Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Clueless idiot (Score 5, Informative) 124

Thank you Mr. Edmunds, "the head of technology from the cybercrimes division of the U.K.'s National Crime Agency" for informing the citizens of the U.K. that their "head of technology from the cybercrimes of the U.K.'s National Crime Agency" is technically incompetent, and is utterly clueless on the subject matter he's blathering about.

There's nothing about SPF, Dmarc, or DKIM, that magically identifies the attached email as spam or not. There is no such tag in the email that identifies it as such. All that those technologies do is establish, in varying degrees of certainty, that the purported sender of the email is who it claims to be. Which, obviously, has nothing to do with spam.


More than half of the crap in my spam folder has DKIM headers. I have SPF validation turned on. More than three quarters of the spam in my folder passes SPF checks. That pretty much there makes Mr. Edmunds look like a bloody moron. The only fact that they establish is its proven sender's domain name.

SO FUCKING WHAT? Did someone drop this moron in his head, as a child, or what? Is it too much for that knucklehead to comprehend that anyone can register a new domain, establish valid DKIM and SPF keys, to authenticate the domain, that start spewing spam, non-stop, from it? And every last drop of that spam will pass every SPF, DKIM, and alphabet soup that he throws at it. It is true that some portion of the spam from hijacked and hacked zombies will fail SPF/DKIM validation. But this will fail, by far, to be the complete solution for spam, unlike what that knucklehead claims. Is this really so complicated to understand?

Comment Re:Can't sue cops *personally* for requesting ID (Score 2) 180

Your second case is a red herring.

Turner was not "hiding in the bushes across the street from a police station near Dallas", as you implied. Did you watch the video?

Turner was plainly standing, out in the open, on a public sidewalk. He was clearly unarmed, and posed no threat. All he had was a camera, and all he was doing was filming.

It might be reasonable for the police to come out and try to talk to him. But do you believe that, under these circumstances, it was reasonable to handcuff him, throw him in a police car on a hot day, with the windows rolled up, supposedly based on some bogus law that the cops pulled out of their ass, right that very minute?

It is now beyond dispute that Turner did not violate any law. The appeals court has ruled that. Furthermore, the appeals court has ruled that Turner was arrested. This is not arguable, either. Did you read the court's decision? The court's decision is very reasonable, in that regard: when you get handcuffed, that means you are under arrest. Plain and simple. It is now an established fact, that Turner will no longer need to prove, when he goes back to the trial court (the appeals court reversed most of the trial court's decision, so the whole thing goes back for further legal proceedings). He was arrested by the cops. For standing on a public sidewalk, for filming a police station. Neither will Turner has to prove that he did not break any laws. That was a part of the appellate court's decision too. Of course, one never has to prove that, when being charged with a crime, but it is Turner who's suing the cops, claiming that he did not break any laws, so he had to prove that, and the appellate court now agreed with him.

But, going back to the subject matter at hand. Do you believe that the cops were in the right, arresting a man standing in plain sight, on a public sidewalk, completely unarmed, simply for filming a police station?

Comment Sorry, no (Score 2) 304

The first movie rightfully deserves to be preserved in the Library of Congress. It is part of the American culture, and history. But, having said that, I have a confession to make:

The movie simply has not aged well. The last time I watched it on DVD, a few years ago, I decided never to watch it again. Now, that I'm much older, the movie looks rather simplistic and rough; and I would rather remember the movie the way I saw it, with much younger eyes and a less crtitical brain. These days, Darth Vader's initial entrance makes him look like a cartoonish villain. Luke playing with a starfighter, in one of his first scenes, is cringe-worthy. Ditto for the scene where he drools over the hologram Leia. C3PO's stumbling around ...just doesn't work for me the way it used to.

To state the obvious: the 4K version is nothing more than a pathetic, utterly pathetic money grab. And nothing more. That should be fairly obvious to anyone. I can't think of any possible value that four thousand pixels will bring to that movie. I just have a bad feeling about this...

Comment Re:So much for public charging locations (Score 2) 243

Get one of those "USB powerbank"s.

