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: Pretty sure I read this story last decade. (Score 1) 317

If you dig into this deeply enough, you'll see the utility very likely contributed a great deal of money to one or more elected officials responsible for approving such behavior.

Find who it is. Vote them out. Doesn't matter if there's a D or an R (or even an I) in front of their name. Vote the fuckers out. Corruption is what allows such things. Companies who deal in it are symptoms of the problem but not the problem itself. Blaming the company for gaming the system is like blaming bacteria for rapidly growing in a nutrient-rich solution. Find the corrupt bastard who's feeding the colony and cut them out of the situation. Every will self-correct afterwards.

Comment Re: Pretty sure I read this story last decade. (Score 1) 317

But that doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to stop polluting.

Please, find me someone who's desperately screaming "yes, I want polluted air, land, and water! I want to see wildlife drowning in crude oil! I want barren deserts instead of forests! I want the seas to rise and inundate the coasts! I want weather Armageddon!"

No reasonable person is opposing curbs on pollution. That is a strawman. Reasonable people ARE, however, opposing needless, pointless, EXPENSIVE curbs that do little or nothing to improve things but do much to line the pockets of "climate change" proponents like Al Gore and his "carbon credits" crowd.

Comment Re: Pretty sure I read this story last decade. (Score 2) 317

We need ALL NATIONS to drop their emissions TOGETHER.

And that's the humorous part. When it's the UN clamoring for the US to cut emissions, everybody's piling on the bandwagon saying it's a good idea, no a GREAT idea!

When they're asked to curb their own emissions, suddenly it's a really, really bad idea.

It's almost like it's not about climate change or emissions or anything real and only about taking the US economy down several pegs so other nations can take advantage of it.

Nah, that's just crazy talk.

Comment Re:Pretty sure I read this story last decade. (Score 1, Insightful) 317

Never forget, in years where hurricane activity is low, we hear "weather isn't climate! It doesn't mean anything!" Yet in years with lots of hurricane activity "see? See? SEE? We told you global warming is real! This proves it!"

If it rains too little it's due to climate change. If it rains too much it's due to climate change. If it rains just right "we told you weather isn't climate! It means nothing!"

You can't have it both ways guys. Obviously doesn't stop you from trying though.

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.

Submission + - Malibu Media stay lifted, motion to quash denied

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: In the federal court for the Eastern District of New York, where all Malibu Media cases have been stayed for the past year, the Court has lifted the stay and denied the motion to quash in the lead case, thus permitting all 84 cases to move forward. In his 28-page decision (PDF), Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke accepted the representations of Malibu's expert, one Michael Patzer from a company called Excipio, that in detecting BitTorrent infringement he relies on "direct detection" rather than "indirect detection", and that it is "not possible" for there to be misidentification.

Slashdot Top Deals

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire