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


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

Comment Re:Slime-balls (Score 0) 307

Excellent point and well made. People who are coming out saying the drone operators are perfectly fine obviously haven't though more than six inches in front of their face. Short-sighted idiots, they can't envision a situation because they refuse to think about it from the "how could a bad guy misuse this" perspective.

Comment Re: Rule of thumb (Score 2) 307

It is just kids having fun.

I wonder how you'd feel if someone parked a drone over your back yard with a camera watching your comings and goings, what time you went to bed and woke up, what kind of property you leave out, who visits your house and when, how many kids you have and what ages they are, and so forth. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Someone WILL eventually do that, most likely a LOT of someones, because there are some fucked up people in this world. A law that says it's perfectly alright for someone to fly a drone in close proximity to your home would enable this exact behavior.

And please don't go with the "so what, I have nothing to hide" defense. Even if you didn't mind a private citizen doing it, I'm willing to bet you'd be out of your mind upset if the government did it. If it's not good for one to be doing it, it's not good for either to be doing it.

Comment Re:Civilized (Score 1, Insightful) 180

10% of us—probably the poorest people who can least afford to pay for the infrastructure improvements to bring their speeds up to snuff—will be 1000x behind.

I'm still missing the part where this is somehow my problem and I'm required to pay higher taxes to fix it.

Live in a rural area with shitty service because it's unprofitable for the ISP to run millions of dollars of fiber to service fifty customers? Too bad. Move. Or get satellite. Or deal with slower speeds. You're there by choice. Nobody's stopping you from moving somewhere that offers fiber to the curb for $75/month if that's what you really want.

Can't afford faster service? Again, not my fucking problem. Get a job. Or if you have a job but it pays shitty, too fucking bad. You chose poorly when it came to selecting careers. Still not my fucking problem.

If this sounds cold-hearted, too bad. You have no right to anything I've earned through my own hard work just because you've made choices that put you in a bad position. You want charity? Fine. Ask for it through charity. But the moment you suggest the government should forcibly confiscate my earnings to fund your Internet is the moment we become enemies.

Comment Re: Civilized (Score 1) 180

It's quite astonishing that spastics haven't worked out that every fucking cunt knows free means free at the point of use, no cunt in the whole of fucking Europe is labouring under any other understanding

And thus the Orwellian mangling of language becomes so commonplace it's accepted as the new norm. Let me re-acquaint you with the actual meaning of "free" as it pertains to payment for good or services: it means you don't pay anything. Period.

The usage of "free" in the context of this article is completely false. The proper term would be "taxpayer subsidized" but nobody likes that term. Thus "free" is appropriated, misused, and defended by the likes of you.

Comment Re:More political redirection (Score 2) 569

Let's be pragmatic here. She didn't decide the logistics of her email server and how to secure it or delete emails. Her IT intern did this.

Let's be realistic here. She didn't tell her IT guy what tools to use. She didn't have to. Someone -- and it doesn't take too much intelligence to guess who -- gave a directive to make that server and all its contents disappear Jimmy Hoffa style. That directive was given only after the existence of the server became public knowledge and its contents were requested. Can guilt be proven by such an action? No. But can anyone make any remotely plausible, intelligent, cohesive argument as to why someone running for POTUS would knowingly put themselves in such an awkward, damaging position?

Clinton is no fool. She knew wiping the server after it was discovered would leave her open to charges of hiding things. The most plausible explanation of why she'd do this was because there were things on the server that were even more awkward and damaging.

Comment Re:More political redirection (Score 2) 569

Whether the secure wipe was used as a simple matter of Best Practice, or was done for Nefarious reasons, is not known. So when the article makes judgements such as "When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see." it becomes a political mudslinging story.

What exactly is the purpose of BleachBit? As described on its own web page, BleachBit "tirelessly guards your privacy." It doesn't matter if it was wiped because of "best practices" (something rather laughable given that Sec. Clinton was violating the "best practices" of the very department she was head of according to the head of IT at SecState) or to hide nefarious activities. The main purpose of BleachBit is to preserve privacy by "obfuscating forensic evidence." The OP's statement was completely correct and made no judgments whatsoever about the guilt or innocence of Sec. Clinton. You're calling it mudslinging because you don't like the idea of people questioning her motives and wish to deflect attention.

Comment Re:More proof (Score 1) 415

Here's a radical idea: why don't we do a decent job of educating early teens of what fields are hiring out there and how rewarding they are, then leave them the hell alone and let them choose what they want to do? This whole "diversity is our goal" crap is morphing into a grand social engineering project where young girls are going to be told "you must be an engineer so you can better represent females!" and young men are going to be told...well, I'm not sure other than "you represent oppression and the male patriarchy and must be punished."

Comment Re:More proof (Score 1) 415

What I see is that women who are very smart get hired, average and dumb women don't get hired. However average and dumb men do get hired. Just look around and see all the idiots you have to work with and ask yourself if those idiots are more qualified than every woman or minority who wanted those jobs.

Given that hiring an unknown is always something of a gamble, wouldn't this outcome be the EXPECTED outcome when there's an oversupply of male candidates and relative scarcity of female candidates? By Jove, yes it is! The scarcity of female candidates virtually guarantees the vast majority of them are in the field because it is a passion for them. The overabundance of males also virtually guarantees many are there because "I need the money" and have no real interest in what they do. Certainly there are outliers in each category but they are, after all, outliers; they make the exception, not the rule.

Comment Re:More proof (Score 1) 415

The hiring managers have no incentive to do anything other than pick the candidate they think is best.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the point of hiring one candidate over another, because one of them is the better candidate?

Put another way, if you're about to have life-saving brain surgery and you're given the choice between a highly-skilled, top-of-his-field, well-paid neurosurgeon and a diversity hire who made it in to fill a quota, who are you going to choose? High-flying ideals are all fine and dandy when it's someone else's skin on the line, but they crumple when made to apply to those same idealists.

Comment Re:Shit post. (Score 1) 128

What does lidar give you that radar doesn't? Serious question.

Far better resolution, for one thing. Radar is limited to the resolution obtainable by the radar frequency which, no matter how high it is, is lower than that of lidar. All things being equal, higher frequency means higher resolution. It also usually means less range and greater reflection vs. absorption.

Comment Re:Horse Hockey (Score 4, Insightful) 769

Even if they did get in (nice proof by intimidation you have there), how likely is it that there were REAL gems there?

So you're going with the "I broke the law, but it's OK because nothing bad happened" defense? Try that next time you get pulled over and fail a breathalyzer. "Hey officer, I'm drunk as a skunk but nobody got hurt so you can't charge me!" Tell me how that works out for you, the common citizen.

The laws Hillary broke did not require intent or damage to occur in order to be prosecuted. Go read the statute. Comey invented the whole "intent" thing out of thin air. She got a pass because her last name is "Clinton." Any other person would, at the least, be fired and banned for life from Federal service. At the worst, they'd be in jail already.

Comment Re:well well well (Score 5, Insightful) 769

In neither case does it matter if the emails are real or not.

Well, actually it does matter. If the emails are real -- and everything thus far indicates they are, including press releases from HRC's campaign and the resignation of the DNC chairwoman -- it shows systematic corruption within the DNC. Not that comes as any surprise. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was an unabashed Clinton supporter, carrying water for her at every opportunity. Only a fool could believe she was capable of running the DNC on an impartial basis.

Unfortunately there are a lot of fools out there.

Slashdot Top Deals

You know, Callahan's is a peaceable bar, but if you ask that dog what his favorite formatter is, and he says "roff! roff!", well, I'll just have to...