Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:F that (Score 1) 278

Depends on the animals. Cats are extremely low-maintenance. You could leave them alone for a week with an automatic litterbox and food dispenser. Or hire someone from Craigslist to check on them every few days. Some of them actually travel really well too, so you could always bring them with you. The main problem is finding hotels that'll take them, but you can always just sneak them in if they're not very vocal.

What I really don't understand is why so many people have dogs, and not just any dogs, but big dogs. There's no way you can get away when you have one of those things. They have to be walked at least once a day, they have to be let outside several times a day to relieve themselves (since they can't use litterboxes), if you live in a subdivision that means you need to accompany them outside so you can pick up the poo or else get fined (or you let them into your back yard and pretty soon the place looks like a Mad Max scene but with piles of dog poo all over), you can't easily take them on a plane (cats go in carriers under the seat), when you do take them they need a giant cage, and then frequently the pilot forgets to turn on the cargo bay heat so the dog freezes to death during the flight. The food cost is huge because they eat so much of it, so count on $50-100/month just for that, and on top of that now your house stinks and is filthy unless you invest a ton of time into constantly cleaning both the dog and the house (since they apparently can't keep themselves clean). You can board your dog when you travel, but that costs $30-50 per day, which adds up fast. Hiring a pet sitter from Craigslist is also doable, but most likely isn't going to work well because they can't visit often enough to let the dog out before it shits on the carpet or in his cage. You can't even spend an unplanned night at someone's house with a dog, because there's no way to arrange a pet-sitter that fast unless you have some very accommodating neighbors (and it's not good to assume they'll be around to take care of your dog at such short notice).

Comment Re:Trading one set of problems for another (Score 1) 278

But if you live in Atlanta or Charlotte or Phoenix or Omaha or Kansas City you're probably doing pretty well on 100K.

Yeah, but then you're living in a shithole, at least in the case of Phoenix. Plus you have to deal with temperatures over 100F every day and night for 9 months out of the year.

Comment Re:For starters... (Score 1) 278

Exactly. Even with $2.5B, this guy can't afford to pay off everyone's mortgage in the US. So if he pays off some neighborhood's mortgages, he'll have everyone else screaming for the same thing.

Doing it anonymously is the only way. Unless you're a fame-seeker like Trump, having that much money can be a real PITA because it'll bring so much attention to you, and you won't be able to have a normal life or normal relationships; everyone will be after you for your money. That's gotta make it impossible to get a decent girlfriend too: you're going to be a magnet for the gold-diggers, and won't be able to discern the quality women from them. Again, just look at Trump: you think Melania hooked up with him because of any true love?

Comment Re:After the Mozilla fiasco, they will be careful (Score 2) 89

Possibly, but not many tech people are at Eich's level. I know I'm never going to be CEO of any well-known company, for instance, and neither are most of the other people here. Of course, most conservatives these days seem to think that they're all millionaires who are temporarily down on their luck, even when they're living in a trailer, so they could very act the way you describe anyway.

Anyhow, there's a big difference between supporting a *candidate* and supporting a particular *law* (proposition). You can always argue that you liked the candidate and/or his/her stand on the issues. Even if it comes down to the H1B issue, you can argue that you believe the program is mismanaged, used to keep engineering salaries low, etc.

There really isn't any way to argue support for Proposition 8, except that you hate gay people and think they should have lesser rights. There is no other rational explanation for supporting that proposition. You simply cannot claim support for equal rights (a cornerstone of western society), and support a law which denies equal rights, so anyone who does deny equal rights for fellow citizens is nothing more than a bigot.

Comment Re:Interesting (Score 1) 89

Carly Fiorina, support the woman to do to the U.S. what she did to HP!!!

You mean taking an entity that used to make cutting-edge, ultra-high-quality, high-profit stuff and instead making low-profit generic cookie-cutter crap? Basically instead of competing with Germany, she wants us to compete with China?

BTW, has anyone else here used an HP business laptop recently? WTF is with the horrible keyboard layout?

Comment Re: this has nothing to dow ith the tech industry (Score 2) 89

This is why I believe New York state should be broken up, along with a bunch of other places around the country. "Upstate" New York should be split off from the NYC metro area, and given a new name and made a separate state. NYS is already one of the most populous states, so breaking off the upstate part will bring its population in line with other east coast states, and will still probably be one of the larger ones. Then the metro NYC area should be made into a new city-state, but by combining it with the surrounding states of NJ and CT. The northern half of NJ should be made part of the new NYC state, along with the western side of CT (especially the Stamford area). Of course, Long Island would also be part of NYC-state.

