Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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

Comment Re:Free space wiping controversial? (Score 1) 362

There was no investigation at the time (a Benghazi inquiry that wasn't a legal investigation, and wasn't concerned with the emails at the time), and turning over your classified material to the FBI for an investigation into your self is not only stupid, but illegal. It's an illegal mis-handling of classified material. Leaks should not be handled by leaking the material to others, even law enforcement. They are to be handled by destroying the offending materials, so as to eliminate/minimize the leak.

Her actions, as described in TFA were the proper course. But she's vilified for them. The whole thing is illogical.

Comment Re: Archival grade (Score 1) 337

In Dallas, "the turnpike", "central" and "the tollway" all refer to separate sections of road independently. They are based on current or past "common" names of sections of road. None are "proper". All are unambiguous.

In part, the informal terms are more proper. They convey not only unambiguous meaning about the subject, but also convey information about the speaker. "I went west on Interstate 30, Tom Landry Freeway" that would reveal the speaker to be a non-native of the area. The Turnpike stopped being a turnpike in '78, but that was the common name, and has continued to be used as such by locals.

Language isn't solely to convey a thought, but to communicate about those involved in the conversation. And for that, inexact language is best. When there are a million ways to say something, the way you pick says something about you.

Comment Re:Should be ashamed to imply this is wrong (Score 1) 362

She wiped unrelated emails after an investigation into Benghazi. If they were, as asserted, classified material improperly held on insecure servers, it would be her duty to wipe them. Why do you hate Hillary when she does what's legally required? Oh, you'd hate her if she gave you $20 ("Not $50? You bitch.").

Comment Re:Free space wiping controversial? (Score 1) 362

Let's say she's guilty of everything she's been accused of (I think she assassinated Gandhi and JFK/RFK as well), what would it be if the timeline went as follows:

She's investigated for Benghazi.
During that investigation, someone realizes there's classified material on the "private" email server.
The legal, prudent, and best practice thing to do when such an error is noticed, is to wipe the offending material. So, while being investigated for Benghazi, she wipes unrelated emails.

So, between killing Michael Jackson and founding ISIS, she properly disposes of mishandled classified material. And she's faulted for the one time she does properly handle it?

The misogynist Republican stance is showing. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. They hate her, and anything she did is a crime. Anything she didn't do is criminally negligent for not acting. She's been under investigation constantly for 20 years, not because she'd done bad things for which she's hated, but she's accused of bad things because she's hated. It seems so obviously irrational to everyone but the Hillary haters, who hated her before she did anything on their list of reasons they hate her.

Comment Re:Never that specific program (Score 1) 362

That's not in TFA. The Fox News article indicates she's obviously criminal because her team used BleachBit. There was no indication given in TFA as to the time of the wiping, or the content wiped or anything like that.

The highly biased single-source news article doesn't even assert what you said. Did you hear that somewhere else, or is that your hallucination to help justify your irrational hatred of Hillary? If not Hillary, then who are you voting for in November?

Comment Re:More political redirection (Score 1) 362

Even if nothing on her server was "classified" much of it was sensitive. Using industry best practices to clean up old servers is proper, not proof of criminal activity.

I can't believe the constant anti-tech anti-science politics on a tech site. When hillary uses encryption, it's proof of guilt. Great, so we should arrest everyone who uses encryption. Oops, Slashdot defaults to https, so most everyone reading this is committing a felony, according to the Hillary haters. Encryption and deleted file scrubbing. Best practices, unless you are Hillary. Then it's a felony.

Comment Re:Numbers not adding up... (Score 1) 164

You have k(a) Android devices and k(i) failed devices. k(i) divided by n(i) gives you 58%.

No, that's what failure rate is supposed to mean. However, what the numbers actually said are:

  • iPhone 6 had the highest failure rate of 29%
  • iOS devices as a whole had a failure rate of 58%

These two statements cannot both be true simultaneously by any proper definition of "failure rate". The iPhone 6 is a subset of all iOS devices. The claim is made that its failure rate was 29%. For the failure rate of all iOS devices to be 58%, that would mean that at least one iOS device must have a failure rate greater than 58% to pull the average up from 29% to 58%, which contradicts the statement that the iPhone 6 had the highest failure rate at 29%.

Q.E.D.

The only way you could even halfway make those numbers plausible would be if you erroneously divided the iPhone numbers by either the total number of iOS devices or worse, the total number of devices. Either of those approaches makes the numbers meaningless because you don't know the relationship between... to use your terminology... k(i) and n(i) at that point.

In your ramblings, you fail to consider that the vast majority of people who want to avoid expensive shipping charges will often bring their unit into a store... which eliminates many of the simpler problems.

The vast majority of people who want to avoid expensive shipping charges will Google the problem and find an answer themselves. People go to a store when that fails.

Comment Re:Sour Grapes (Score 4, Insightful) 54

I don't really understand how this benefits Spotify as it doesn't improve the service in any way that I can see, and such a move likely makes it worse for users for petty business reasons that have nothing to do with the users.

In the short term, the only negative impact would be if the songs they're demoting are extremely popular and if the public perceives their absence as a loss in quality. Given the size of the musical corpus these days, that seems unlikely.

In the long term, this serves notice to content creators that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Normally, those content creators would have to balance the cost of exclusivity (fewer plays on those exclusive songs) against the benefits (presumably dramatically improved promotion and possibly higher royalty per click. With this policy in place, those content creators have to factor in the loss of the vast majority of their income from the other providers—not just on new content, but also on old content. That significantly changes the balance in a way that discourages these exclusive deals.

And that's a good thing. Vendor exclusivity is inherently anti-consumer.

Comment Re:Not until the laws are changed (Score 1) 157

Under 32 hours and the law would say no benefits are required.

That's not true. You're required to pay for health insurance for anyone working 30 hours or more. Similarly, you're not allowed to restrict 401k for any employer working more than 1,000 hours per year (a little over 19 hours per week).

They could cut the number of sick days or vacation days offered, but that's probably roughly the maximum extent to which they could reduce benefits other than salary.

Comment Re:Followed by: (Score 1) 437

Ah, so you were born in 2009. Because anyone born earlier than that saw the racist stuff flying when he was running, before he said anything you'd consider racist or divisive.

I saw more than one "Nigger in Chief" bumper sticker. In person, not some staged photo. Yes, Obama started the race war, by not staying in "his place".

The whole drug war was spearheaded against civil rights by the Republicans because it was a racist program. And the anti-personal rights Republicans were all for stripping everyone in the country of their personal rights, so long as the cops used that power disproportionately against Black people. The fist drug war was even sold as such explicitly in Congress.

Slashdot Top Deals

HOLY MACRO!

Working...