Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score 5, Insightful) 893

This is like a presidency on amphetamines.

This is like a presidency at amature hour.

The really stupid thing is that for all the shaking-up that has been done to world leaders, the One China policy remains; Israel is still scolded; refugees are still being accepted; and there is no replacement for Obamacare on the horizon. For all the bravado, he has achieved nothing at the cost of the US's image and brand. Put another way, far from being the anti-Obama he portrayed himself to be, he has arrived at exactly the same policy positions.

The #1 thing he could do right now to show some statesmanship is to get to California, stand by the Oroville Dam and declare US infrastructure be his priority. Forget the Great Wall of Mexico. Here is a genuine crisis that is symptomatic of a deeper problem, and here is a genuine crisis handed to him on a silver platter. He want to build? Build. He wants a short-term sugar high on jobs? Employ people to build. Yes thre is a cost; but what the heck; borrow the money. He could probably borrow enough to do most of this work and still be able to say he didn't raise the national debt as much as Obama did.

But instead, he tweets about Nordstrom and how unfair they are to Ivanka.

Comment Re:Okay - that was quick. (Score 4, Informative) 893

You're wrong.
It's illegal for a private citizen to engage in diplomacy for the US.

You're absolutely right. But that isn't what undid him.

1. He lied to Pence about his son having a security clearance, causing Pence to repeat that lie publicly
2. He lied about the content of his conversation with the Russian ambassador.

#1 put him in Pence's sights. #2 ensured the outcome.

Comment Re:message from other hackers (Score 1) 531

We can debate how much influence the Russians really did have, but I'd say the Wikileaks emails did Clinton tangible harm.

Hillary won the "popular" vote by several million votes. The flyover states that handed Trump the presidency were never going to vote for her anyway; all Trump did was encourage them out to vote en masse.

I fail to see the impact of Wikileaks here.

Comment Re:"Suggesting" ... (Score 1) 715

And you aren't concerned that a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election here?

I think this claim needs material demonstration that it actually happened.

HRC won the "popular" vote, so the majority of voters didn't care about WikiLeaks or what was revealed.

The fly-over states (which handed Trump the presidency) are the states he worked hard in (and HRC ignored), mostly because he knew he could get some big results for smaller investment.

These are the same states that didn't care for whatever celebrity endorsement HRC was trotting out that day. If they don;t care what Oprah, Ellen or Lena Dunham have to say, why would they care about WikiLeaks? The message there was "jobs, jobs jobs".

In other words, Bill Clinton was right: It's the Economy, stupid. Not the Russians.

Comment Re:Yeah, GoPro (Score 2) 94

The drone is good and a good variation on their action camera line. The issue that it is is that the new DJI is so much better.

Well, that and the Karma had a nasty habit of loosing power and falling out of the sky.

From an optics point of view, the newer DJI's don;t have anything like the lens distortion a GoPro has. Assuming that the Karma was a near perfect beast, the DJI competitor, the Mavic, has the latest in DJI optics and the image is great.

Plus there is the cost: the Mavic is about the same price as the Karma was - but with the Karma you still needed to buy a GoPro if you didn't already have one. The Mavic has the camera included.

Comment Re:Undetectable = does nothing (Score 4, Insightful) 59

But LKM are a known security risk, and can be turned off in Linux.

True... but the purchaser of (say) a CNC grinder or a motion control system or a 50 port temperature sensor or whatever other exotic industrial equipment you can dream up is NOT a Linux user. A good CNC operator will do things that makes your head spin but not have the faintest idea about network security. All they care about is plugging in the power and the network cable and uploading designs from Autocad.

At some point, anyone bent on malicious programming _wants_ to be detected -- when the payload does whatever malice intended. Before then, it wants to hide. Loadable kernel modules are a good way to hide, but not perfect. It might be detected by network activity (gotta love those lights) or power consumption (machine not sleeping). Both AFAIK still major detection mechanisms for all intrustions.

Industrial equipment is expected to run differently to a computer. The guys on the shop floor don't give a rats about clean shutdowns etc; they turn the power off. Your average shopfloor person sees the flashing lights on a PLC and doesn't understand what they see (unless it's an error condition they have been trained for).

You raise valid points... but consider where industrial equipment runs, and who runs it.

Comment Re:Common Sense and Democracy (Score 2) 609

This is why major changes to the fabric of a country are usually required to pass a far higher hurdle than merely 50% of the voters. You need a convincing margin to persuade those voting for the status quo to accept that the will of the people really has changed and that this is not a statistical blip fed by lies. Nobody is at all convinced that a second referendum, even at 50/50, would yield the same result now that the horrendous lies the leave campaign made have been exposed for what they were which happened within hours of the win.

So let's not talk about what should have happened (and I do agree with your arguments in their entirety, btw). Let's talk about what did happen.

The entire things seemed to be a farce, with no real plan of how to enact an exit because the idea that BREXIT might happen seemed so far-fetched. The bar was set as "50% + 1", but with nothing to make this a binding referendum. The expectation must have been to vote to remain by a huge margin, because now you have the reality of Parliament being able to ignore the will of the people, even though they agreed to this in the first place.

If this was proposed as a script on "Yes, Prime Minister", I doubt it would have made the cut.

Because of this botched process, you now have the possibility of the UK staying in the EU after a majority of people just said they want nothing to do with the EU, or actually leaving the EU because the process was treated as a joke. If the UK stays, it just made a mockery of the referendum process; if it leaves, it made a mockery of the democratic process (the excluded voters you mentioned).

Surely the UK learned that appeasement was a bad idea in the 1930's. Trying to appease Nigel Farage appears to have backfired as well.

Either way, there is a lot to learn from all of this.

Comment Re:This again? (Score 3, Interesting) 401

Actually it gets compiled down to Machine Code. Assembly Language is simply Machine Code rendered in a human readable format.

e.g. ld a,1 in Z80 assembler would be 3E01 in HEX

Oh, the memories. To this day I can remember on my ZX81 hand-assembling 2A0C40, which loads the display file base address into the HL register pair. Calculating all those relative jumps... ugh :(

Comment Re:What grudge? The editor's? (Score 4, Insightful) 125

It's not Wikileaks's role to scan email for viruses...

Yes, it is. See how easy that was to rebut?

That's not a rebuttal; that's taking an opposing position with no argument (or evidence) to back up your position.

A rebuttal might look like:

It may not be the job of WikiLeaks to scan emails for malware, but it can be argued that it should be. Their goal is to release information into the hands of people who can do something with it. Those people are mostly journalists with limited computer security knowledge, compared to, say, most of us here on Slashdot, and it is in the best interests of WikiLeaks to ensure that we can trust the information coming from them.

Although Wikileaks tries to release information as raw as possible, they do have a legitimate reason to alter it; namely the protection of sources and protection of people not directly targeted by the leak. Since they are already altering the information to protect sources, it is surely no great ethical stretch to protect recipients as well.

See? No only did I rebut his position, I acknowledged his arguments and demonstrated that they actually supported my case better than his case.

Slashdot Top Deals

We can defeat gravity. The problem is the paperwork involved.