Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Clearance (Score 2) 720

Clearances are about trust and risk. Can a candidate be trusted? Can a candidate sufficiently avoid blackmail? If both are true, the candidate has a good likelihood of getting cleared.

Everything that's evaluated is done so against these two questions. With this in mind, the list of crimes which can sufficiently bar a person from cleared work is very, very low.

Comment Clearance (Score 4, Interesting) 720

Seek federal jobs which offer a clearance. If you admit to everything thoroughly and give the investigators the truth, and if they're not worried about you after all of that (they think the risk of recidivism is low), you'll get the job and you can say on your resume you were cleared for federal work.

Whenever you decide to leave, the fact that you had a clearance might actually help counteract your priors.

Comment Re:Special service available!=net neutrality viola (Score 4, Interesting) 55

Everyone who doesn't have a personal stake in the game is naturally inclined to act recklessly. See the decade-ly cycles of recession and depression economies slip into when markets (housing, finance, oil, whatever) forget that someone else's money is still of value and not to be treated with total abandon.

The decisionmakers at ISPs don't have a piece of skin in this fight because they have special classes of access just as a benefit of being where they are within their companies, and they stand to make more personally from making profit-minded decisions. For these reasons, there's very little personal incentive to uphold the moral high ground because the decisions don't have an immediate negative impact on them. They might feel it once they retire and/or if they go to a different industry, but that's after they've made their profit, and it's long after their short-term decisionmaking window.

It's just human nature. We haven't had this trait bred out, and it's doubtful we as a species ever will. The only way to counter short-sighted thinking is by shortening the mental leap between short-sighted decisions and long-term consequences, which is what everyone fighting for net neutrality is trying to demonstrate right now by citing live examples of where a lack of enforcement has already gone wrong (T-Mobile Unlimited Music, Netflix v. Comcast/VZ, etc.)

Comment Re: Not a Tablet (Score 4, Informative) 101

October 25, 2014, via ComputerWorld:

After two years and nearly $2 billion in losses, Microsoft's Surface turned a profit in the September quarter, the company said Thursday.

October 31, 2014, via the Motley Fool:

The Surface Pro 3, released earlier this year, is selling far better than its predecessors, and for the first time Microsoft has recorded a positive gross profit for the Surface business.

It would do you well to source timely things, sir.

Comment Re:Not voting!=voting no to all (Score 3, Interesting) 468

Disagreed. While not voting is still an active decision, it's not a no-vote. It's a make-everyone-else's-vote-more-powerful vote. Not voting magnifies the group which decides to vote.

The right decision would be to vote for a write-in or a throw-away. You still vote, and if enough people do that in elections where a majority is required, a run-off election might be the end result. This is the preferred outcome as it forces all leading candidates to restate their case and take actual voting metrics into account, potentially changing which groups are catered.

Slashdot Top Deals

"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe

Working...