Slashdot Mirror

2.1 million Americans still enjoy dial-up internet.

2.1 million Americans still have AOL Dial-up internet service.

Notch has deplorable views, MS wants to minimize its association with said views.

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/m...

HTH

... you can bet companies will still fight tooth and nail to get around this shit. Just like now game companies can take advantage of mass public ignorance and high speed internet to legally reclassify all new games as "services". Just as with the new Assasins creed because they control the software from the point of production and their customers are 100's of miles away.

https://www.dailydot.com/layer...

I thought he was supposed to save Google+ from itself?

You can literally buy dogs from a vending machine in Tokyo now. That's not even a joke:

https://www.dailydot.com/uncli...

China's reputation system will allow them to do this. By 2030 China will be the biggest economy in the world, and they will probably start exporting their scoring system to the rest of the world. Want to do business with Chinese people? Make sure you have a 'clean and righteous' social credit score in their system.

The bigger picture is that we are slowly moving from an information society towards a reputation society. Where the information society was about access to data and information, the reputation society is about the flow of social capital. Our social capital is measured now, both in China, but also in the west. Just this week we saw how Facebook is measuring trustworthiness. Behind the scenes databrokers have been deriving and selling data like this for a long time.

The 60's were all about breaking free from crippling social pressure to conform. Now the data driven panopticon might undo that.


The reputation society: https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
Facebook's reputation score: https://www.dailydot.com/debug...
Databrokers: http://crackedlabs.org/en

Just ask the crew from Asiana flight 214: https://www.dailydot.com/news/...

Captain Sum Ting Wong
Wi Tu Lo
Ho Lee Fuk
Bang Ding Ow

https://www.dailydot.com/layer...

Disappointing VR? No, it's 1991!

Obligatory photo of Erlich Bachman riding a unicorn and throwing money around: https://www.dailydot.com/wp-co...

A more nuanced position would be...

Enough conservatives pass on stories without fact checking them that demonstrably false stories proliferate.
Enough liberals fact check stories demonstrably false stories die out.

Some conservatives do fact check. But not enough (please fact check more if you are conservative).
Some liberals do not fact check. (please fact check more if you are liberal).

Snopes and Politifact are good starting locations.

Stay clear of Nunez new fake site.

Here's a list of fact checking sites.

http://guides.lib.berkeley.edu...

Here's another list
https://www.dailydot.com/layer...

âoeBe skeptical. Check the author. Check the publisher. Check the sources,â noted Eugene Kiely of FactCheck.org. âoeYou have no idea how many people forward us emails that are anonymously written that made unsubstantiated claims with no sources. Same thing with some âstoriesâ(TM) and âreportsâ(TM) written and posted on partisan and advocacy websites. Who is behind the website? Whatâ(TM)s their agenda? How is it funded? How transparent is it? Does its articles and reports provide named sources of information with links to source material so readers can check the facts themselves? Reagan used to say, âTrust, but verify.â(TM) Iâ(TM)d say verify first, and then determine if the source is worthy of your trust.â

The best partisan fact-checking sites
Note: Partisan fact-checkers are those with a purported liberal or conservative bent.
For conservatives who want to start slow before using non-partisan sites:

NewsBusters

NewsBusters is a website that devotes itself to âoecombating liberal media bias.â NewsBusters was launched by the Media Research Center in 2005, the same group behind CNSNews.com. It has been criticized by Media Matters and others for its questionable fact-checking techniques.

For liberals who want to start slow before using non-partisan sites:

Media Matters

Media Matters is a media watchdog group that focuses on conservative news. Since its launch in 2004 in the height of the Bush administration, Media Matters has analyzed conservative media, including broadcast, radio, and print media for factual errors. Media Matters narrowed its focus on Fox News and a handful of other conservative news sites in 2011, in what Media Matters founder David Brock deemed as âoea war on Fox.â

Editorâ(TM)s note: This article has been updated for relevance.

I sure hope they do better than last time...

https://www.dailydot.com/parse... The "Barbie: I can be a computer engineer" book showed her having to ask the boys in her class to code a game for her because she wasn't able to! Not a great message for her fans.

And not Node.js, via LibUV?

