs), it's that Podesta was part of a corrupt organization of elitist assholes bent on rigging the general election as well as their primary.

Again, if only a few bad emails (like biasing against Bernie Sanders) were made public then there would have been nothing to say here. What's bad was making public everything, including the stuff that had no public interest. In some way, it was even counter-productive from the PoV of hurting Clinton since there was so much information that anything really bad just just buried.

Again, the way to do leaking is to have a *filter*. You publish the relevant/bad/incriminating stuff and you leave alone the boring stuff or the stuff that can cause harm to other people without being public interest. Just imagine if Snowden had sent his stuff to WikiLeaks and it had all gone public. The public would have known *less* (the story would have died more quickly) and the US national security would actually have been hurt (rather than just its image as happened).

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 445

The problem isn't so much how Manning leaked the documents, but how WikiLeaks messed up spectacularly afterwards. The journalists who got the Snowden documents published only what was newsworthy and acted responsibly. OTOH, WikiLeaks messed it up so badly that everyone had access to all the documents. Then for the Clinton emails, they didn't even pretend they were trying to act responsibly and directly dumped everything as fast as they could.

Comment Different sets of laws (Score 1) 1368

Sounds like what you guys need is different sets of laws for cities and rural areas. Have universal health care, gun control, legal abortion and legal pot in cities and have the opposite in rural places. Then everyone's happy. Then you elect two "vice-presidents" that take care of most of the non-national stuff. Not really serious, but it almost seems like it would solve a lot of problems.

Comment Re:Wet paper bag (Score 1) 2837

You don't know how popular Bernie Sanders would have been at this point if he had been nominated. The whole Trump campaign would probably have been around "commie Bernie" rather than "crooked Hilary", but combined with the hacking of the DNC and possibly other "surprises" we've never heard about, the result may not have been different. I'm not saying he's bad, I'm just saying that given enough effort and giving electors who don't give a shit about facts, you can turn *anyone* into a monster.

Comment Re:Election interference (Score 1) 412

I think the line is about leaking important information vs plain doxing. The original Wikileaks leak with Manning was at least *supposed* to be controlled and have only journalists analyze the data to figure out what's relevant vs what was just going to cause conflicts (country X said something bad about country Y to country Z) for no reason. Of course, someone screwed up and the entire thing became public, but at least it seemed like the intent was to do things right. In this case, it seems to be about dumping everything in public, regardless of whether it's information the public should know. This is more like doxing. In some way, maybe the good thing for Hilary is that there's so much noise in there that few people are paying attention and anything actually bad in there is probably drowned out by the noise.

Slashdot Top Deals

Tomorrow's computers some time next month. -- DEC