Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Agile can fuck off. (Score 5, Insightful) 106

by Just Some Guy (#47724723) Attached to: Latest Wikipedia Uproar Over 'Superprotection'

To be fair, Agile can be freaking awesome. I worked at a devotedly Agile shop and it was a developerocratic utopia. After the few meetings we had, all participants walked away with legitimate action items. You didn't just get called in to listen to something that didn't concern you - if you were invited, it's because you were specifically needed.

I've also worked in places where Agile was a stultifying cover story for "actually waterfall but that doesn't sound as cool so we'll never admit it". That might be the kind of /dev/hell you found yourself stuck in. But that's not Agile Done Right, and shops that Do Agile Right really do exist.

+ - I Contain Multitudes->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Your DNA is supposed to be your blueprint, your unique master code, identical in every one of your tens of trillions of cells. It is why you are you, indivisible and whole, consistent from tip to toe.

But that’s really just a biological fairy tale. In reality, you are an assemblage of genetically distinctive cells, some of which have radically different operating instructions. This fact has only become clear in the last decade. Even though each of your cells supposedly contains a replica of the DNA in the fertilized egg that began your life, mutations, copying errors and editing mistakes began modifying that code as soon as your zygote self began to divide. In your adult body, your DNA is peppered by pinpoint mutations, riddled with repeated or rearranged or missing information, even lacking huge chromosome-sized chunks. Your data is hopelessly corrupt."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:What BS (Score 1) 157

by swb (#47721481) Attached to: Calif. Court Rules Businesses Must Reimburse Cell Phone Bills


Companies are merely looking to gain a set of benefits -- mobile communication and availability -- without paying for any of it.

The benefit from their perspective is two fold -- not only are you underwriting a significant cost for them, a device, a phone plan, you're doing it on a personal device, which presumes that you're also providing them with a communications availability that they get without any additional wage compensation.

The problem with it being "industry wide" means that they are no longer competing with each other in terms of a defined workplace compensation, so you really can't shop around in terms of finding a job as to who pays for what, they all just assume you're going to provide it for them and it stops being even something you can negotiate.

Given the chance, employers will always want to provide for employees like they're contractors (ie, nothing) but control them like they were slaves (ie, everywhere).

FWIW, it's easy enough to add an additional email account but I draw the line at importing a security profile on my personal device. If they want/demand that they need to provide a complete device. I will no more allow them to put security controls on my personal device than I will allow them to install security controls on my house.

Comment: Re:Working from home (Score 2) 157

by Just Some Guy (#47721135) Attached to: Calif. Court Rules Businesses Must Reimburse Cell Phone Bills

Should companies pay for part of the cable bill when employee are required to work from home?

I'm perfectly happy with the compensation of "we'll let you use the Internet connection you already had if you want to not come into the office and be distracted by a hundred meetings and other interruptions".

Comment: Re:Why such paranoia ? (Score 1) 283

Are you sure about that?

In general though, they face a LOT more public anger if they shut down an entire area. It would be even worse if even 1 single 911 call doesn't go through. The kill switch won't block 911 calls and will allow them to shut down coordinators based on cell traffic. Perhaps selectively enough that they could try denying the whole thing.

Comment: Re:This is ridiculous. (Score 2) 143

by sjames (#47718079) Attached to: Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

Finally, I remember that when I was younger (mind you, this was back in the 1970's), having to provide identification and being subjected to searches before being able to travel was the scope of godless Communists and tinpot dictators.

THIS! A million times over.

I specifically remember my social studies teacher in elementary school telling us the U.S. is good and Russia is bad and then explaining why. One reason is because in Russia you had to show your papers just to travel. Another was that in Russia the KGB listened to your phone calls.

The commies didn't die out, they just took over the U.S.

Comment: Re:This is ridiculous. (Score 1) 143

by sjames (#47718027) Attached to: Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

It is a constructive violation of our rights and is only continuing because the courts practically break their necks looking the other way.

Some argue you weren't forced to make a right turn, you were just prohibited from going forward, backing up, turning left or staying where you were. Constructively though, you were forced to turn right.

A strict constructionist wouldn't be bothered in the least if automobiles existed or not back then. They would only be concerned with the freedom of movement and point out that by car is a method of movement and therefor carries that freedom.

A strict constructionist would also recognize that the Constitution is a complete enumeration of the government's power but is far from a complete enumeration of the rights of the people.

Based on that, the extreme argument would be that cars and planes didn't exist back then therefor the government has been granted no authority over them at all. But that would be going to a silly extreme

Comment: Now just force society to accept transit limits (Score 1) 271

by swb (#47714759) Attached to: Helsinki Aims To Obviate Private Cars

Right now society (jobs, business interactions, legal obligations, etc) are generally structured around the common denominator of automobile transit. Your boss expects you to get to work around the basic parameters of what you can do in a car.

It's great to eliminate the car at some municipal level, now make "the bus didn't show up" or "there were no Uber/Zipcar/Car2Gos available" as some kind of universally accepted, legally unchangeable excuse for missing work, a court appearance, daycare pickup, etc.

One of the problems with the "yay, no cars!" world is that the rest of the world goes on making assumptions about people moving about that are based on the ability to get from point A to point B in a car.

Sure, in some places like NYC, a subway glitch will usually be accepted (in fact, I think they have a process for issuing excuse notes) and when I worked in a downtown office where there were a lot of bus riders, weather problems with the bus were generally not questioned or a cause for action.

But generally speaking society as a whole just assumes you're at fault.

try again