Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:What next? (Score 3, Insightful) 106

by Dragonslicer (#49775623) Attached to: Hot Topic To Buy ThinkGeek Parent Company Geeknet
My initial reaction was also "WTF?", but this isn't as completely insane as you might think. I don't know if they still have them, since I haven't checked in probably 10 years, but I used to go into Hot Topic once in a while because they had a few racks of video game-themed t-shirts. So ThinkGeek isn't too far off from stuff that they at least used to have in the stores.

Comment: Re:Only Two Futures? (Score 1) 609

by Dragonslicer (#49727739) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

Only three out of the ten commandments are codified into US law: thou shalt not kill (murder), thou shalt not steal(theft), thou shalt not bear false witness (perjury). Adultery laws might still be on the books in some states, but I doubt they'd hold up in court. Otherwise you are perfectly free to dishonor your parents, worship graven images, work on Sunday, take the Lord's name in vain, and covet your neighbor's wife. As for abortion: an embryo or a fetus is not a person and it is not viable to live on its own. Even the Bible makes this clear since the punishment for striking a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarriage is not the same punishment as murder.

First, thank you for bringing up the penalty for striking a pregnant woman. I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers those verses whenever anyone claims that God says abortion is murder.

However, "Thou shall not kill" is definitely wrong. The Hebrew word is "murder", not "kill". There isn't any ambiguity on that one.

Also, you could arguably give half credit for the Sabbath commandment. Up until recently, a lot of states restricted businesses being open on Sundays. Even now, there are quite a few laws about what you can do on Sundays (restrictions on the sale of alcohol is the first one that comes to mind).

Comment: Re:And? (Score 1) 78

by Dragonslicer (#49698567) Attached to: College Board Puts In Charge of AP CS Program

So their plan is to make cheap laborers by educating children in CS and flooding the labor market with them and H1-B's? Really, you guys are incredible. You think Gates is doing this so labor is cheap for...Microsoft in the future? So he can make more money for...Microsoft?

I know it's hard to believe, but every once in a while you get someone who's capable of thinking past the end of the quarter.

Comment: Re:Sounds like 6 strikes is terrible (Score 1) 186

taken without permission. The last 3 words in the previous sentence define theft.

No, they don't. Theft is taking scarce good without permission. You can keep using their newspeak if you want though.

Depends on where you live. Some states define "Theft of Services" as a crime.

Comment: Re:It not very hard (Score 1) 167

by Dragonslicer (#49671927) Attached to: How Spotify Can Become Profitable

1. Many musicians have families and work to create an inheritance for them. If there is no copyright past death there is no inheritance.

So, when I die, can I still have the company I work for continue to pay my family for the work I did when I was alive?

Copyright laws that extend beyond the death of the artist are an abomination.

No, but the money that you were already paid does go to your family. Your company will also pay your family for your unused vacation time (at least this is true when you leave or are fired, so I assume it's true if you die unexpectedly). The term is "deferred compensation", and that's what royalties are.

Copyright terms that automatically expire at the death of the artist are what would be completely unfair. In addition to the danger of a young artist dying unexpectedly, as another poster described above, it would provide reduced incentive for older artists to continue producing works. A fair copyright term would be a fixed length, completely regardless of what happens to the creator. Otherwise, the monetary value of the work is directly dependent on the age, health, and, to some extent, luck of the creator.

Comment: Re:They trained their replacements (Score 5, Insightful) 612

These guys are jerks. Obviously the Edison IT workers were qualified - they trained their replacements. Equally obvious they were available to do the job, so there was no reason to bring in H1Bs. Outright fraud by Edison, abetted by the government.

I think training someone else to do a job is harder than doing the job, so I'd say they were better than qualified.

Comment: Re:sampling bias (Score 1) 405

by Dragonslicer (#49651637) Attached to: Is IT Work Getting More Stressful, Or Is It the Millennials?

Now the "new trrend" (about as new as email and WWW was in the 90s) is IM...

How is IM a new trend? AIM, ICQ, and XMPP have been around since the mid to late 1990s. IRC is even older, if you want to count that as IM. AIM and ICQ are only slightly older now than SMTP was when they first appeared (approximately 20 years vs. 15 years), but they were only about 5 years after HTTP and HTML, and IRC was developed before HTTP and HTML.

Comment: Re:Deniers (Score 1) 525

The problem is that practically all the climate models used so far are wrong. From a scientific viewpoint it is just an unproven theory, because its predictions are either not proven (because we're waiting the results) or proven wrong.

In other words, it's a scientific hypothesis. That doesn't mean it's wrong. That doesn't mean it's likely to be wrong. It only means that we don't have a bunch of extra Earths lying around with which to conduct repeatable experiments that would confirm the predictions of the hypothesis. The hypothesis might be wrong, even if the likelihood of its being wrong is very low.

By the way, science is never proven. Proofs are for mathematicians.

Human-made global warming: every sensible man should consider this a wild speculation at the moment

Uh, no, a sensible, scientifically literate person should consider it a valid scientific hypothesis. Sure, it might be completely wrong, but it probably isn't.

Comment: Re:Pay, not talent (Score 5, Insightful) 553

by Dragonslicer (#49613965) Attached to: Recruiters Use 'Digital Native' As Code For 'No Old Folks'

Companies want recent college grads because they know they're willing to work for less, not because they believe them to be more talented.

I think it's more than just accepting lower salary, but also accepting more abuse. A 23-year-old is less likely to have other major commitments (in particular, a family). It's a lot more difficult to force someone to work 60+ hours per week when they have to be home to help take care of the kids.

Uncompensated overtime? Just Say No.