Bezos is an apex predator, who has never even pretended to not be an ignore-what-I-say planet-destroying hypocrite where his business interests were concerned. To some degree, Google really has to fight fire with fire here. I remain a long ways away from tarring Google and Amazon with the same brush.

Check out The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon (2013). Captures the general tone of the organization brilliantly.

Amazon just removed encryption from its tablet devices — March 2016

Robin Handaly, an Amazon spokesperson, pushed back on criticism of the move.

"In the fall when we released Fire OS 5, we removed some enterprise features that we found customers weren't using," Handaly wrote in an email. "All Fire tablets' communication with Amazon's cloud meet our high standards for privacy and security including appropriate use of encryption."

Their customers didn't agree, and in this instance, Amazon was forced to eat crow and restore the feature.

Amazon's customer service backdoor — January 2016

... I contacted both Amazon Retail and AWS expressing my disappointment and asking them to put a note on my account that it is at extremely high risk of being socially engineered, and that I will always be capable of logging in. Amazon Retail said they would put a note, and have a specialist contact me (who never did) while AWS was dismissive of even a risk existing.

Amazon divulged his personal information to J. Random Blackhat twice more, despite this interaction.

Amazon Advertising Executive Fired for Refusing To Lie — November 2014

A former advertising executive for Kindle is suing Amazon for wrongful dismissal. The saga begins in 2012 with the launch of the Amazon Kindle Fire Tablet. Amazon was seeking launch partners in order to build traction with their Special Offers edition. Credit card company Discover signed on, as they normally participated with pilot projects at Amazon. Then things got interesting.

A classic Bezos manoeuvre. We know how that ended.

Prince Longshank's "high counsellor" shown the exit

Back when Amazon still mailed out DVDs, Bezos probably had that scene on repeat piped through the entire building.

My files on Google's malfeasance are hardly empty, but by comparison, they tend to lack that special Braveheart touch.

Don't worry he got his channel pulled

No, his channel is still there.

https://www.youtube.com/user/S...

It was just another right-wing YouTube freak pretending to be persecuted by the SJWs, like the guy who sprayed himself in the face with Axe body spray, pretending it was Antifa attacking him with bear spray and then laid down on the ground pouring milk on his face and crying like a wee bitch.

https://www.dailydot.com/uncli...

To borrow a line from Ivan, who's always spamming this about the DNC and Hillary, WikiLeaks ruined its own credibility.

Show me where Roku can run Kodi.

ok... https://www.dailydot.com/debug... Google is hard for some.

That was an obviously frivolous interview with the Daily Dot. I notice you didn't link to it, presumably so people can't see the context.

He has every right in law to control the use of his character. People are publishing far right anti-immigration comics using Pepe, and he has a right to ask Amazon to respect his copyright and their own rules on intellectual property.

Consider some if the silly statements that other artists have put out over the years. It doesn't invalidate their copyrights.

I call bullshit. For the past 8 years, every story related to the government was about "...the Obama administration...". So now that it's Trump, nobody's allowed to say Trump?

No, back then they blamed it on "homeland security", or other departments, not "The Obama Administration".

https://www.dailydot.com/layer...

http://www.allgov.com/news/top...

Can you honestly say that you think this story today would not have been blamed directly on Trump?

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/0...

Or, maybe we could actually research who's lobying against NN: https://www.dailydot.com/layer...

Apologies, that site has tons of ads. Someone please search more and find a better link.

Bottom line, after the reading I've done, I've decided that there are a lot of big companies out there that consider their interests in this issue to line up with "the little guy". So, they're really working honestly to protect it, publicly, and with self-interest at heart.

The percentage (75%) does not mean much by itself until you figure out the breakdown of how many people are actually with you in any significant way.

We know from the last election where both sides were portrayed as elemental roots of all evil, that only 59% of eligible voters even voted. That means there's something like 40% of the people in the cities who do not give a whit for the agendas of either side, and frankly think people like you are a loon.

Then of the people who DID vote, only about half of those were for Hillary (a bit more, or a bit less depending on the area). Even more damning for your assertion though. is that just 88 percent of black voters went for Clinton, and around 64 percent of hispanic voters - both of those groups make up large elements of the bigger cities, so that further erodes the original 75%.

