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

 



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

Submission + - BleachBit stifles investigation of Hillary Clinton

ahziem writes: The IT team for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton used the open source cleaning software BleachBit to wipe systems "so even God couldn’t read them," according to South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy on Fox News. His comments on the "drastic cyber-measure" were in response to the question of whether emails on her private Microsoft Exchange Server were simply about "yoga and wedding plans."

Perhaps Clinton's team used an open source application because, unlike proprietary applications, it can be audited, like for backdoors. In response to the Edward Snowden leaks in 2013, privacy expert Bruce Schneier advised, "Closed-source software is easier for the NSA to backdoor than open-source software," in an article in which he stated he also uses BleachBit. Ironically, Schneier was writing to a non-governmental audience.

Comment Convenience for ALL (Score 1) 31

Closed source, open source, half-way open source - they all have holes the size of the Titanic, and are casing our privacy to sink to the bottom of the ocean.

Are you trying to say, governments haven't spied on and persecuted opponents before these modern-day conveniences appeared?

The problem is our dependence on these "conveniences" we can now not live without.

We can live without them, but the life will be, wait for it, less convenient.

They make living more comfortable. For everyone — including the spies.

Comment Re:Climate Non-Science (Score 1) 445

1 degree of global warming isn't enough for you?

No, it is not enough. Because there are legitimate questions as to how it is measured, how the measurements are calibrated (including the scandal of some raw data disappearing), and what swings are normal. For example, Tasmania used to be connected to Australian mainland not too long ago. It is now an island. Do you think, the shamans of the aborigines living there blamed the sins of their contemporaries for the rising seas back then? Same question about Kodiak archipelago — it used to be reachable from Alaska, but is not any more. The Kodiak bears are now considered different species from mainland grizzlies... Is humanity to blame for that?

And there is a big difference in falsifiability

You try to find a prediction by "climate scientists", that uses a falsifiable "will" instead of the evasive non-falsifiable "may"... The scarcity of such statements itself is an indication, of the state of this sorry non-science... What you can find is as scientific and meaningful as the Geico's commercials: "15 minutes could save you up to 15% or more..."

If you ever found a point where the teachers told you the equivalent of 2+2=5, you could point that out to the world

I don't need to find errors — the purported "scientists" need to demonstrate, their discipline is really a science. And the only way to do that is by showing useful predictions, that have come true. I'm yet to see any.

Try it yourself: assemble a list of link-pairs:

  1. The first link in each pair shall be to the prediction.
  2. The second link each pair shall be to confirmation of the prediction materializing within, say 20% of the predicted value(s), if quantifiable.
  3. The link-targets in each pair must be several years apart — predicting tomorow's weather, for example, would not count.
  4. The prediction must be somewhat meaningful: a promise, that it will get hotter or colder, is not acceptable.

Give it your best... Can you offer at least 3 such link-pairs?

Submission + - Making one-on-one meetings actually USEFUL

Esther Schindler writes: All too often, managers and team members reject a regular check-in because they think it's a waste of time. But when done well, one-and-one meetings are a great way to build trust and rapport. That weekly time slot is a predictable time for feedback and coaching. Even when a manager and team member get along well, a regular one-on-one is an opportunity to impart information privately, to raise emotional issues before they fester, to address career challenges, and to help managers make better decisions with team input.

But way too often, those manager-and-team-member meetings are a waste of time. Here's three ways they go wrong.

Comment Re:The losing side must automatically pay (Score 1) 242

Which means the winning side runs up legal fees until the loser goes right out of business.

My proposal explicitly included the vetting of the winner's expenses by the judge... He can trim them, if he suspects abuse or some such.

The point is, currently, the winner needs to file a separate lawsuit seeking legal expenses compensation. This is too costly and time consuming in itself — the award should be an automatic part of the conclusions.

Comment Re:The losing side must automatically pay (Score 1) 242

And then you're back to the problem of wealthy companies/individuals who can afford expensive legal teams, intimidating poorer, lesser funded individuals who can't afford good legal support

My way, the poor side can reclaim its expenses upon winning.

The current way, the poor side will be bankrupt even if it wins, which is exactly, what allows for the intimidation you denounce.

Comment Re:The losing side must automatically pay (Score 1) 242

No one would ever dare to sue any corporation

Why not? If you are so sure of your case and/or can find a deep-pocketed sponsor (such as described in TFA). But, if you aren't sure, you would not file your stupid suit — thus lowering the legal insurance fees for the corporations and lower prices for their products/services for the rest of us.

because if they lost they would be broke after paying the legal fees of the corporate lawyers

I did allow for the judge to review the expenses claimed by the winner — to prevent abuses.

