Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Oh common.. (Score 1) 391 391

by Brad Mace (#34179872) Attached to: Real-Life Gadgets For Real-Life Superheroes
Are you honestly that naive? Really? What do you suppose they're doing? Do I have to let him come in and kill someone before I can do something about it? I don't agree with the right-wing in the US on much, but at least they think my life is valuable enough that I should be entitled to defend it. It's absolutely pathetic when people value the lives of criminals more important than the people just trying to live their lives and have the audacity to consider it "civilized". So much sympathy for criminals and yet mysteriously little for their intended victims.

Comment: Re:I don't know anything about this but.. (Score 1) 306 306

by Brad Mace (#30766972) Attached to: Martian Microbe Fossils, Not So Debunked Anymore

I'm not sure if it tells us anything about what kind of life we might find elsewhere in the universe. If they find life on Mars, I think there's a fair chance that life or some of its makings was transplanted from Mars to Earth or vice versa, and would therefore have some inherent similarities. Plus, Earth and Mars formed from the same dust cloud, giving them many of the same raw materials. They have fairly similar sizes and orbits, all of which could predispose life to develop in similar ways.

Of course, finding life on Mars would be a huge scientific breakthrough, but to generalize about the requirements of life throughout the galaxy or the universe we need a far larger data set, which is obviously centuries off. If they determine that life evolved independently on Earth and Mars, that's another huge discovery that tells us a lot about how common life is, but not necessarily what shapes it will take. There are legitimate reasons to suspect all life might require water, but we're a bit biased by our own circumstances.

Comment: Re:yeah (Score 1) 1049 1049

by Brad Mace (#30726338) Attached to: Does a Lame E-Mail Address Really Matter?

You can rail against the injustice of it all you want, but when someone has to go through 30 applications for 1 job opening (and maybe they've got a dozen other jobs to fill each with 30 of their own applicants), they're not going to sit down and learn everyone's life story. They've got to get the list down to a handful to actual look at in depth, and to do that they're going to use shortcuts. After they throw out the ones that are clearly not qualified, they're going to look at things like spelling, grammar, and (depending on who's doing the reviewing), maybe your @aol.com address. Therefore, ditching an AOL address is one more little tweak you can make to your resume to keep it in the pile.

You seem to be under the impression that the hiring process is about you, or justice or fairness or something. They don't care about you. They generally just want to find someone qualified reasonably quickly. When they've got one more interview slot and two similar applicants, little things can make a difference.

Comment: Re:yeah (Score 1) 1049 1049

by Brad Mace (#30724858) Attached to: Does a Lame E-Mail Address Really Matter?

Fair enough, but I was about 13 when we had AOL, so not my choice. :)

But we should also remember that the reason we disdain AOL and/or its users is directly tied to the reason it was successful. It's the internet with training wheels. In the mid to late 90s there was a huge demand for just that, but now the world's grown up and people are expected to be able to ride on their own. (and now that everyone has at least one 'computer person' in their family it's practical for people to learn from each other instead of working it out themselves on services like AOL). All this is exactly why people are going to be judged for having AOL emails: it announces to the world that you're taking your first baby steps into the world of computing.

Comment: Re:yeah (Score 4, Insightful) 1049 1049

by Brad Mace (#30722952) Attached to: Does a Lame E-Mail Address Really Matter?

Really? Pretty much everyone with any tech savvy abandoned aol years ago. Also, anyone with any tech savvy knows how AOL is regarded. So if you apply for a tech job with an @aol, you're telling them you're either clueless, stubborn, or just totally lacking in common sense. All of those seem like valid reasons to toss an application if you need to thin the pile. For a less tech-oriented job I wouldn't consider it such a big deal, but with so many jobs requiring some level of computer usage, who wants to hire someone with AOL-level computer skills?

Would a nutritionist apply with an @mcdonalds.com email? A truck driver with an @alcoholicsanonymous email? It's just common sense.

Comment: Re:As someone who purchased ... (Score 1) 507 507

by Brad Mace (#30571528) Attached to: NY Times, LA Times Want Amazon To Collect More State Taxes

recommendations on a sale-level; people who bought this also bought that, 57% people on this page bought this item, the others went here, combo deals with books you viewed before, etc. You'd think they would be able to come up with a system for the taxes

Not the same thing at all. There's no legal repercussions for bad recommendations, and the other features are only mildly clever algorithms. Paying taxes requires understanding and then keeping up to date with tax codes in what must be 10s or 100s of thousands of jurisdictions then filing the appropriate paperwork and submitting the payments. There's state, county and city level and even other entities like levy districts which can overlap the boundaries of the other levels. If anyone can, Amazon can probably manage it, but you can't just target Amazon with a rule like this. You'd be sinking a lot of smaller online retailers who can't manage all the insane complexity.

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." -- Will Rogers