Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 10 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Friday September 19 2014, @07:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the unless-they-were-'accidentally'-broken dept.

The Register has found itself subject to a certain amount of criticism for this author's skepticism ( Richard Chirgwin http://www.theregister.co.uk/Author/2242 ) regarding whether the NSA has been snooping on optical fibre cables by cutting them.

Glenn Greenwald's recent “NSA cut New Zealand's cables” story is illustrative of credibility problems that surround the ongoing Edward Snowden leak stories: everybody is too willing to accept that “if it's classified, it must be because it's true”, and along the way, attribute super-powers to spy agencies.

In running the line that undersea cables were cut, Greenwald is straying far enough from what's feasible and credible that his judgement on other claims needs to be questioned. It seems to The Register almost certain that neither Glenn Greenwald nor Edward Snowden have actually held a submarine fibre cable in their hands.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/18/spies_arent_superheroes/

Do you think that it is credible that these undersea fibre cables were tapped when it is easier to tap onshore installations?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by arashi no garou on Friday September 19 2014, @10:49PM

    by arashi no garou (2796) on Friday September 19 2014, @10:49PM (#95692)

    But you can use the code tag and be smug and superior about it!

    Just ribbing btw, it doesn't look bad on my screen. If anything it's more readable since I spend a lot of time in an editor.

  • (Score: 1) by Arik on Saturday September 20 2014, @01:54AM

    by Arik (4543) on Saturday September 20 2014, @01:54AM (#95727) Journal
    It looks exactly the same on my screen, since I long ago reached my limit with the results of allowing every random 'web designer' in the world the ability to specify absurd unreadable combinations of colors and fonts, and changed my settings to prevent that from happening. I changed the posting default to code simply because it is least likely to screw up the formatting of my pure text posts that way. Sometimes I switch to html, when I feel like actually marking up a post, but it's rare that I really want to do anything I cannot more *easily*, *quickly*, and *naturally* do in flat text.

    I only realized that as an unintended side effect this resulted in a different font showing up on some browsers after someone started flaming me for it. Of course I have several browsers in default state available for testing but why would I do that? I typically dont touch them unless I am on the clock, dealing with that level of brokenness might be my vocation but it will never be my avocation.

    This is why I say in all seriousness the font is not something I am controlling or changing. Are you seeing it in Courier? That's a statistically likely guess but by no means a certainty, and not what appears on my screen.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @03:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @03:04AM (#95747)

      Whatever it is, it is monospace which is a pita to read.
      Monospace is great for structured text like code, but suckass for freeform text like regular sentences.

    • (Score: 2) by Popeidol on Saturday September 20 2014, @05:34AM

      by Popeidol (35) on Saturday September 20 2014, @05:34AM (#95771) Journal

      When you write a reply, there is a drop-down menu that lets you select the the type of formatting you'd like: Plain old text, HTML Formatted, Extrans, and Code.

      You probably have 'code' set to default. You can change that on the preferences page [soylentnews.org].

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @11:21AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20 2014, @11:21AM (#95811)

        Obviously you cannot be bothered to read before replying.

    • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday September 20 2014, @10:27PM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday September 20 2014, @10:27PM (#96018) Journal

      Well is there any way you could perhaps make the text bigger? Because on my 16x9 widescreen your postings look smaller than the warning labels on a medicine bottle and I really don't have the time nor inclination to hack multiple browsers at 2 locations simply to get your posts to render in a readable way so for now I simply have to skip them as they are simply too small to read comfortably.

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @01:29AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @01:29AM (#96096)
        I truly do not have any control over what fonts, sizes, etc. your browser chooses to display.

        If you have multiple browsers misconfigured to display unreadable text there is no other solution than to configure them.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22 2014, @02:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22 2014, @02:49PM (#96783)

      You may not be choosing the font, but you are effectively forcing a monospace font on readers of your comments. I could change the font to a variable-width font, but that would fuck up the display of text where it is used appropriately.

      If there is a way of making my browser just display your comments with a variable-width font, but still use monospace elsewhere (including other comments on SN where it is used appropriately) please let me know.