Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:CareerBuilder AND Monster are Job Spammers (Score 1) 212

by RabidReindeer (#49599357) Attached to: Want 30 Job Offers a Month? It's Not As Great As You Think

I know an architect who was going nuts over stuff like that. All he got was "computer architect" jobs, and since that became a code word for "IT person not in India", it got completely out of hand.

I also receive brain-dead harvesting in my inbox. I'm open to remote work, but half the stuff coming in says "No Remote accepted" and half the remainder says "Must be able to work with remote (e. g., offshore) teams".

So much for "intelligent agents".

Comment: Re:If SPAM is a problem, you aren't meant for IT (Score 1) 212

by RabidReindeer (#49599349) Attached to: Want 30 Job Offers a Month? It's Not As Great As You Think

If you're that paranoid, you encrypt your mail and let them make do with the meta-data. Or better, route it through an anonymizer.

The main advantage of not using [big name company like Google] is that the US Government isn't likely to have a permanent anchor right there in the data center where they can essentially harvest at will a la AT&T's Room 415. A private server would require them to put "boots on the ground", so you'd at least be aware that something was going on.

Comment: Re:PROTIP (Score 2) 212

by RabidReindeer (#49599339) Attached to: Want 30 Job Offers a Month? It's Not As Great As You Think

Find a few local recruiters, make friends with them and touch base every year. When they get tired of your coy nature, rinse and repeat. They need your money and will hang on long enough that if you do ever get laid off, you have at least one starting point. Saved me once.

Unfortunately, the actual recruiters (people) around here have a very high turnover rate.

The recruiting company itself may endure (or be purchased), but they don't have any retained knowledge of what I might bite at. So I get useless offers, blow them off, then they don't think about me when something more interesting comes along.

Comment: Inventions vs. Engineering (Score 1) 59

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) 170

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.

Comment: Finance::Bank (Score 1) 72

by bill_mcgonigle (#49594417) Attached to: How an Open Standard API Could Revolutionize Banking

Other posters have already demolished the idea that banks will do this voluntarily or by edict.

The engineering approach is to not involve them. The Finance::Bank collection is the closest you're going to find to a workable solution.

Anybody who has money to spend on a government "solution" should send it to these developers instead.

Comment: Re:Try again... 4? (Score 1) 222

by bill_mcgonigle (#49594319) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down

Think about it. You may love the open source movement, but how would you like it if you wrote software at your day job for a salary...and then one day the government said "Hey, we decided that all software is free now. So you can't charge for it, even if you worked hard to make it and invested tons of money in the software-making process."

That's a nonsense argument. Absent monopoly grants, software goes to the person who paid for it, and they have the choice of whether to release it or not.

It's when it's released to the public, do you have Men With Guns threaten the People for making copies of that software or not? That is the ethical question. Do predictions of purported benefit from social-engineering justify threats of murder?

You, or at least anyone reading this who fits this profile, should think carefully about the foundation of your own ethics.

*Yours* is based on threats of violence for duplication (not stealing) of information. It abolishes a portion of _real_ property rights for imaginary ones, when there is no demonstrable harm other than a postulate of diminution of earning potential.

The reduced argument is "murder for profit".

Comment: Re:Choice, not force. (Score 0) 310

by bill_mcgonigle (#49594205) Attached to: Mozilla Begins To Move Towards HTTPS-Only Web

I doubt it. Their vision for the future is sound, but they're not strongly connected to the reality of maintaining a good browser for the present at the same time. Mostly chest-beating rather than doing the hard work required.

Mozilla has gotten brazen lately about forcing questionable changes on users

Right. I have to manage $1200 PDU's that use SSLv3, so to use Firefox I had to re-enable SSLv3 for all sites. That's the only choice Mozilla felt like giving users. That's not bold, it's lazy and worsens overall security for the Internet.

If they think I'm going to get $30K to replace working gear "because Firefox" they're delusional.

Comment: Re:He also wants to roll back civil rights too. (Score 1) 430

by roman_mir (#49593687) Attached to: Rand Paul Moves To Block New "Net Neutrality" Rules

Because Rockefeller colluded with railroad companies and had secret arrangements to get bulk discount for himself and shafted his competitors.

- there is absolutely 0 wrong with providing a company with a promise to buy scheduled services on the clock without interruptions and to pay for the service whether or not you can use 100% of its capacity that day.

If I want to start a shipping business I can talk to an import/export broker and work out a schedule, where regardless of my circumstances I will ship 1 container every 2 days with him on a clock and because of that certainty of payment he will give me a much better price than he could anybody else.

As to Rockefeller's 'secret deal to prevent shipping for others' - baloney. The so called 'secret deal' was no such thing, it was a discount that Rockefeller was getting that nobody else could get because they would not ship a supply of that much oil on the clock, whether they have it or not that time and pay for a prearranged amount of delivery as promised.

Rockefeller was absolutely right and the reason that oil never went below 7 cents was exactly because government destroyed his company and did not allow him to find new ways to increase demand by lowering prices even further. Nobody was finding any better way of doing business in that time, otherwise they would have won against Rockefeller and that is all there is to it.

Microsoft had a temporary monopoly for a very good reason: they provided the computing platform that nobody else could provide at the price and just because you can't accept that doesn't change that fact. Microsoft and others also pushed hard enough in the market that competitors actually had to innovate to become competitive in that market, which is how free and open source software came to existence.

As to me being 'religious' about free market - I cannot stand hypocrisy of the modern society that will vilify the individual and promote the collective and use the force of the collective to oppress the individual. If I am 'religious' about anything that would be the belief that individual freedom tramps every so called 'societal good' that you can come up with that is based on lies, oppression, destruction of the individual, theft from the individual, slavery of the individual by the collective.

Comment: Re: already done (Score 1) 125

by RabidReindeer (#49592129) Attached to: Obama Announces e-Book Scheme For Low-Income Communities

Or just supporting libraries in general. Also, does anyone think it's a little odd that they want to provide $250 million worth of something that could be copied an infinite number of times?

One of the names mentioned was HarperCollins.

You might remember them as the yokels who wanted ebooks to "wear out" after they've been read 25 times.

Don't expect them to support "infinite copies".

This is now. Later is later.