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:Old ways work (Score 2) 186

They should definitely keep using the old stuff until they figure out how to build something that is actually a useful replacement. I've never managed an aircraft carrier flight deck, but I imagine it would be pretty useful (and probably have some good knock on effects) if you could see more than just the deck RIGHT NOW. What if you could see it ten minutes ago, yesterday, trend out what moves where and when, have pre-loaded configurations (including least cost pathfinding) to respot equipment...

Yeah, I don't have any trouble believing that whatever LockMart delivered was a piece of shit, but "nuts and bolts on a board" is not the end all be all.

Comment Re:It's a way of pointing a finger (Score 3, Insightful) 81

Based on what I've seen in other cases, it seems to me like those fees are broken out so that a finger can be pointed at someone else and used for leverage. In other words, "Don't like that cost? It's all the FCC's fault", or something like that.

FWIW, the finger needs pointing. There was an issue with Viacom vs Dish a couple of years ago where Dish stopped carrying CBS. Huge screams in the media and from customers, finger pointing by both sides, but in the end it comes down to this:

In the past, the FCC mandated that cable and satellite companies carry broadcast stations in the local markets (not too big a problem on the cable side, but a big PITA on the satellite side). The deal was mandated carriage vs no license fees, and it was (in general) a fair one. Fast forward and the networks decided that since they were now entrenched, it was time to get paid by the evil cable/satellite companies "free riding" on their content.

The fact that it's a hidden fee is bullshit (the total should match the advertised rate + tax) but the fee definitely needs to be broken out separately, because charging to rebroadcast an advertising supported network in the very area they're giving the signal away for free is also complete bullshit.

Comment Re:One word: competition (Score 1) 895

I just looked. It's $0.30/bottle at Wallmart. That's much better, but still a bit pricy compared to the actual cost.

If you want a link, Sam's Club. Local supermarkets are in the $0.10-0.15 range, but I can't link to those.

So what's the excuse for $0.50 cent shirts going for $50 and $5.00 shoes going for $100?

Gouging. :)

Comment Re:Holy flamebait batman! (Score 1) 895

Thats 3 K after 2 car payments for cheap sedans
Thats 1 K after buying food , non food Groceries and clothes at Costco

Not that I'm jumping into the middle of your argument, but if you're spending $2000 a month on groceries and clothes, that's your problem right there.

Comment Re:One word: competition (Score 1) 895

Water costs a buck a bottle in a convenience store, where it's nice and chilled and waiting to be consumed right now. Water costs less than $0.10 a bottle when you buy it by the case at the supermarket. It's even cheaper when you buy it in 2.5 gallon jugs.

It's convenience pricing, and nothing more.

Comment Re:Drake Equation == 1 (Score 2) 258

there are many ways to skin a cat.

While that may be true in the literal sense (one could use a knife, or a vegetable peeler, or a melon baller, etc) in the general sense, I'm reasonably certain there is only one (removal of the epidermis from the underlying muscle, bone, etc).

<insert "The More You Know" star here>

Comment Good enough for me (Score 4, Insightful) 14

Yahoo knew, and didn't disclose. Presumably, they also didn't disclose the NSA stuff, either (though something tells me that, being a telecom, Verizon wouldn't actually have a problem with that one). The email platform (and associated user base) is one of the few things that Yahoo still has that is worth anything, and its value has likely been irreparably damaged. Verizon should definitely be able to walk away clean from this.

Comment Re:Has Wikileaks jumped the shark? (Score 3, Insightful) 269

The one-sided nature of the leaks suggests that either Wikieaks has an agenda, or it is the willing accomplice of someone who has an agenda.

Welcome to the real world. Wikileaks has ALWAYS had an agenda, but that was fine for some people when Assange was targeting those they disagreed with. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's suddenly a problem.

In any case, the failure to redact phone numbers and other personal information suggests that Wikileaks cannot really be regarded as a reasonable way to leak data.

You're kidding, right? If you're leaking data, you should redact it before you give it to someone else to do with whatever they please, because who is to say that the non-redacted data won't accidentally leak, much less purposefully?

Finally, I suspect that the one-sided nature of the leaks is upsetting many people who would otherwise support Wikileaks.

See point one above. There are plenty on the right these days cheering them on, because many of those people are hypocrites, too.

Comment Re:We're going to nuke Russia (Score 1) 396

The statute you cite is for physical information. E-mail may not necessarily be covered unless the meaning was litigated?

Here you go. "Floppy disks" are not email, but your analog would be the hard drives in the Clinton email server. John Deutch is probably an even better example (he was pardoned after a VERY similar set of circumstances). Finding more than this is a bit difficult, given that most cases are military related, and military justice is not the same thing as civilian justice, but I think the above is close enough for government work.

And the other problem with the "prosecutions" case is the timing of the classification. If it came after the original messages were sent/received then there is no violation.

While this is not public, so I can only speculate, the comments along the lines of "strip off the markings and transmit it anyway" show that at least some information was classified at the time. I'll agree that if this was data from State that she had the authority to do that, however the claim is that there was compartmentalized information (from multiple different programs) as well, and while I can imagine that something at that level of secrecy might be retroactively classified, if strains credulity to think that "lots of things of this nature" were retroactively classified.

And.... intent is always a part of criminal law. It has been since the origin of the USA.

It's a sad fact that mens rea has been under attack in the US for the last several decades, and there are MANY crimes that you and I can be convicted of that do not require criminal intent. I find that to be repugnant, so I find your argument in this regard to be fairly persuasive. That said, the issue we are discussing is the negligent acts of someone entrusted with a responsibility to keep information secure. It's hard to argue that we should not hold people accountable for their negligence because they did not intend to do harm.

Further, these people have to accept this fact before they are entrusted with classified data, get regular refreshers on what their responsibilities (and the punishments for failing in those responsibilities) are. As such "she really didn't mean it" does not hold water.

So you may not like Hilary but leave the interpretation to the professionals like the FBI... and oh by the way Congress in the Benghazi hearings where they couldn't find any criminal actions.

I did not bring up Benghazi, nor do I believe it has any relationship to the email scandal that we are discussing. In response to your "let the professionals handle it," I will point out that those professionals did, in fact, conclude she broke the law but that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges." I'll again ask the question that led you to reply to me: in what way does "extremely careless" differ from "grossly negligent" other than in the "politically expedient" sense?

By the way: you're correct that I do not like Hillary (for the record, I actually like Trump even less) but that does not prevent me from being objective about this issue.

Comment Re:We're going to nuke Russia (Score 1) 396

Because no crime was committed. She did not intentionally leak any information

18 USC 783(f) does not require intent.

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Of course, Comey said she wasn't "grossly negligent" only "extremely careless." If you can spot the difference between the two, I'd love to hear it.

Slashdot Top Deals

If at first you don't succeed, you must be a programmer.