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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Interesting but... (Score 1) 229

by JeffOwl (#49777023) Attached to: Elon Musk Establishes a Grade School

It is an interesting idea but I fear it will work with a group of students that would do well anyway. I really would rather see him dump money into an inner city school or even offering scholarships or loan forgiveness for teachers.

Lets not change too many variables at once. Work the kinks out with low risk students and then bring in the high risk students.

Comment: Nancy Lee didn't go into STEM either (Score 1) 424

Why didn't she go into STEM? Does she regret that decision? Would her life have been better if she had dropped all this diversity nonsense and pursued a career in programming instead? Or is this not really about the girls and women, but rather about benefits to the company? Note that I actually believe there is a practical benefit to the company from genuine diversity.

Comment: Re:not the real question (Score 4, Insightful) 200

If he did this on an actual aircraft in flight (he didn't, it's BS) then he put the lives of everyone on that plane in danger. They don't let flight control software on a plane without a well understood pedigree for a reason and he was mucking with that. If he did this on an actual plane in flight (he didn't) he belongs in jail. If he didn't do it (he didn't) then he is basically confessing to a crime that wasn't committed, and perhaps he should be committed himself, that or the FBI is full of shit and it wouldn't be the first time for that. If the entertainment system actually has a way to send data to the critical flight control systems then a bunch of engineers and executives belong in jail right beside him, and throw in some FAA folks for good measure.

Comment: Re:What Bothers me Most (Score 1) 121

I wholeheartedly agree with you. The way it seems to work in the US is that you have a bunch of politicians who want X bill to pass, but some others that either don't want it, or don't care. However these others want unrelated provision Y to become law. The two sides make a handshake deal and combine the different topics in one bill. Or one side of the aisle doesn't want a bill to pass but they don't want to be seen voting against it, so they add some rider to the bill that is completely unpalatable to the other side. Or the other way, one side wants a provision that the other would never pass, so they add it onto something that must pass (veterans benefits, say). It's a win-win for the first side because they will either get their rider, or they can slam the other side for being anti-veteran. Happens all the f-ing time. And I agree that all this stuff is BS. Every topic should get a straight up or down vote. I think it was in the state of MN that they have a constitutional provision that requires one bill to be one (broad) topic. They fought the concealed carry law (and won) based on the fact that it was passed with a department of natural resources budget bill. Concealed carry passed separately later on.

Understand that even though the bill was something that was, on the surface, completely unrelated, it actually amends the relevant code. So if you want to know what's in the copyright code, you would look at the copyright code once it is modified. In the old days I can see this as being problematic, but with everything online just finding the current language isn't a problem.

Comment: Re:They trained their replacements (Score 4, Interesting) 612

by JeffOwl (#49658021) Attached to: FWD.us To Laid-Off Southern California Edison Workers: Boo-Hoo
I've seen this done twice. The company reorganizes the departments such that it isn't so much a "skill" issue, it's a "skill mix" issue. The help desk people don't know how to also be Linux Admins, the Linux Admins don't know how to also be COBOL programmers, the COBOL programmers can't also be web developers. Then they post the new job classifications at cheap rates so that few permanent US residents want to take the jobs. Once they got the new people in, the org changed again so that a year later is was back to being pretty close to the way it started.

Comment: Re:The beginning of the headline is a tad misleadi (Score 3, Informative) 227

I think it is pretty clear. If there is any doubt all you have to do is read Zuckerberg and you should know this isn't altruistic. After eliminating many of the teachers he'll use this to classify the rest as "Tech Workers" and replace them with H1Bs. If any doubt,remained the first sentence in the summary says "...announced Monday a $100 million Series B round led by established VC firms and high-profile tech investors..."

Comment: Re:Pinto (Score 5, Insightful) 247

by JeffOwl (#49567647) Attached to: The Engineer's Lament -- Prioritizing Car Safety Issues
As a former semi driver and still current CDL-A holder, I would like to say the parent was exactly right and your attitude is not helpful. Truck drivers do absolutely have a duty to drive responsibly and not put others in harms way. Too many drivers out there take what happens on the road personally. Take the emotion out of it. I know that can be hard to do, but it is necessary for your safety and sanity if you are going to be driving 8+ hours a day. I have seen plenty of shitty driving at every level from bicycles to motorcycles, to cars, to light trucks, and up to double and triple trailer semis. EVERYONE, you included, has a duty to drive in such a way as to minimize risk to those around them. You can't stop as fast as a passenger car? Leave more room. Someone cuts in front of you, back off and recover your margin. There will be times when that means you are driving slower than surrounding traffic because people keep cutting in while you try to maintain your margin. You will still be moving forward. You, as a (supposedly) professional driver are (and should be) held to a higher standard.

Comment: Re:Ugh (Score 1) 194

by JeffOwl (#49535899) Attached to: Yahoo Called Its Layoffs a "Remix." Don't Do That.
Technically, you can't hire someone to directly replace a laid off worker for some period of time. What you have to do is shuffle the org so that your existing employees don't have the right "skill mix" for the way the company will operate in the future. Then you hire the H1B's whose resumes exactly match the posting (miraculously). Whether the new org sticks or not isn't important.

The world will end in 5 minutes. Please log out.

Working...