In the end the people of the large cities are maybe with your ideas about 40-50% or so. What happens when you adopt policies that has locals actually feeling pain, in terms of jobs lost or a shattered economy? They will boot out people who share your ideals and pu in power people who present alternatives... and that is exactly how the Republican party came to enjoy such a widespread lead in local political positions across the country.

https://www.theverge.com/2015/... https://techcrunch.com/2016/02... https://www.dailydot.com/layer...

It doesn't matter that the 'muslim ban' never went into affect. People were stranded at airports across the world, people have stopped travelling to or from the U.S. because they don't know if/when it will be enacted and if/when they will be allowed home or if they will be detained. I am from Canada, and almost all high schools in my province have stopped taking trips (for band, sports tournaments, etc.) to the United States because it is not unusual to have an immigrant in a class and no school can afford to make all the arrangements for travel just to be turned away at the border. We don't KNOW we will get turned away, but with Trump's announcements and attempts at travel restrictions that's not a risk we can take.

While the stock market in the US is doing pretty well, the fact that a single message from Trump can tank a business' stock AND THAT IT HAS HAPPENED, would be really worrying to me if I were in an industry dealing with the U.S.

It shouldn't matter about enforcement of the climate accord, it is about the principal of the matter. The U.S. could have stayed on the accord even if it wasn't being enforced, or better yet, they could have opted out by making their own which had enforcement built in if that is the issue. Instead, Trump has pulled out while pledging to use more of one of the most polluting sources of energy there is, coal. It's not about backing out as much as it is about Trump sending a loud and clear message to the world that the U.S. will pollute as much as they want, wherever they want, and damn the future generations that need to deal with their mess.

And all of that amazing content is brought to you by unpaid volunteers.

There is little need for money to fuel Wikipedia content production. Ten years ago, when content production was at its peak, the Wikimedia Foundation had 11 employees and a twentieth of the budget it has today. Wikipedia looked and worked much the same then as it does now ...

People, by and large, donate "to Wikipedia" (but in reality to the Wikimedia Foundation) because they believe there is a shortage of funds to keep Wikipedia up and running and, like you, would not like to see it disappear. But the Wikimedia Foundation isn't in financial trouble; it is swimming in cash, and has been less transparent about many things, including executive compensation, than it could be.

In my view the WMF could do more to demonstrate that it is spending these increasing amounts of money on things that actually benefit readers and volunteer contributors in some palpable way (including how much was spent on each of these). Cost/benefit statements, so people can see that their money has been put to good use.

There are many reader- and contributor-facing things the WMF could do, but doesn't, to my knowledge. For example, they could pay to provide volunteers with free access to paywalled sources, to enable them to cite better references, and create more reliable content (present initiatives in this area seem rudimentary). They could provide readers with tools enabling them to gauge the trustworthiness of an article, based on its sourcing, or how much healthy community involvement it has seen (what information there is now is so impenetrable that no casual reader can make sense of it). They could communicate more openly about known problems in Wikipedia projects that readers should be aware of. Example. Things like that.

Many volunteers – content writers – are quite jaded about the WMF, feeling the WMF get free money off the back of their volunteer work and spend it on stuff that doesn't really help. Spending money in ways that produce little benefit has been an acknowledged problem in the past.

It is difficult, because both contributors and readers are an amorphous mass, and the WMF has perhaps tried to listen more of late under the new CEO. But when I see managers with a checkered work history receiving six-figure windfalls, or wanting to spend $32 million of donated funds on building a Google competitor, or the WMF clamming up and being unresponsive to reasonable questions, or putting out misleading fundraising messages as they have in the past, I am not convinced that this does justice to the mission people gave money to support. The money given to the WMF is given to them in trust, and in my opinion they need to do more to earn it. That's what this is about, not whether Wikipedia is useful or not.

And all of that amazing content is brought to you by unpaid volunteers.

There is little need for money to fuel Wikipedia content production. Ten years ago, when content production was at its peak, the Wikimedia Foundation had 11 employees and a twentieth of the budget it has today. Wikipedia looked and worked much the same then as it does now ...

