Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:23% of the company (Score 2) 471

Problem is, shareholders rarely know what managers are likely to do or not to do. Managers' CVs don't usually contain evidence of their willingness to be dishonest.

Besides, blaming the shareholders for picking the wrong managers, but absolving the managers is pretty backwards. You punish the person who did the crime. Not someone that you think may have been in a position to help them avoid doing it.

Comment Re:23% of the company (Score 1) 471

No, because then it will cost the shareholders, not the managers who made the decisions. Those guys will still get their bonus by saying at the stockholders' AGM: "We deserve bonuses because it would have been worse without our skilled intervention."

Don't fine the company, that punishes the wrong people.

Jail the board of directors.

Comment Re: apple products are a walled garden (Score 1) 279

Oh yea also, from the Wikipedia article you linked:
"The Gateway Handbook was a very small and lightweight subnotebook originally introduced by Gateway Computers in 1992..."

1992 is in the 90s, so unless you had a time machine, that wasn't lying around your house on Dec 31, 1989.

Comment Re: apple products are a walled garden (Score 1) 279

Settle down, you'll give yourself a nosebleed.
Perhaps I was a little... enthusiastic in my description of how rare portable computers were in 1990, but here's a chart with data from Morgan Stanley Research that shows that laptop sales growth only really started accelerating at the end of the 90s, and only finally overtook PC sales in 2009. In 1995, when the chart's data begins, desktop PCs were the overwhelming norm. I was unable to find data that went back to 1990. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to presume that the proportional disparity between desktop PCs and portable PCs would have been higher, given that the cost difference between them is higher the further back you go. Perhaps your Google-fu is better than mine and you can find 1990-1995 data that shows that I'm wrong.

So my statement, that the 90s ushered in the era in which portable computing became commonplace, stands. Also, go easy on the ad-hominems dude. We're all friends here.

Comment Re: apple products are a walled garden (Score 1) 279

The 90s saw PCs fade in relevance and laptops become more commonplace. In 1991 a portable computer was a rare and expensive novelty, restricted to people with military grade budgets and business expense accounts that include annual maintenance costs in the private jet. By 2000 laptop sales outnumbered PC sales.

The 90s saw the emergence of mobile computing. That's a pretty big shift, and it ticks your "devices, jackass" checkbox.

Comment Re:Just read that piece a few hours ago... (Score 5, Funny) 55

It's good when the science is accurate, that doesn't happen often enough. I remember watching the Ninja Turtles movie and practically screaming at my wife:

Me: They just got bled almost dry and now they're being given ADRENALINE?! That wouldn't wake them up, it'd put them into cardiac arrest!!!
Her: It's a movie about sewer dwelling mutant turtles, taught by a mutant rat, fighting a ninja war in America, and THAT'S your plot hole?

Comment Re:Nostalgia is nice (Score 1) 124

I, too, am a Concorde enthusiast. But this is financial lunacy. The cost per seat flight is too high, and maintaining an aircraft will require them to assemble a small army of maintenance guys and engineers who do not have a ready market for Concorde related skills, meaning they will require specialist training programs as well as a small industry to keep parts supplies flowing. All for ONE AIRCRAFT.

Not going to happen. Never. I bet this is just a scam to get rich people with too much money to hand over about... oh... say $160 million?

Comment Re: I liked the cartoon that read: (Score 1) 662

I do concede that there is little by way of historically accepted evidence supporting the CIA's Libya involvement. However, that Ghaddafi was anti-West isn't any indication of his suitability. After he took power, Libya nationalized all its oil interests, the majority of which were British, and the oil flowed freely on the open market. Britain lost a large amount of its pricing power in the petroleum market. That, too, was very good for US interests. Read into it what you will.

The CIA supported Saddam at one time, and he was never pro-West. They supported bin-Laden, and he at best had a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" attitude towards the west. Pakistan's ISI still receives massive support from the US, and it's not like Pakistan sings the West's praise. The politics of military support goes well beyond public rhetoric.

Comment Re: I liked the cartoon that read: (Score 1) 662

you're telling me you would love to leave a non-Muslim country to return to a Muslim dominated area? Interesting.

I love living in Australia. I find the place welcoming, civilized (aside from Australian rules football, but don't tell my mates that or I'm out), and prosperous.

