Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Keys to the kingdom ... (Score 5, Interesting) 178

by Jahta (#48458465) Attached to: Cameron Accuses Internet Companies Of Giving Terrorists Safe Haven

The scary thing is these guys either don't understand, or don't care, about how much they're undermining the rest of the law and society.

Sure they care. They care a lot. They just don't care in the way that you care. They care about whether their efforts to maintain the status quo succeed. That's it. But undermining the law is very much part and parcel of that maintenance. The people running our countries are career criminals and if the law were to catch up with them, they would be in trouble. They must continually erode the law, or they will be labeled as what they are. Thieves, crooks, con artists, frauds.

This article tells you all you need you know about the establishment's reaction. From TFA:

"The report also reveals that the two killers had been investigated seven times by different agencies and that MI5 cancelled surveillance of one of the murderers, Michael Adebolajo, just a month before the attack."

But the report then concludes that MI5 (and the other security services) are blameless and it's all the fault of some Internet company. Simultaneously whitewashing the security services failure and justifying (in their minds) further cranking up of mass surveillance.

Comment: Re:Capitalism does not reward morality (Score 1) 197

by Jahta (#48425353) Attached to: Is a Moral Compass a Hindrance Or a Help For Startups?

Capitalism (private ownership and operation of property) in a free market system (system free of government intervention) has proven to be the best system for generating profits while improving the overall economy for all people involved. People tossed out the free market and they are trying really hard to toss out capitalism as well, they saw all the wealth generated in a free market capitalist system and believe that that wealth is gained somehow immorally, however I argue that making profits in a capitalist free market system is the most moral way to run an economy.

Except that isn't the case at all. As eloquently demonstrated by Ha-Joon Chang (economics professor at Cambridge University), the "free market" is a myth. Every market has its rules, it just depends which set you are playing by.

There is ample evidence that the rule set favoured by "free market" proponents enriches a small minority at the expense of everybody else. That doesn't make for a healthy (or moral) society.

Comment: Re:Monsanto (Score 1) 100

by Jahta (#48409405) Attached to: Group Tries To Open Source Seeds

Hell, Monsanto NEVER sold Terminator seeds. I find that people who rant about them as an example of the evils of Monsanto invariably don't know what the hell they are talking about. It is a nice bellwether.

True. They've just patented Terminator seeds. But they've promised never to use the patent. So nothing to worry about there then.

Comment: Re:That's true, but... (Score 1) 212

by Jahta (#48358447) Attached to: New Book Argues Automation Is Making Software Developers Less Capable

A better example is aircraft automation. Some fly-by-wire systems automated the routine stuff, of controlling and stabilizing the aircraft, but would drop out to manual control if the situation went outside the programmed parameters. This led to the crash of Air France 296 when the autopilot was disabled because of the low altitude during an air show flyover, and it turned out that the pilot didn't know how to fly the plane because he had relied on the computer far more than even he had realized. When the computer shut down, the pilot was unable to perform the "low level" task of keeping the plane in controlled wing-level flight.

Not to be pedantic, but the linked article doesn't say that at all. The pilot and co-pilot both had 20+ years experience. In fact the Captain was an Air France test pilot and "he had been heavily involved in test flying the A320 type and had carried out manoeuvres beyond normal operational limitations". The crash investigation found that the cause was flying too low (30 feet, instead of the designated minimum 100 feet) and too slow (running the engines at Flight Idle - minimum thrust), and consequently not being able to pull up in time to avoid hitting a stand of trees. As the linked article says, "The Captain's previous experience flying the aircraft type at the edge of its limits may have led to overconfidence and complacency".

Comment: Re:MS Azure AD should do this. (Score 1) 168

by Jahta (#48316019) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Single Sign-On To Link Google Apps and Active Directory?

Off topic. Only applies to azure.

Actually no. You can use Azure AD as an extension of your own AD, and it does support 3rd party SSO against Google and other SaaS apps. This can be a good solution for organisations that can't (or don't want to) expose their own internal AD on the internet.

Comment: Re:Just like "free" housing solved poverty! (Score 1) 262

by Jahta (#48267603) Attached to: Power and Free Broadband To the People

You're conflating a specific unspecified job with a job in general.

No he's not. The same thing is happening more and more in the UK; people with jobs who are not paid enough to live on.

It is indeed ironic that the free market types, who say they don't want government interference (or a welfare system), are quite happy to pay their workers below the poverty line and let the government (by way of welfare) take up the slack.