People, by and large, donate "to Wikipedia" (but in reality to the Wikimedia Foundation) because they believe there is a shortage of funds to keep Wikipedia up and running and, like you, would not like to see it disappear. But the Wikimedia Foundation isn't in financial trouble; it is swimming in cash, and has been less transparent about many things, including executive compensation, than it could be.

In my view the WMF could do more to demonstrate that it is spending these increasing amounts of money on things that actually benefit readers and volunteer contributors in some palpable way (including how much was spent on each of these). Cost/benefit statements, so people can see that their money has been put to good use.

There are many reader- and contributor-facing things the WMF could do, but doesn't, to my knowledge. For example, they could pay to provide volunteers with free access to paywalled sources, to enable them to cite better references, and create more reliable content (present initiatives in this area seem rudimentary). They could provide readers with tools enabling them to gauge the trustworthiness of an article, based on its sourcing, or how much healthy community involvement it has seen (what information there is now is so impenetrable that no casual reader can make sense of it). They could communicate more openly about known problems in Wikipedia projects that readers should be aware of. Example. Things like that.

Many volunteers – content writers – are quite jaded about the WMF, feeling the WMF get free money off the back of their volunteer work and spend it on stuff that doesn't really help. Spending money in ways that produce little benefit has been an acknowledged problem in the past.

It is difficult, because both contributors and readers are an amorphous mass, and the WMF has perhaps tried to listen more of late under the new CEO. But when I see managers with a checkered work history receiving six-figure windfalls, or wanting to spend $32 million of donated funds on building a Google competitor, or the WMF clamming up and being unresponsive to reasonable questions, or putting out misleading fundraising messages as they have in the past, I am not convinced that this does justice to the mission people gave money to support. The money given to the WMF is given to them in trust, and in my opinion they need to do more to earn it. That's what this is about, not whether Wikipedia is useful or not.

When the echo first came out, I thought the last thing I wanted in my house was an always-on microphone. I stand corrected.

Took me a few reads to realize you stand corrected because this is the new last thing you want. I originally read that as you changed your mind and like the amazon mic now.

Frankly these are all abominations, but the bedroom fashion camera still comes in second to the trivially hacked camera equipped vibrator...

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/c...

No. https://www.dailydot.com/layer...

I wouldn't call him "smart" though.

Interesting to note how much Google is spending on bribing (aka "lobbying") the EU.
Not to mention the US.

But of course, both Microsoft and Google should be publicly shamed for using their users and leaching them of their private lives.

trying to illegitimize the role of Wikileaks here by tying it to Russia. Even though Assange has stated that Russia was not the source of his leaks.

Allow me to borrow the broken record of many a Putinbot on Clinton re: DNC leaks, Assange has done a mighty fine job of "illegitimizing" Wikileaks all on his own.

I used to be on the fence about Assange, and prior to that even a WikiLeaks fan, but we've observed the decline of an ideological actor pressured by forces well above and beyond his control. I sympathize with him as a human being, but I no longer believe Assange is in a position to practice what he preaches. He sings the song he is told to sing because Mr. Assange and more specifically a functionally headless WikiLeaks represents a kind of backdoor method to installing a Ministry of Truth.

The subterfuge of America thrives on cult figures like this and the quasi-religious belief people place in their authenticity/underdog narrative. You put that on a leash and you're, er, golden.

RSA is security and cryptography focused. This rule makes especial sense given that many people are apparently willing to give up sex if it means they won't get hacked http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/password-security-survey/.

There's a gaping hole in your logic: governments that can block your human driver efforts could (would) also block your autonomous vehicles.

I consider that a good counter-argument, but I have thought about it and don't think that will be much of a problem... I think there would be a lot more pushback around most cities blocking self driving car technology than there is to simply extend union rules to ride sharing cars.

After all, self-driving cars should reduce cars on the road and also reduce accident rates, so there are a lot more parties interested in protecting the ability of self-driving cars to operate than there are to protect Uber from unions.

A current test-bed of this is New York City, where the drivers unions want a 50-year ban(!) on driverless cars to protect driving jobs.. note that doesn't mean they don't want self driving cars, they just want someone to have to pay for a butt in seat in the front.

http://www.dailydot.com/debug/...
now i know why i never bought apple products, they attract too much of a cult following, and i am just not in to that, enjoy your apple koolaide

Thanks for citing their marketing material. Every nonprofit-for-profit has "reasons" why they need all the money the solicit. But you need to peek behind the curtain to see if "reasons" are supported by actual data. It isn't hard.

