Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:Those who something, something (Score -1) 487

. . . Twitter making a claim that they can not possibly back up. If congress passes a law to make it a legal requirement, Twitter will do it.

All that they've done here is made a political move that people like you have believed, yet it has exactly 0 substance behind it.

We already KNOW they sell data feeds to surveillance companies, and we already KNOW that even when they cut them off ... they sell the exact same data to a 'new' company, that just happens to have all the same employees as the old one last month ...

Twitter didn't do anything but lie and you bought it. The biggest failure in this discussion is you, for believing a word they said. Shame on you.

Comment Re:Zuckerberg created one thing, Bezos two (Score -1) 104

Bezos created amazon, a real company (an absolutely slime ball one, but different story) that provides services and goods. Bezos did something.

Zuckerberg stole someone elses idea and has lied, cheated, and otherwise fucked people over to get to where he is and the people who actually run his company are the ones that came from the funding he got. Zuckerberg didn't and does't do shit.

Musk was there for the founding of Paypal. Paypal was a .boom winner. He's nothing more than a lottery winner who then invested ... and by invested I mean lobbied congress for subsidies for Tesla, SpaceX and SolarCity. He didn't create any of them, he funded people who knew what they were doing to create those companies using money he got by dumb luck.

If you think any of these people are impressive business men or people then you have no idea who much of business is shear dumb luck versus actual skills.

Bezos has creds, they other two have dumb luck and timing, nothing more. All of them are slimeballs.

If you pay attention to how they actually treat the world around them and turn off your fanboy long enough to realize they really didn't actually create any of the shit you give them credit for and a bunch of men and women you've never heard of actually are the ones who did it.

Do you think Kennedy is why we went to the moon too?

Comment They will do what the law requires (Score 0) 487

They can say whatever they want, but the truth of the matter is, if Trump makes it happen, if there is a law requiring it, twitter will fucking do it.

Reality: Money is more important than morals to the people who run twitter. If the law says they have to do it, and they don't, they will suddenly cease to exist as a business

The other tech companies didn't answer for that reason. Given the choice of 'comply with the law' or 'go out of business', they'll comply with the law. So will twitter, but twitter is openly willing to lie to you about it.

What that should tell you is that twitter is probably already doing it cause they clearly have no problem lying to people about what they will and won't do, consider them already compromised. We already know they do it and pretend to 'cut off' companies that get caught doing it. Ironically those 'cut off companies' go 'out of business' and all the employees suddenly start working at a new company with a twitter feed ... but twitter somehow doesn't notice.

Seriously, twitter IS ALREADY DOING IT.

Submission + - Cyber-Security: Prelude to cyber-war? (

shanen writes: Trump can't wait, can he? Now he's decided he needs to piss of the Chinese, world leaders in cyber-warfare defenses. A few days ago he tried to make nice with Pakistan, which is liable to piss off the Indians (as if he isn't doing enough to offend them with his America-first India-last trade policies). India certainly has the potential to participate in cyber-warfare, though they don't have or even need much in the way of cyber-defenses right now. It's actually the good old USA that has the most to lose in a serious cyber-war.

Crazy prediction time: An alliance of China and India using Nigerian mercenaries to do the dirty work. Can't let the Russians, Ukrainians, and Macedonians have all the fun.

Already a bit dated, but there's a good book called "Cyber War" by Richard Clarke. He rates America as having high offensive capabilities for cyber-warfare (along with Russia), but with the greatest economic vulnerability to cyber attack and with almost no defenses. Trump needs to learn about "the cyber", eh?

Comment Re:This MUST be fake news (Score 2) 215

I still can't buy into it. If you REALLY want to disable the USB port, you go inside and cut the leads. If you want to test the USB port for something like resistance to static electricity, then you need to use proper test equipment. Presumably it would be destructive testing and you would want to increase the shocks gradually to determine the safe levels.

According to the description, all this thing does is attempt to do some random damage. I say the story is bogus.

However, I finally did think of a legitimate use for the story. The cops want to find out who would try to buy such a device. Along with his shipping address.

Comment This MUST be fake news (Score 1) 215

Why in gawd's name would anyone mass produce such a device? This must be one of those fake news stories we've been hearing so much about.

In technical terms, the USB ports could be designed with diodes to prevent this sort of attack. Perhaps they already are, but in fake news terms they could just up the stored voltage until it's stronger than a lightning bolt. Of course, in technical terms there is no reason it has to be that small anyway. You might as well run a wire to a USB connector and then touch the exposed lead to a fully charged Van de Graff generator. (Now I'm wondering how much static electricity protection USB ports already have.)

The story is credited to a "new submitter". I think he's just a new sock puppet and my proposed maturity filter might have dealt with him.

I'm trying to figure out how to cover the open base... What if it isn't a fake news story? I can't imagine any legitimate use for such a device, so I assume it would be made illegal as soon as the politicians can get off their duffs.

