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:If the point was ... (Score 4, Insightful) 325

There's no proof that it has anything to do with Wikileaks, but in a world of IoT devices with no thought toward security, anyone who cares to do so can mount DDOS with the power of a national entity.

What's the point of doing what Assange and Wikileaks have been doing without any moral position? He isn't helping his own case.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 2) 276

No, of course it is not legal to set a trap to intentionally hurt someone, even if you expect that the trap could only be activated by the person committing property theft or vandalism. Otherwise, you'd see shotguns built into burglar alarms.

Fire alarm stations sometimes shoot a blue dye which is difficult to remove or one which only shows under UV. Never stand in front of one when pulling the lever! But they are not supposed to hurt you.

And of course these booby traps generally are not as reliable as the so-called "inventor" thinks and tend to hurt the innocent.

Comment You are so wrong. Re:Oh brother (Score 3, Insightful) 90


FIRST was this (and who knows what else). THEN there was Snowdon. This is important.

One of the arguments in favour of Snowdon being an honourable whistleblower was this:

If he was malicious, he would have quietly stilen the data and sold it to the highest bidder. Like this guy did. And Snowdon didn't.

One of the (many) arguments in favour of Snowdon is that if he could *so easily* collect that information undetected, then other, malicious people could be doing so. And so it turns out. Snowdon alerted us to the weaknesses of the NSA security practices (amongst many other nobler services).

Vindication. Again. It tastes sweet. But not as sweet as a pardon.

Comment Re:huh? (Score 1) 146

A decade or two ago (I'm not really sure when he wrote it)) Brad Templeton suggested something like this as a fix for various problems, especially trademark. My take is that the basic idea is that TLDs are already meaningless, so diversifying them into increased meaninglessness does no damage while offering some benefits. (e.g. makes monopolizing certain words harder, makes it easier to try out new registration policies, etc)

Comment Re:Does anybody ... (Score 1) 474

how do you cut off *his* internet connection without cutting off the entire Ecuadorian Embassy's internet connection?

Go to the rack and unplug the ethernet cable whose other end is in Assange's room. Change the wifi password and only tell people the new one along with the instructions "don't share your password, especially with that Assange guy."

The "state actor" was Ecuador, or else it didn't happen. That's the only government capable of doing it.

Comment Re:Logical (Score 1) 365

Who is responsable in the case your AI-autonomous car decides to kill some pedestrians ?

I don't know. Tell me more about what happened right before that.

Was the pedestrian running out into traffic for laughs, to see all the cars crash into each other as some other threads here suggest? Was the occupant aiming it toward crowds to impress his friend with how it suddenly swerves away from the crowd when he takes his hands off the wheel? Did it just suddenly "randomly" turn off the street into a crowd as a result of a bug?

By the time someone or something decides "hit this or hit that" you already have a huge failure. That is way more important and common than the hit-this-or-that question itself.

Comment Re:Logical (Score 1) 365

If you're worried to the point of stupidity/paralysis ("be prepared to be sued out of existence") then you've already chosen to never drive even a manually-operated car, because you were overwhelmed by your fears. Most people don't have that attitude going on, so they already drive cars anyway, where they face constant daily risk of injuring or even killing pedestrians.

And some of them end up occasionally doing it, to many peoples' grief. For whatever reason, society didn't give up and decide the existence of cars was just too dangerous to allow. It's over a hundred years too late for to advocate against cars. By the time your grandparents were born, this argument (that we're having today) had already been settled.

How the vehicle got to be out of control is what everyone trying to establish liability will be asking. That it killed a pedestrian or driver is merely the motivation for asking.

Slashdot Top Deals

In every non-trivial program there is at least one bug.