We can look at the exploding spending at Wikimedia.

And there are very serious questions about all that money being rushed out the door, who it is going to and why. There is a high level of self-dealing in passing out grants, and creating and filling the ballooning list of paid positions. It is very lucrative to be a "friend-of-Jimmy".

A glance at the financials shows that "building an endowment" is NOT the reason for the incessant fund-raising. First, the endowment was only launched this year , and their stated plan is to use only 10-20% of their fundraising revenue for that endowment. Currently they seem to be at the low end of that number (or below it) but we will need to see a report on 2016 to see the actual break-out. The goal of the endowment is to reach $100 million, but in their last annual foundation report (a 28 page advertising pamphlet with only one page of actual information) they state having $78 million in net assets as of 18 months ago, which is an increase of $25 million from the previous year report (almost all of it unrestricted).

If we assume that the net assets are only accumulating at the same rate as from June 2014 to June 2015 (by all data it is probably higher, much higher), then right now they have about $115 million in assets, more than enough to fully fund their foundation with soliciting a penny (they received at least $6 million in designated donations to the foundation when they set it up, so they no more than $94 million to make up to reach their stated goal.

So no. The foundation has nothing to do with their aggressive, relentless fund-raising.

I think the poll's being hacked by state actors, since Vladimir Putin now leads with 38%, followed by Theresa May (16%) and North Korea leader Kim Jong Un (13%),

Then realized it was part of the summary, so probably not a joke.
The editors in Slashdot are really pushing on the (Russian) state actors hacking tale. Why would state actors act on Times' online poll? If they did, why would they put up these results?

Times' poll was hacked by 4chan before. Kim Jong Un won in 2012 thanks to them, the magazine just discarded the results.

Professor Melissa Zimdars' list of "fake news" sites, which is now making the rounds as some sort of authoritative resource, even making its way into browser extensions to "protect" users from fake news sites.

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8...

http://nymag.com/selectall/201...

http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/...

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11...

There is a danger that all the sites providing this news are, in fact, fake news sites themselves...
 

What is the "special benefit" to society of allowing false advertising?

Why should I "turn the question upside down"? Ours is a free country — what is not prohibited is allowed, not the other way around. For you to limit/ban an activity, you and/or other proponents of the ban have to present (good) reasons, not the other way around.

When the activity is speech, no such bans are legal for as long as the First Amendment remains unamended.

A 2/3rd majority in congress and the senate plus 38 state legislatures and they can just amend the constitution to allow them to make any adjustment they like.

Absolutely! And that is, indeed, how Prohibition was passed — and then repealed. That would be acceptable, but our ruling class has found constitutional amendments to be too difficult/messy since then... (Indeed, some Presidents don't bother even with laws, relying on executive orders instead.)

And so, that is not, how the laws you defend as not unconstitutional were passed — these are simply federal laws. Sometimes even less than that — regulations by the federal "agencies", themselves of dubious constitutionality.

the "meaningfulness" of the first amendment is represented by the fact that these cases are routinely decided by the supreme court.

No one wishes to go on record as "racist" — by defending the racists' rights to racist speech. That does not mean, the laws in question do not contradict the Constitution, just that no case has made it to the Supreme Court yet.

You called it a 'slippery slope'... the first amendment adds quite a bit of friction.

I gave you some examples of dangerous attacks on that friction. Sadly, college-students are at the forefronts of them — which means, in another 10 years, what you call "friction" is likely to become smooth/slippery (pick one depending on spin).

I'll take ineffective self government over abdicating the responsibility entirely.

Sure. Which brings us right back — efforts to fight racism via legislation have summarily failed to both a) bring about racial harmony; b) elevate the earlier-oppressed minority to observable equality.

The laws against perjury, intellectual property theft, etc. may stand, because they can be said to have been grandfathered-in, when the Amendment was written. But any further infringements on the Freedom of Speech should be rejected with derision.