Comment Re:My, how times have changed (Score 1) 34

Not sure how this branch got dragged into the pre-WW-II topic again, but some people are always looking to attack IBM (and various other companies) on the basis of their business dealings with Germany in the 1930s. I suppose you can argue that those were politically tainted business decisions at the time, but mostly I think people are misusing their hindsight. At the time no one knew how bad Hitler was because he had only begun to be bad. Even today and notwithstanding our extra bits of hindsight, we still don't make business decisions based on the worst possible outcomes.

I was focusing specifically on corporate policies against political activities that involve the IBM name. Much of my career involved IBM, so I read those statements a number of times. I don't remember every detail now, and I don't even know if those corporate policies are still in effect, but they were pretty strict. For example, IBM was not going to endorse any candidate or donate to any political campaign. There were even limits on when a politician could make a speech or presentation at an IBM facility. Basically it wasn't allowed during some period prior to an election. This obituary is for one of the most important IBMers of those old days...

My main point was that I think the current CEO is changing that approach because ANY overture to Trump is intrinsically political. The Donald makes EVERYTHING about politics. He has no boundaries, so Ginny Rometty can't really believe that her letter was a nonpolitical action. At least one IBM employee regarded it as so political that she chose to resign from the company because of it. In my rejected submission on the topic, I even suggested that might be one reason Rometty published the letter in the first place.

The Carrier thing is another example of the politicization of business dealings. I suppose that comes back to the first paragraph of this reply, but apparently the topic is also forbidden on Slashdot. At least that's how I'm interpreting the response to my submission on the Carrier topic (which included its relationship to the IBM thing). It's not just the moderation system that's broken, eh? (So much for that complicated submission about cyber-warfare, but if allied China and India start using African mercenaries, you read it here first. Or much more likely you won't read about it on Slashdot until it's old news.)

Comment My, how times have changed (Score 2, Interesting) 34

In those days, among the company's other great attributes, the company didn't get involved in politics.

In today's IBM, the CEO just sent Lord Trump a feel-good letter about how to make profits together. At least one employee resigned over it.

The URLs are easily searchable, but I submitted it as a story, so maybe it will come up later? I gotta run now.

Submission + - SPAM: Corporate Obeisance to the Donald?

shanen writes: Trump is now trumpeting how he saved American jobs. [spam URL stripped]... All it took was promising a few million bucks in tax savings. Increase the deficit? Who cares? Have to do it again next year? Maybe, but by then we'll be told to look somewhere else.

Maybe that tax money could have been used for better education to make American workers more productive and more competitive? Or do you think American companies just better start doing whatever the Donald says?

Another example involves IBM's recent overture to Trump. [spam URL stripped]... That one already cost one employee her job. [spam URL stripped]...

Has your employer told you to get in line behind the Donald? Or have you also been "strongly encouraged" not to tell anyone about it?

Comment Jesus fucking christ NO ONE CARES (Score -1, Troll) 191

Just because you're too stupid to realize your political favorite wasn't any different doesn't mean that Trump is any different.

Your team lost. Deal with it, and shut the fuck up about who Trump appoints because not a fucking thing matters without the approval of congress, and as the democrats were kind enough to show, you can have a super majority in congress, and your guy in the white house ... and you still can't get a one fucking useful thing done.

You guys actually like your guy/girl would have been so much better, all that means is that YOU personally are too stupid to realize they are both exactly the same.

Oh my bad, slashdot isn't news for nerds, its BaeuHD and the other 'editors' personal blog. Thought you guys were going to fix it ... you just made it another tabloid.

Comment Haven't we seen enough of Trump? (Score 1) 472

Another Trump-related poll? I think a news channel that promised the least Trump news would have a massive competitive advantage. It certainly would be my first news choice these days.

If you need to have a Trumpy poll, how about something related to logical analysis and literature? For example, something about the Gettysburg lawsuits?

"To sue, or not to sue, that is the question? Whether tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous perjury, or to sleep, perchance to dream, like the women of Bill Cosby's assaults?"

Seriously, from an analytic perspective, the Donald is damned if he does and double-damned if he doesn't.

If he sues, then he has to testify under oath and confess or commit perjury.

If he doesn't sue, then the OTHER women will feel safe to come out and start selling their stories--and their stories will be MUCH more financially valuable once Trump is in the White House.

Aha! I have the poll idea! Not sure of the exact options, but basically asking how many sexual exploits you think Trump has been involved in. The wisdom of crowds thing suggests that if we put in a bunch of independent estimates, the final average will probably be close to the real number. (Including one-night stands, I want to pick a number around 100...)

Kind of a problem with the Cowboy Neal option? Perhaps he was arranging the blind dates for younger Trump? How old is Cowboy Neal, anyway?

Slashdot Top Deals

You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tuna fish. -- from the tunefs(8) man page