Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Two Party Consent (Score 1) 509

I'm not sure if this flies in two party consent states.

It does not - this was settled in the Gericke decision, and Glick weighs heavily as well. Technically it's only binding in the 1st Circuit (Northeast and Puerto Rico) but good luck finding a judge in the 9th Circuit or similar to try to go against it.

Comment Re:Hmmm ... (Score 1) 425

Essentially he has no statistics to back his claims

I don't think you need statistics in a world where Java rules as a primary language for software development.

I've said here for years that Java is a great language for the 80% of average programmers because it tells you what's wrong most of the time, makes you do things right, and generally doesn't fall down unpredictably (J2EE FactoryFactoryFactories might be a different issue).

The top 10% can argue viscously about whether Python or Ruby or Haskell is the One True Language (shut up, LISP fanatics) - but in the meantime millions of developers are cranking out order inventory code in Java.

The top 1% of developers can deftly move back and forth among all of these, to suit the task.

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 302

and a host of other legal requirements that are supposed to ensure the safety of the passengers.

Supposed to but they don't. Apparently you've never experienced an insane taxi driver.

Uber lets customers easily leave feedback on individual drivers, which is communicated out to the client base, unlike any government model.

As well, the drivers can leave feedback on the passengers, improving cabbie safety. Cabbie murder is a real problem an medallions are not bullet-proof shields.

This bill does real harm because it eliminates the real safety gains of Uber over the government regulation model. The trouble with government models is they only need to have intent, not results. A competitive market does not have that fatal flaw.

Of course if an Uber operator were to try to continue, the police would draw their guns as well - really illustrating the risk imbalance.

Comment Re:How do you pee? (Score 1) 288

How do you pee if this is attached to you? Do you keep a bunch of one-gallon jugs next to your desk?

Step 1 - You get up and go pee.
Step 2 - You come back to the computer and press the power button.
Step 3 - You continue with whatever it was you were doing before nature called.

Not all that difficult for a select tiny few, though I can see how most people would be confused and bewildered at the requirements.

Comment Re:She has a point. (Score 1) 628

The Lena Rossi image is famous, but tossing it into a CS class with a bunch of eighteen-year-old men is just asking for a hostile work environment for any women in the class.

So what are you saying exactly?
That any classroom that has a woman's face in it is a hostile work environment?
That the only way to treat women as equals is to force women to wear masks over their faces? Or do you feel women should flat out be excluded from being in a classroom to prevent this hostile working environment?

You do know you can get your wish just by moving to a country more in line with your morals, like a Muslim school that forces women to cover their faces by law.
You don't need to turn America into what you want. What you want is out there already, just go get it.

Comment Inventions vs. Engineering (Score 1) 60

I heard the acute problem aptly summarized recently: "Patents are supposed to cover inventions, but what they're being issued for is mere engineering."

This is a better metric than the "obviousness test" - what is the essential and genius inspiration that led to a the idea of putting a delivery message in a SMS message? There is none - no patent.

I realize the entire system has evolved into one giant mechanism to enrich entrenched corporate interests, but it's still a good insight into how maybe the system could have been designed less-wrong from the beginning.

Comment Re:39/100 is the new passing grade. (Score 1) 174

Is there a valid reason we accept studies that have not been reproduced at least one more time to truly vet them before the community?

The point of papers [in real science] is to say, "we did this, here's what we found". It's not to announce a beacon of new Revealed Truth. That's largely the fault of science "reporters" looking to sell advertising space.

The papers are themselves the invitations to replicate.

The problem is the government science-funding model is largely based on fame and popularity, and doing replication studies is felt to be beneath most researchers except for the most extraordinary of claims, or those that threaten the Orthodoxy.

None of these problems will go away until the incentives of the funding model change. To assume anything else would be economically ignorant.

Slashdot Top Deals

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov

Working...