They're dirt cheap. If you don't know what they are, they are one or two 16850 LI-ion cells, a mini-USB port, and a USB-A port. The mini-USB port is used to charge the cells in the powerbank, and then you can plug your gadgets into the USB-A port, to charge them later.

Use the powerbank to suck the power from a public port first, then plug in your devices. The downside is that the whole process takes longer. The upside is that all you're risking is blowing up your powerbank. That sucks, but as I said, they're dirt cheap, and you just get another one.

Comment Desperate users (Score 2) 141

Many years ago I wrote a simple webmail server. My email address wasn't even on the login screen, just my company name. There have been more than one occasion over the years when some customer of an internet provider that used my webmail server needed technical support, and apparently managed to Google the company name, find my email address, and ask me for a password reset, or something along those lines...

Comment Google (Score 1) 149

Dunno if that could ever possibly happen, but consider the following scenario

1. A poorly administered ISP ignores the fact that it's infested with zombie DDOS proxies.

2. Google starts returning a static web page stating "Your internet provider is unable to reach Google, please contact your Internet provider for support." message, instead of their home page, for queries from that ISP's IP address ranges.

Probably just a pipe dream for a lazy Sunday afternoon.

Comment Re:"Drive for 15" (Score 1) 940

According to, your run of the mill grocery store has a profit margin of a whopping 1%. Can you explain to me how that's supposed to pay for increasing the wages of the majority of their workforce by 100%. Labor is the biggest cost of doing business, pretty much across the board.

All similar business in the same geographical area pay generally the same wages, and so have the same general costs of doing business. As such, any business that attempts to inflate their profit margins have really only one way to do so: by increasing the price of their products. But if they were to do so, they will be immediately underpriced by their area competitors. As such, profit margins of general businesses, not just grocery stores, but all general businesses, tend to be razor thin. They can only charge a bare minimum above the cost of their products, in order to stay in business.

And we're not talking about just your cashiers in the grocery store. The companies that run the trucks that deliver the goods to the store also have to raise their minimum wage too, and will also have to increase their costs to deliver goods, which gets passed down to the grocery stores, which will also have to increase their own prices on account of that too.

The janitorial services, that send their workers to the local businesses, to clean their toilets, will also have to increase their own minimum wages too. This also translates to their direct costs, which they have no choice but to pass down to the grocery store, as their customer, who will also have to increase their product prices on account of that too.

You can come up with a myriad of examples. Do you know who really ends up paying for the $15 minimum wage? You, the helpless consumer. Always.

There's an old term for all of this. It's called "trickle-down economics". Perhaps you've heard of it. Much derided by the radical left; perhaps the term was originally poorly chosen. A better name would've been "real life".

Comment "Drive for 15" (Score 1) 940

... or whatever it's actually called. I know that the left-wing movement to drive the minimum wage up to $15/hr has a catchy name of some kind, but I fail to recall it at the moment.

The only thing this movement demonstrates is the abject failure of the US public scrool system to teach young skulls full of mesh some basic economics. Instead, they come out believing that every filthy, greedy, business owner has a money printing press in the basement. Either that, or that the only way to force the bourgeoisie fatcat to pay the proletariat a fair share, is through minimum wage legislation.

Only a complete lack of understanding of basic principles of economics could result in anyone thinking that the only thing that will happen after raising the minimum wage to $15, is that everyone will be paid $15/hr. And that nothing else, whatsoever, will change. Everything will remain exactly as they are today, except that everyone will be making $15/hr, at least. Socialist utopia.

They'll be in for a shock once they figure out that business owners are not hiding a money printing press in the basement, that they could use to pay their entry-level workers $15/hr. They simply don't have the money, and no amount of radical, left-wing socialist propaganda is going to change that. No amount of protests will have any effect on that. The only thing that the Mr. Store Owner could possibly do, at that point, is either fire their workers, or raise their prices. There are no other options. A lot of good will the $15/hr minimum wage will do for them, when they're not the ones being employed, or when a loaf bread costs $11, and a gallon of milk costs $8. But, hey, they're making a living wage now!

Slashdot Top Deals

You're using a keyboard! How quaint!