The southern half of NJ should be combined with Philly into another city-state, broken off from Pennsylvania. Then the remains of Connecticut (I'm not exactly sure where to draw the line) should be combined with Rhode Island. This will give us a total of 50 states, same as now. But we'll have two new city-states where the metro areas don't cross state boundaries (providing much greater administrative efficiency and better services, especially with transit), and the populations will be more balanced, with RI gaining a lot of population so they don't so much undue representation in Congress, and the citizens of NYS, NYC, and Philly all gaining representation in the Senate (because their two senators each will answer to fewer citizens). Also importantly, states with vastly different cultures will be separated so that state-wide politics have less infighting (upstate NYS vs. NYC, Philly vs. the rest of PA), and the people of each new state can have a state government that answers to them better, instead of constantly arguing with urban/rural people in the other part of the state about how things should be run.

Comment Re:India is corrupt (Score 1) 94

There's nothing corrupt about holding companies accountable for their violations of the law (including anti-trust law), and then fining them heavily when they're convicted. It sure beats the US/EU way of going to all that legal trouble, and then slapping them on the wrist with a paltry fine that's written off as "the cost of doing business" since they made far, far more by doing the illegal thing than they have to pay in fines as a consequence.

(The EU isn't quite as bad as the US in assessing paltry fines, but their fines are still paltry.)

Comment Re:A free search engine (Score 1) 94

Or are you one of those folks who think whatever business does is okay?

But if Google were to exclude competitors from its search engine, you really don't think there is wrong with that? Really?

Yes, really. He's one of those libertarian morons who thinks companies should be allowed to grow into absolute monopolies unimpeded, and then should be able to do whatever they want at that point, free from any kind of consequences because with a monopoly position it's nearly impossible to unseat them or compete against them. He'll probably say something about you wanting to "punish success".

Comment Re: Isn't this thing already deployed? (Score 1) 369

Opposing force technology is also improving. And they aren't hamstrung with an overpriced monstrosity and tied to failing tech.

I wonder how much of this stems from the workforces available. In the opposing forces, working in the military-industrial complex is likely a good career move; they probably get many of their best engineers working there. Here in the US, this isn't the case; working on military programs is a pretty poor career move compared to working in the commercial sector in one of the tech hubs. The pay is worse, the stability is worse (unless you work directly for the government, but then the pay is far, far worse), the work locations are frequently remote places far away from tech hubs and alternative jobs in case yours disappears, and the bureaucracy is infinitely worse so it's hard to get anything done in a reasonable time.

On top of all that, you have defense contracting companies who seem to be set up to milk the whole process for as much money as they can get, frequently by charging the government for billable hours; the process isn't designed to get actual working products in the minimum timeframe, it's seemingly designed as a big make-work program.

Comment Re:The above is informative ? (Score 1) 509

(yeah, I Godwin'ed the thread),

I really wish people would shut up about about this. There's nothing wrong with making references to and comparisons with Nazi Germany, in fact it's a good thing because we need to learn from that experience as a society, and there's countless parallels to be made, and constant vigilance is necessary to make sure we don't repeat this portion of history, as is often done with people who don't bother to learn history. Mr. Godwin himself has said that he never intended to squelch references to the Nazis, he was only making an observation about the trajectory of internet threads.

Comment Re:Yeah, nah. (Score 1) 509

RFID chips won't work. RFID chips don't have very good range, and they're easily blocked by aluminum foil. RFID is great for something like keeping track of warehouse goods or shipped packages, where the thing being scanned is inanimate, and the person scanning can see (or know) where the RFID chip is and just scan it, and there's no active attempts to prevent this. They don't work if you want to implant a chip in someone and then be able to track them as they walk around; it's not hard for them to put some metallic material over the chip. If *everyone* has the implant, they of course you can look to see if someone went through a scanner without the RFID being read, and nab him; but if only a subset of the people have them (i.e. citizens) and you're trying to use it to track the "undesirables" or lesser-privileged people, it won't work because they can easily make themselves look like citizens by shielding the RFID chip.

This is why secure facilities like military bases work with ID badges for privileged people: people who have access get a special pass they have to show. People without access don't get a pass. It wouldn't work the other way around, where unauthorized people have to carry a pass or declare that they're not supposed to be there, because you can't rely on honesty.

Comment Re:Yeah, nah. (Score 1) 509

Wrong. The US is not homogeneous. Yes, some cities like Seattle are doing pretty well in reining in their cops and prosecuting them for misconduct. Other places aren't. Seattle (and the entire PacNW) is **not** representative of the US as a whole, it's really quite different. It bears almost no resemblance to, say, Alabama or South Carolina, except that the same language (more or less) is spoken.

Life is a healthy respect for mother nature laced with greed.