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

 



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

Comment Re:After the Mozilla fiasco, they will be careful (Score 1) 74

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) 74

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 1) 74

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) 59

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) 59

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) 344

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) 504

(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) 504

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) 504

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.

Comment Re: I suggest we confuse the primary Uber benefits (Score 1) 152

No, my position is that we should look at better ways of managing an economy than creating make-work jobs and forcing people to use far less efficient and convenient services just to keep some people employed.

Answer me: Do you really think the government should force people to eat at restaurants, instead of making their own food? Do you think people should be forced to hire maids instead of cleaning their own homes? Because if you support keeping taxi drivers employed and banning automated cars from being used as taxis, that's exactly what you're supporting. It's no different than banning cars in 1900 so buggy-whip manufacturers and their employees can keep their jobs.

Comment Re: I suggest we confuse the primary Uber benefits (Score 1) 152

That Mercedes won't be so clean 10 years from now.

So what? Uber won't let them drive a car that old.

It's not like they'll be able to sell a car, unless they lie about the fact that it was a Uber car.

First, it's their choice. I guess you're one of those people who hates it when people have freedom of choice, and wants local governments to tell them what they can and can't do.

Second, it's still a Mercedes. They have much higher resale values (even with lots of miles) than the POSes that taxi companies usually drive (except maybe Priuses, as a percentage depreciation).

Comment Re: I suggest we confuse the primary Uber benefit (Score 1) 152

>No they don't.

Yes, they do. I see it here all the fucking time.

>Again, no, they usually go on about vehicle safety and insurance.

Then they're morons. There's no way in hell a nearly new Mercedes is less safe than some 30-year-old piece-of-shit Crown Victoria. Crown Vics are notorious for being dangerous cars when rear-ended; a lot of cops died because of that. Why do you want to ride in shitty old unsafe cars instead of riding in new, well-engineered cars which top safety rankings?

Byte your tongue.

Working...