Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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

Comment Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss? (Score 2) 117

I'm surprised Comcast hasnt gone after Netflix already.

They have, and been caught. The whole Net Neutrality thing was over this very concept. The example was that the location of the Peering nodes were deliberately not upgraded an thus Netflix traffic was impacted. Netflix went so far as to say that they would pay for all the equipment needed at all of the peering locations, and even install CDN points INSIDE Comcast's network to help prevent the congestion problems for Comcast's Netflix customers. Comcast said no thanks.

Comcast has a vested interest in both Broadcast and Cable TV, and Netflix has a direct impact on both. Comcast is not going to help Netflix even if Netflix does all the work.

However, since this is all being done on the Network side, it is hidden (obfuscated) to the customer. All they know is Netflix streaming "sucks" a lot of the time, while Comcast streaming almost never does. The customer doesn't see it as a Comcast problem, they see it as a Netflix Problem.

Submission + - SPAM: Pennsylvania May Be the Most Vulnerable to Voting Hacks

rmurph04 writes: As reported by CBS News, the battleground state of Pennsylvania might as well have a target on its back as Election Day nears, the cybersecurity company Carbon Black warned in a new report released Thursday.

Across the state, most Pennsylvania counties use particularly high-risk electronic voting machines that leave behind zero paper trails, which could be useful to audit the integrity of votes cast. In addition, many of these machines — called “direct-recording electronic” machines — are running on severely outdated operating systems like Windows XP, which has not been patched by Microsoft since 2014

Link to Original Source

Comment Re:ELI5 (Score 1) 107

Not quite. Compare your current and your different solution. If the different is better, go for it. If it's worse, there's a certain probability that you should go for it anyway. With proper changes in the probability function over iterations, the probability of getting the global optimum approaches. Without this, you're liable to wind up in a local maximum.

Comment Re:The most most seriously needed LEO database (Score 1) 178

Disobeying, talking back, hiding your hands, running, reaching for things are all good ways to get shot, and the officer will be perfectly justified as well.

In other words, you have a list of offenses that deserve the death penalty. These include disobeying a police officer, regardless of whether the order is legal, heard and understood, or physically possible, as well as disagreeing with a police officer. If I'm using a camera to record what's happening in a police encounter, perfectly legally, and the police officer asks me to hand over the camera, and I either give him a reason why not or just don't hand it over, the police officer is "perfectly justified" in shooting me. (If I do hand over the camera, and the officer destroys it, destroying my personal property and potential evidence in a criminal prosecution, no amount of follow-up with the most cooperative police department is going to fix the situation completely.)

The ONLY legitimate reason to shoot me is if I present a credible and serious threat to the officer or others, and there is no other way to handle the situation. If I"m running away, which is on your capital crime list, I'm presenting no threat to the officer, and if I'm not clearly armed I'm presenting no threat to anyone else.

You are describing a police state, where the police can do what they wish and shoot any dissenters.

Comment Re:Two types of laws (Score 3, Informative) 268

Also, intent matters when determining guilt.

I suggest you try, "Officer, I didn't see the sign" the next time you're pulled over for running a stop sign.

The traffic code in most cases specifically excludes intent from consideration, but that's an anomalous area in the law. Throughout very nearly all of criminal law, intent is crucial to determining guilt. So while you're correct that "Officer, I didn't see the sign" won't do you any good, your argument is a red herring that demonstrates significant lack of knowledge of criminal law. (It's also worth noting that most traffic violations aren't technically crimes in most jurisdictions, they're civil infractions which is why you may be assessed a fine but cannot be arrested. There are exceptions for very serious violations, including extremely high rates of speed.)

Comment Re:True for most "confidential" databases (Score 1) 178

Last I was told, Dropbox encrypted everything with AES-256 and kept the keys organizationally separate from access to the data. It isn't perfect for security, but it's easy and has some value. If you want real security, you have to do your own key management anyway, and you DON'T want to type your key into any software provided by a storage vendor, so it's no extra burden to do your own encryption and decryption.

Comment Re:Would you rather they SHOOT YOU DEAD? (Score 1) 178

unless you make yourself a target by being black or Native American or refusing to comply...

Fixed that for you.

In the vanishingly few instances where an officer makes a mistake in judgment, most departments are quick to correct the failure.

You don't follow the news much, do you? When an officer shoots and kills someone without provocation, the officer usually gets off. This is changing, partly because of the prevalence of cameras that objectively record what's going on.

My advice is to choose to live, don't get yourself shot by getting crosswise with the police today, so you can complain and get the problem addressed when it's all over.

What that seems to amount to in practice is that trained police officers are allowed to act on impulse, up to and including shooting people dead, but untrained civilians under all conditions are required to stay calm and quiet despite provocation. My advice for people in the US: See if the ACLU in your state has a program whereby, when you record something on your phone, it's automatically uploaded to the state ACLU.

Comment Re:It won't matter what Comey says (Score 1) 268

I think you are confusing what is really happening here. I've seen all sorts of arguments about Hillary vs Donald and it almost always boils down to one basic argument.

1) Trump is worse than Clinton (Excusing bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior).

They mostly try to avoid her actual record, because quite frankly it SUCKS.Her four years as SoS are a complete disaster. Her stint as Senator is mostly resume lining material (no actual accomplishments), and that she won because she was Bill's wife isn't really that great either. Basically, she has no record of accomplishments. None. Which is why she is playing the "gotcha" game, and sitting there wondering why she isn't "50 points ahead". Well, when you run douchbad against asshole (I'll let you figure out which is which), it is clear that she shouldn't be "50 points" ahead, and why they are basically neck n neck.

If everyone who actually believes that NEITHER are good for America, actually voted for Gary Johnson (or Jill Stein), it would cause chaos in the election.

Comment Re:Wherever data is collected, it is abused (Score 1) 178

You're getting the blame wrong.

Politicians have rational fears. If they help loosen some unproductive security measure, and something bad happens that can be blamed on the lack of the security measure, their opponents will use that as campaign material, and they're less likely to be elected. If they enact an unproductive security measure, they're not going to get the same level of blame.

The problem is the US electorate. If politicians got credit for removing or not adding onerous and unproductive security measures, and weren't blamed for things that happen anyway, the TSA would be a lot more bearable. The same is true in other areas. We spend more money on checking welfare recipients than we save, but if politicians try backing off on that their opponent will find a welfare queen (or fake one up) and exploit that in the campaign.

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...