Comment The losing side must automatically pay (Score 1) 242

The solution to frivolous lawsuits is the loser pays system. If you lose a suit, you have to pay the winner's legal expenses (vetted by the judge). Automatically...

And, yes, the rule ought to cover criminal proceedings too with wrongfully accused compensated by the prosecutor's office.

Comment Re:Climate Non-Science (Score 0) 445

Because the real predictions are only going to be proven after it's too late to do a damn thing about it

Will that ever happen? You say, it will. But you have no proof — you are asking me, and the rest of the civilization, to take it on faith.

Something tells me, you'd dismiss as a fool (or worse) anyone telling you to repent before it is too late and you died before absolution. And yet, you are telling me the same thing about climate: believe in it, before it is too late.

Maybe, I'd be willing to listen to the authorities, to which you appeal — if they were authorities. But they aren't scientists either — no meaningful falsifiable statement has been made by them, that has not been falsified in due time... Off, off with you — 21st century shamans...

Comment Re:Internet or hyper-linked documents (a.k.a. Web) (Score 1) 70

If you want to get "technical" the web (aka http/html) was first (1990 vs 1991 for gopher)

I would say, Lee's web was indistinguishable from Gopher back then. Certainly not until Mosaic offered graphical browsing.

email was the killer app, inter-domain mail (via unix mail via rmail/UUCP) was probably the real killer app, not ARPANET

But that too existed already in the 1970-80ies... The actual interconnections remained scarce, but software and protocols for distinct computers to exchange "emails" appeared much earlier than the celebrated 1991.

I'd also add, that Sir Lee's affable personality — and the fact, that he is not an American — contribute to the "cult".

Comment Internet or hyper-linked documents (a.k.a. Web)? (Score 2) 70

The write-up and TFA conflate the Internet and (what became known as web). Maybe, the slines don't know any better, but Slashdot users ought to... The hyperlinked documents weren't the first "killer application" — e-mail was. The first systems weren't even using the Internet, but, according to Wikipedia:

And Sir Lee's was not even the first system for linking documents/files across the networks — Gopher was. And Gopher was not merely proposed in 1991, that's when an actual system became available (though protocol was codified in an RFC only in 1993).

Comment Re:When it stops moving, subsidize it... (Score 1) 445

So you'd like to believe. You'd REALLY like to believe it.

Back at you.

But then we look, and we see that failure rates for those loans were not any higher

This was a good opportunity to offer a citation, but, for some reason, you didn't do it... Maybe, that's because you are just lazy. Maybe, you knew to be posting an untruth and hoped, I would not call your lie. Fail. Here is a 2010 paper citing the following mortgage-failure numbers for 2007-2009: 790 per 10000 loans for Blacks, 769 for Latinos, 452 for Non-Hispanic Whites. The minorities, whom the Democratic demagogues, supposedly, tried to help, suffered the most from the "help". As usual.

It was blatantly stupid too. Racist or not, banks want to make money. Issuing loans is how banks make money. It would take a David Duke-like hard-core racism for a loan officer to lower his own bonus/commissions and reject a qualified loan-application on the basis of race. No one would do it — and none of the allegations of this happening en masse has ever been substantiated.

Now, don't be an asshole, and reply under your own name to undo the cowardly downmoderations...

Comment Re:When it stops moving, subsidize it... (Score 0) 445

The Glass-Steagall Act prevented major banking meltdowns since it was passed

Hobbling a horse will also prevent the rider from hitting anything too hard. Too bad, it also prevents most of the travel...

The affiliation provisions were struck in 1999, and within a decade there was a major banking crisis.

Except the crisis was caused by a completely different problem.

Comment When it stops moving, subsidize it... (Score 1, Interesting) 445

But making one company jump through hoops while another gets to ignore them is?

Except it was not Uber, who created those hoops. The taxis have suffered from the usual Big Government approach to business:

  1. If it moves, tax it;
  2. If it continues to move, regulate it;
  3. When it stops moving, subsidize it.

If we all had smart-phones 100 years ago, today's taxi regulations (and the various boards enforcing them) would not have been created. Which means, it is time for them to be abolished.

Slashdot Top Deals

To do nothing is to be nothing.

Working...