::sigh:: Here's what Milo thought about "free speech" just a couple years ago. "So perhaps what's needed now is a bolder form of censure after all, because the internet is not a universal human right. If people cannot be trusted to treat one another with respect, dignity and consideration, perhaps they deserve to have their online freedoms curtailed. For sure, the best we could ever hope for is a smattering of unpopular show trials. But if the internet, ubiquitous as it now is, proves too dangerous in the hands of the psychologically fragile, perhaps access to it ought to be restricted. We ban drunks from driving because they're a danger to others. Isn't it time we did the same to trolls?" As found here. He's not for free speech, he's for whatever gets him attention. Twitter did nothing more than quiet a very hateful, angry voice that Milo himself argued should be quieted.

Trump could point out that Saudi Arabia is on Hillary's side considering that it has provided 20% of her campaign funding, where it is illegal for foreign government to fund American political campaigns.

Yeah, I'm sure it would be easy to cover that one up.

Which is more likely, that the gazilllion opponents of Clinton and others who would benefit from this story being corroborated are unable to find some evidence of such massive wrongdoing beyond a single hacked website even though it is true, or the report was fabricated?

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8...

This "leak" is so obviously fake that Politico pulled their story about it. Here's an article about how obviously fake it is.

"many YouTube creators have been or are thinking about leaving the site and joining competing services" ...
whos a competitor to YouTube? vimeo has limite video plays ...

http://www.dailydot.com/upstre... ??

I don't even know what the fuck the problem was. If you don't want to go see the Ghostbusters reboot, don't go see it.

Men ARE from Mars.

And if you say you don't want to watch a Ghostbusters rema...rebo... restar... cynical cash grab then you are a sexist mysoginist buthurt baby child(?) salty regressive trans-hater.

You must also be one of those men (i.e. THE men) who sabotage female shows on imdb.
We know that cause you are pretending to ignore that "'The Angry Video Game Nerd,' a misogynistic web show whose sycophantic Wikipedia entry made me pine for hemlock in my coffee" even exists.
When it was after all, right there in the article featured right here.

BTW, all that was even before the movie which was promoted like this came out to fantastic reviews which keep talking about women and naysayers and ruined bro childhoods of little boys - and to a disaster at the box office.
Then again, The Nice Guys also had FANTASTIC reviews and yet it flopped... but the tone of the reviews is markedly different.

Now, take all that happening before the Twitter controversy and consider if there is perhaps a chance that the entire thing was blown out of proportion on purpose?
By a company known for faking reviews for marketing purposes.

"the international hub for the Olympics, was found to host many networks that are capable of decrypting Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) traffic — undoing a protocol put in place to keep data protected." link

Only if the client desktop computer is configured to accept forged certs as used in the Cisco SSL Inspection device.

I was thinking the same thing, but what if a person used a span port to mirror the traffic and send the mirrored traffic to a device capable of SSL decrypt? Couldn't that info be logged using that method?

"the international hub for the Olympics, was found to host many networks that are capable of decrypting Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) traffic — undoing a protocol put in place to keep data protected." link

Only if the client desktop computer is configured to accept forged certs as used in the Cisco SSL Inspection device.

The blog writer explicitly said they weren't going in to details, but had confirmed to their own satisfaction the veracity of the reports. But there have been a few people willing to go on record to report on what they've seen of Appelbaum's behavior:

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8...

There have been at least a few people willing to go on record as witnesses to his ill behavior.

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8...

Being stupid isn't a license for someone to sexually assault you. But there have been much more specific accusations about Appelbaum's behavior.

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8...

Interesting comment considering that the main reason Fury Road won so many Oscars is because Miller bucked Hollywood's 10+ year infatuation with green screens and CGI, and went back to classic old-school movie-making [like the original Mad Max films] with real effects, stunts, explosions, cars, costumes, choreography, and landscapes. Here's an article with more details and pre- and post edit comparison photos from the movie... http://www.dailydot.com/upstre...

Where's the scare when they do a computer attack?

In the American psyche, apparently, and rightfully so.

This study shows it as the #2 fear, behind government:

http://www.livescience.com/52535-american-fear-survey-2015.html

And another study shows it as the #2 fear, behind ISIS:

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/cyberattacks-isis-global-threats-america-survey/