However, if I were given the opportunity to enjoy these benefits in a country where I have religion in common with everyone else, I'd go. And I really, don't see how you consider this to be "interesting" rather than obvious.

Saddam and Assad arose as heads of POPULAR movements.

They are both Ba'athists despite their rivalry. Ba'athism cannot even be described as a "significant minority" in either Iraq or Syria. My history is just fine, thank you very much.

What role did the West play in Ghaddafi's rise?

In the late 1960s, King Idris was on the way out, and every political analyst knew it was inevitable. The CIA was active in the country at the time, attempting to ensure that whatever transition took place, Western oil interests would be preserved. Ghaddafi's FOM group were presumably identified as conducive (despite public anti-West rhetoric), and so were provided with intelligence and logistical support which allowed them to successfully pull off a coup. There are numerous reports by FOM members of meetings that took place with operatives from the US. Nonetheless, this has since been denied by the CIA.

While I suppose no hard evidence has emerged of the West's role in Ghaddafi's rise like in the case of Pinnochet or Bin Laden, I do point out that picking the winner from a bunch of rebel groups to "manage" the transition from a failing state is pretty much the CIA's main MO. If they were NOT involved, they'd have been specifically failing in the job that they are assigned.

Comment Re: I liked the cartoon that read: (Score 1) 662

I'm not an expert in the interpretation of hadith, so I can neither verify that that is an accurate translation, nor can I comment on its significance in deriving a religious rule.

However, I CAN say without a shadow of a doubt that all of the passages that talk about the killing of non-Muslims are in the context of warfare, where there are very strict rules in place. The hard religious principles that apply to this sort of thing include things like:

1) One may not attack a person who is a civilian. There is no such thing as "acceptable collateral damage".
2) One may not attack a person who does not pose a threat, or who is not an active participant in war. So there's no justification for, say, bombing the cafeteria at the civilian head office of a military contractor that makes bombs, or any other civilian target.
3) One may not kill a person merely because of their belief. The principle that there is no compulsion in religion is a hard principle with no exceptions.
4) One may not deliberately kill oneself in battle, or deliberately sacrifice oneself by one's own hand. So suicide bombing and/or harakiri is out.

Whatever the sound bites that get paraded may indicate, these principles are hard principles that any Muslim you ask will know about. Feel free to print them out as-is, just as I've stated them here, and take them to your nearest mosque and ask the people you find there if they agree with them all. I'd be surprised if you find a single person who says "well, I think we could be flexible on one or more of those".

If you're really interested, I can ask my local scholars about the background and context for this particular reference and get back to you. These recounted sayings obviously took place in the context of conversations, and the rest of the conversation's context and lead up are as important as the quoted phrase itself. Feel free to email me, my address is Nazeer Gassiep at gma il dott com, and I'll get back to you with a full explanation of that in a day or two. Alternatively, visit your nearest mosque and ask the Imam there. Or do both, and compare the answers.

Comment Re: I liked the cartoon that read: (Score 1) 662

"I don't personally believe these statistics, therefore they are false"

Well, I go so far into the article as to verify that the article said 61% when the referenced research paper said 8%. So I'm not denying the statistics, I'm denying the article.

How about the survey in 2006 showing the large minority of Muslims in the UK supporting Sharia law?

So what? I support Shari'ah law. Do I support its implementation in Australia and the forcible subjugation of my countrymen to it? No. The Qur'an clearly states that there is no compulsion in religion. It is a core tenet of our faith, that forced belief, or even blind, unquestioning belief, is not belief. Belief is a sincere internal state of a person, not merely forced or imitated actions or words.

This question gets asked all the time to Muslims, and the answer gets misinterpreted all the time. If the asked question is "Do you support Shari'ah law?" then Muslims will answer yes every single time, just like a Jew would answer yes to "Do you support Halakhah?", and a Buddhist would answer yes to "Do you support Dharma?". How a journalist looking to sell papers writes up those answers is another matter entirely.

You sound like a sane, good person, like so many other Muslims I know.

Awww shucks :)

That doesn't change the fact that Islam, along with the other Abrahamic religions, is a brutal, archaic religion that needs to be left to history.

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I invite you to actually go to your local mosque and ask whatever community members you find there to sit down with you and answer any questions you may have that have led you to this conclusion. I think you'll find that spending time and having the common misconceptions dispelled will change your opinion.

The life of a repo man is always intense.