Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Not Really (Score 1) 434 434

Of course they can ignore it. Google is a vendor providing a part to the phone manufacturers, just like the company that makes the plastic case. Consumers buy their phone from the manufacturer or the service provider, so they are responsible for the customer's experience, not Google.

This is not an expensive computer. Phones are relatively inexpensive, and people just end up buying a new one every year or two anyway if they want the latest doodads. If people are still using the old phone with old versions of Android software, then they must be happy with it. Believe it or not a lot of people really do use their phone just for making phone calls.

Comment: Re:Grinding slowly but exceedingly fine? (Score 1) 71 71

I suppose there is some justice in the Prenda principals* living this trainwreck for years, as a sort of additional punishment before their inevitable jail sentences even start.

Who's going to jail? The lawyers? They are just hired help. The executives of Prenda? They are exempt since they hide behind the "corporation." The venture capitalists who are funding the whole thing? No, they are so above the law that it's not even funny. Maybe a few people will be disbarred. That's about it.

Comment: Re:this is science, so you have to ask... (Score 1) 301 301

is he wrong in saying that only having researching gender issues and only having researchers of only one gender may skew the research? what if this were two male researchers and a female rejected it for "ideologically biased assumptions"?

just sayin.

I don't know. We should go back to and recheck the majority of all research published, since it fits that description.

Comment: Re:Flip it around and... (Score 1, Troll) 301 301

I'm sure if a paper with the opposite conclusion authored only by men was submitted for review, women (both reviewers and others) would be decrying that fact,

Please cite the article about this happening? Or is this just your prosecution fantasy as a middle classed white male?

Comment: Re:Amazon has really been a stealth company (Score 1) 83 83

They started as a bookseller, then moved slowly into other merchandise

They started as a method to sell and distribute goods on the internet. Books were only their choice for a physical manifestation of the method. I guess you are too young to remember what people were speculating on back in the "boom."

Comment: Re:We need a law against overzealous prosecutors (Score -1) 206 206

Period

Hacking is relatively benign compared to the damage a prosecutor with an agenda can do. The latest round of these travesties is now going on in Wisconsin http://www.wsj.com/articles/ri... , It seems we get these popping up about once a year lately and it's been accelerating.

Nice way to use a real issue to push you political agenda. Wall Street Journal, the new Fox News for the criminally insane.

Comment: Re: Waiting for the killer app ... (Score 1) 390 390

IPv6 would help both enormously. Lower latency on routing means faster responses.

Responses? Most of the internet traffic is streaming video, which gains speed by being cached, not having a direct connection to the server. Fess up. Most people here screaming that they need IPv6 are only interested in game ping times. Or else they really don't understand the difference between latency and "ping time."

Comment: Re:IPv6 and Rust: overhyped and unwanted! (Score 0) 390 390

And 99.9% of people don't care.

There are a lot of things 99.9% of people don't care about. If that's your justification...

Me personally, I'd love my end-to-end connectivity back.

People who think they need end-to-end connectivity for everything don't understand networking. It's not only not required, it is undesirable in most cases.

Comment: Re:Complexity is a feature, not a bug (Score 2) 626 626

Part of the problem is, these two things are working at cross purposes. Contrary to your instinct, making a language easy to learn will also probably harm the cause of fostering interest.

The problem is, from a sort of detached, scientific, logical point of view, it sounds like a great idea to have a language that is simple, easy to learn, containing definite rules, with no irregularity, and leaving little room for ambiguity. The problem is, people don't want language to work that way. It's not specifically that they want it to be hard to learn, but they want a language with nuance and ambiguity. We like puns and plays on words. People often enjoy and appreciate slang, or unusual word choice.

I am an American English speaker who has taken the first step to learning Japanese. One of the first things that confuses westerners about Japanese is the four alphabets, two phonetic (hiragana and katakana), one symbols borrowed from Chinese (kanji), as well as the English alphabet. Why not standardize the whole thing on English, and get rid of the rest? Well, then I discovered Kanji puns. There are different pronunciations and meanings for each Kanji, and they can be used in various ways to create double and triple meanings. The Japanese love to use Kanji puns. So, yeah, no one is looking for the optimally simple language. People want a language that the average people can communicate in, and the clever people can be funny and interesting in.

Comment: Re:Remove access ASAP (Score 3, Insightful) 279 279

Removing access immediately is important for 2 reasons. The first is obviously security. Then 2nd is figuring out what he does & making sure somebody else has that access & knowledge.

Beat me to it. When I saw "finishing up projects," that immediately raised a red flag. All projects should immediately be turned over to other staff, and the short termer can watch over their shoulders and answer any questions. It may make sense to let them keep email and IM during the time, and maybe even read-only to code to help look up issues. But that's about it.

For me it's not about security of the company. It's security of the person leaving, so that they can't get blamed for breaking something during that time. But the most important thing is knowledge transfer. Two weeks is a very short time to document all the little things that were picked up during their tenure.

My biggest complaint recently has been people leaving without proper knowledge transfer. Even after I emailed managers on that point, and was told to try to stop scheduling meetings with him. "He's too busy." Sigh. Now I'm left picking up the mess he left behind.

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." -- Will Rogers

Working...