Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment I think you're wrong. (Score 0) 107

Snowden has clearly demonstrated mastery of multiple computer-related skills. We should assume cracking and vulnerability-exploiting skills are among those he has brought to the former Soviet Union. We should also assume (based on his continued asylum and continued apparent good treatment) that he is continuing to cooperate fully with his new Russian masters.

No citations or evidence to support my viewpoint. Such a shame common sense isn't.

Comment Re:Certainly the work of heroic Russian hackers . (Score 0) 107

I would be surprised if he refused . . . and lived to tell the tale. Hell, the Russians don't even have to threaten to kill or hurt him - just offering him one-way air-fare to JFK International aboard the next Aeroflot bird smokin' west should do the trick.

Let me guess - you're naïve enough to believe that V. Putin and Russia truly giving Snowden asylum based on strictly humanitarian reasons.

Yes, I know that Snowden is a hero to many slashdotters (despite my assumption that most here have at least a 100 IQ) - so downmod away. Go ahead and keep telling yourself that E. Snowden has done and continues to do what he thinks is in the best interests of the US population. Only - if you intend to paint Snowden as some sort of Robin Hood sticking it to the man, you might want to have a little thing called evidence? The only concrete evidence is Snowden's betrayal of our country, ostensibly for ethical reasons. The evidence of betrayal is incontrovertible; Snowden's assertion of an overriding moral imperitive is not nearly so strongly supported by facts - indeed, the facts tend to bely him.

SUPPORTING CITATION: Federal warrants demanding the criminal extradition for trial naming Edward Snowden as defendant.


Comment Rogue wifi hotspots would be easy to find. (Score 1) 169

What about those of us who use Bluetooth tethering routinely? I only do it to take advantage of the vastly lower power requirements of Bluetooth (which my phone can serve all day) versus wifi (which'll slag my phone's batteries in under three hours, assuming they start out at 100%).


Comment As a UNIX head and former MS-hater . . . (Score 5, Interesting) 369

Y'know, Microsoft has never made any bones about their OS being a proprietary system. Whether you agree with their choices or not, you're bound by them when you use their OS. Problem is, there is a lot of appeal to their OS - nearly universal familiarity among the user base (which is large), nearly ubiquitous applications (especially in the office/business space), pre-installation (something like $50.00 a shot, as opposed to ~$175, so I guess that hurts less) . . .

You want an OS that works your way? Tell ya what - get a bunch of your fellow technically-oriented geek friends together and make your own! (Actually, I'm sure this has been done. I think such systems are called "GNU Linux"?) Otherwise, as long as they don't outright break what they sold you, you can deal with MS's heavy-handed management of your systems. Frankly, with all the moaning about MS security and unpatched MS OS's in the wild, how did everyone expect them to respond? They're still the de facto business OS of choice and their primary customer is extremely security conscious. MS is listening to the bucks, not the users. Since their software is proprietary, that is as it should be. Unless you actively find a way to prevent it, Microsoft pretty much insists on their right to make every licensed MS OS instance reasonably uniform. That way, both security and reliability can theoretically be maximized for the entire user base.

In short - deal with it or run something else. Just don't expect Microsoft to waste any time or money trying to do things your way unless you're big business with big bucks.

Comment Even if you disagree with the judge . . . (Score 5, Interesting) 150

. . . (which I don't, by the way) . . .

let me get this straight - if someone offers to sell me something of value, if I somehow become aware of intended wrongdoing on their part - say, they've said they're raising money to hire a hit-man, or they're planning on buying a couple kilos of tar opium, whatever - I may not complete my transaction with them despite the legality of our specific transaction because I suspect they may use their gains in an illegal manner? In effect, I must deprive them of their lawful right to seek to do business with me without due process of law.

Does this mean contributors to political campaigns are lawfully culpable for the potentially illegal actions of the political candidates?

Slashdot Top Deals

Just go with the flow control, roll with the crunches, and, when you get a prompt, type like hell.