Comment: Re:Now we can see (Score 1) 71

by Jahta (#48267593) Attached to: Check Out the Source Code For the Xerox Alto

where Gates & Jobs got all their ideas from.

Actually, Jobs just brought people over to see the demo. No one actually saw any code.

Actually, according to Dealers of Lightning: Xerox PARC and the Dawn of the Computer Age, Xerox management instructed their developers to give Jobs a copy of the code. Which they did under protest, pointing out that Xerox were basically handing over the "crown jewels".

Comment: Re:Research (Score 1) 165

by Jahta (#48128917) Attached to: How Spurious Wikipedia Edits Can Attach a Name To a Scandal, 35 Years On

to find that the audience prefers misinfotainment over news. They demand entertainment over learning. Illusion over reality.

I am old enough to remember a day when the news was actually just that... News.... No opinion mixed in. Just the facts. When opinion was offered, usually after the real news, it was labeled as such.

Then media consolidation happened, the fairness doctrine was tossed and newsrooms nationwide were expected to turn a profit.

You've hit the nail on the head. If you haven't already, I'd recommend reading Flat Earth News. It covers how the new owners of news organisations increasingly cared more about sales (and advertising) than real news, cut their journalist head count (especially serious investigative journalists), and now get most of their content from a handful of agencies (which is why you see the same stories, often word-for-word, in multiple outlets).

Comment: Re:Being an asshole is not a crime (Score 2) 728

by Jahta (#48111061) Attached to: Why the Trolls Will Always Win

But acting upon it is.

Nobody really cares if you know a fool proof way to kill the prez (well, aside of some professional paranoiacs). As long as you don't act upon it, you're fine. If you DO, though, don't expect to remain free (or, for that matter, alive) for any measurable stretch of time.

Being an asshole may not be a crime. But threatening to kill somebody (whether you follow through or not) or spreading fabricated stories alleging criminal behavior to destroy somebody's good name is a crime. And rightly so.

The "I only posted it, so it's all OK" meme is part of the problem here.

+ - UK Conservative Party Proposes Police Vetting Of "Extremist" Posts->

Submitted by Jahta
Jahta (1141213) writes "Extremists will have to get posts on Facebook and Twitter approved in advance by the police under sweeping rules planned by the Conservatives. They will also be barred from speaking at public events if they represent a threat to “the functioning of democracy”, under the new Extremist Disruption Orders.

There are also plans to allow judges to ban people from broadcasting or protesting in certain places, as well as associating with specific people. The plans — to be brought in if the Conservatives win the election in May — are part of a wide-ranging set of rules to strengthen the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re: Mind boggling (Score 1) 167

by Jahta (#47981225) Attached to: Now That It's Private, Dell Targets High-End PCs, Tablets

Quarter to quarter, hmm, a piece of crap this quarter is still a piece of crap next quarter.

The other side of that coin is that business goes in cycles; even fundamentally sound companies don't return bigger profits quarter, after quarter, after quarter.

Case in point: personal computing manufacturers typically have big Q4s. Companies spend the last of the current year's budget, and consumers buy laptops, tablets, smartphones, etc. for themselves or others for Christmas. Q1, by comparison, is always quiet; something that a significant percentage of shareholders always seem surprised by.

Comment: Re:Your employer (Score 5, Insightful) 182

by Jahta (#47965437) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Who Should Pay Costs To Attend Conferences?

I once worked at a Fortune 500 company in Silicon Valley that didn't want to train employees because they might get certified, leave for a competitor, and make two to three times what they're currently making. Never mind that most employees were training themselves on company time, getting certified on their own time, and leaving for a competitor to make big bucks. Most companies just don't want to pay for training anymore, much less send people off to conferences where they might network and get hired by a competitor.

CFO asks CEO: "What happens if we invest in developing our people and then they leave us?"

CEO: "What happens if we don't, and they stay?"

Comment: Re:Ticket ToS (Score 1) 226

by Jahta (#47677885) Attached to: Posting Soccer Goals On Vine Is Illegal, Say England's Premier League

What terms of service do you agree to when you purchase a ticket and attend the event? Do you agree not to take and post videos of the event?

The ticket ToS specifically forbids any posting of match content. In fact you cannot bring any dedicated "audio, visual, or audio-visual" equipment into the ground. You can bring your mobile phone with you but, if you use it to capture any of the action, nothing you capture "may be published or otherwise made available to any third parties including, without limitation, via social networking sites."

The copyright angle is pretty moot. By buying your ticket, you've signed up to these terms and conditions.

The bogosity meter just pegged.