Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Common plight (Score 1) 284

by ACNiel (#47250739) Attached to: Bill Gates To Stanford Grads: Don't (Only) Focus On Profit

A lot of people have also said this when he started his charitable foundation.

Some of the robber barons of yesteryear also fell to this thing they call a concience. Carnegie with the libraries, etc.

They are so caught up in winning, they don't realize what they sacrificed until after their are done. When no one will play with them anymore, they realize what they have done.

Comment: No Sympathy (Score 1) 263

by ACNiel (#46476167) Attached to: Mt. Gox Knew It Was Selling Phantom Bitcoin 2 Weeks Before Collapse

The only reason people were into this was to either trade in illegal goods and services or be cutting edge with something that only really served to facilitate illegal activity.

People were told repeatedly that there were no regulations as countries didn't know how to handle it, which emboldened everyone.

Now you see the ramifications. If you like being in a lawless area, don't look for cops when you get raped.

Comment: Re:Firrrst post the noo (Score 1) 286

by ACNiel (#46377927) Attached to: Scottish Independence Campaign Battles Over BBC Weather Forecast

You could have avoided this by not being a grammar nazi.

"Most people want independance" was clearly in terms of the domain that wants iy; most people that want independance want it on moral grounds.

Does letting something like that slide have implications on public opinion? If I trusted anything that cited an op ed description of an article, then we have other problems.

Comment: Re:I see it as less about Google being bad... (Score 1) 137

by ACNiel (#46377867) Attached to: Using Google Maps To Intercept FBI and Secret Service Calls

How is this "Interesting". I am looking for a phone number, I don't got to 4 sources. I pick up the closest telephone book and dial what I see there.

"Fact checking" a phone number, wtf.

And then a +4 mod.

Lewis Black wouldn't even scream, he'd be struck silent this is so bad.

Comment: Re:University Industrial Complex is Ridiculous (Score 2) 538

by ACNiel (#46377769) Attached to: U.S. Students/Grads Carrying Over $1 Trillion In Debt

Although I can't disagree with your findings, you sort of uncover a different issue with the schools. CS degree is a math degree, not a tech degree, or should be.

Today they are a 4 year Java course. Even from schools where they aren't really, you have a lot of graduates that "took a lot of classes I will never use". Well, you shouldn't have wasted everyone's time, and went to a 6 week Arthur Anderson/PriceWaterhouse boot camp and right into the work force instead of wasting time in school.

I don't want an "Industry trained" architect designing my bridge anymore than I want an "Industry trained" person designing life saving systems. The people working on that bridge, and coding on the dialysis machine, much different story.

Comment: Mike Joy (Score 2) 538

by ACNiel (#46377731) Attached to: U.S. Students/Grads Carrying Over $1 Trillion In Debt

No one wants to hear it, but when it requires a college degree to flip burgers, you have a problem. When people have a bachelors degree to become "Java programmers" you have a problem.

Stupid people doing stupid jobs don't need a college degree.

HR departments and hiring managers need to learn this.

There is a lot of little things, not just one big answer. But it comes down to supply and demand all along the chain.

Comment: Illegal v. Assholeish (Score 1) 921

by ACNiel (#46363245) Attached to: Woman Attacked In San Francisco Bar For Wearing Google Glass

This isn't illegal, but lots of things that will qualify you as being an asshole aren't illegal.

There are things that you might do that will make you "deserve to get your ass kicked". Just because you deserve it, doesn't mean anyone has the right to do it.

If you act in a way that any reasonable person would realize would result in getting their ass kicked, and you do get beat up, I am not going to care. If you then have that person arrested for assault, I am also not going to care.

Comment: Re:No, not those who don't understand... (Score 1) 921

by ACNiel (#46363099) Attached to: Woman Attacked In San Francisco Bar For Wearing Google Glass

No, people that understand how google glass works are rightfully annoyed by it. It isn't fear or hype.

Other forms of cameras aren't tolerated either. And just because you CAN buy a small, secret camera (that people get upset about when they discover) doesn't make a more obvious camera more tolerable.

Some people don't like getting their picture taken. Some other people don't care about the first groups anxiety. Perfect understanding of the situation.

Comment: Correlation does = pedantic ass (Score 1) 104

by ACNiel (#46362993) Attached to: Blood Test of 4 Biomarkers Predicts Death Within 5 Years

Why would correlation!=causation get anything but -1 pedantic ass mods?

People keep repeating that so much on this board that it is negatively affecting their ability to critically think. When dealing with statistics, sometimes cause isn't important, just predicting an outcome with a high degree of certainty.

Just shut your mouth, and think about the conversation at hand differently.

These 4 markers are wildly disjoint. Clearly not one cause involved here. The causes of them individually are pretty well known. But if they can predict something with a high degree of certainty, what does that imply? Who can benefit? Who can get hurt?

Comment: Re:Playing devil's advocate (Score 1) 500

by ACNiel (#46351959) Attached to: Supreme Court Ruling Relaxes Warrant Requirements For Home Searches

No, the supreme court didn't get it wrong. It should never have gotten there.

She also knew he didn't want the search, but is a legal resident there. She could have picked up the phone at any moment in time and told the police she was presently looking at a firearm she knew to be illegal and they would have had a warrant.

The fact that she agreed and knew full well there was evidence laying around indicates to a reasonable person the warrant was "enroute" and a forgone conclusion.

Several states have gone so far as to make laws that state it explicitly and have not been challenged. It is ludicrous to think the police should look for everyone that might be a legal resident and ask them. Once you agree with that, then you realize that any one person can agree has weight over any one person can not agree.

It becomes really a no brainer when you realize that a wife and a husband might be at odds over something illegal and dangerous. The police come for the public disturbance that was reported an hour ago. There is no obvious signs of a crime now. The wife says come in and see our son who is taped to the bed in the back room, and the husband says no.

Any one person has the right to consent to public safety amid a sea of "no"s.

If the police lie about the one person giving consent, they were going to lie about hearing a gun shot. This isn't going to be abused. Corrupt cops are corrupt cops.

Comment: Re:I see civil suits (Score 1) 500

by ACNiel (#46351765) Attached to: Supreme Court Ruling Relaxes Warrant Requirements For Home Searches

If your roomate sees evidence of a crime, say a grow room in the basement, and they tell the cops, that is grounds for a warrant. This can all be done without your knowledge.

This simply can NOT be abused that badly. She was pissed off. They could have had a warrant presently. They didn't feel it was necessary for obvious reasons.

You can not sue someone for exposing your criminal activity. They are called whistleblowers and are protected.

Comment: Re:I see it now (Score 1) 500

by ACNiel (#46351691) Attached to: Supreme Court Ruling Relaxes Warrant Requirements For Home Searches

You bring up the best response as to why this isn't a story, and why it should never have gotten to the Supreme Court.

There is no reason to believe they shouldn't be allowed in the house. They didn't arrest the guy because he didn't consent to the search. They didn't think about searching until after they arrested him. They went back, and asked the current occupant. The arrest would have almost immediately gotten them a warrant, and a cop could have sat on each door until it came.

This isn't the supreme court weakening anything. This is a slick defense lawyer that got farther than he ever should have.

This is not an indictment of the Supreme Court. This is a testament to the very specific lawyer that confused the issue as well as he did.

I never cheated an honest man, only rascals. They wanted something for nothing. I gave them nothing for something. -- Joseph "Yellow Kid" Weil