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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:She makes mistakes, and punishes laid off worke (Score 1) 217

No, it hasn't.

Yes, it has, because when you wrote "your proposal would mean all startups would need to have their first employees be a watchdog group to set up controls so every future employee could never commit a crime" that's exactly what you did. Proceed in this manner and in a matter of hours you'll have a full set of workable proposals. :-)

By the way:

I would ever invest in any company / I would never start a company

That's fine. You'd be an employee or, better yet, a small scale entrepreneur. A world of small scale entrepreneurs is a good outcome for me. And, to be sure, it's part of an already developed economic system: Distributism.

Comment Re:She makes mistakes, and punishes laid off worke (Score 1) 217

It is simply silly.

No, it isn't. Suppose you yourself were living in the scenario I described above and, yes, if an individual below you commits fraud you are responsible too. How would you act? How would you setup your company so as to avoid being sent to prison by effect of middle managers' greed?

I'm sure the simple fact I asked question has caused you to begin thinking on possible risk mitigation solutions, hasn't it?

Now think an entire world of entrepreneurs thinking over that exact same question. Don't you think they'd have developed and kept improving best practices? Practices that are so ingrained in such a world's entrepreneurial culture they are taught in universities, absorbed in trainee years, and all but became second nature to anyone who deals with any significant amount of money?

Yes, it's workable. It might be unimaginable if you only spent one minute thinking about it. For a culture that spent (or were beginning to spend) tens of thousands of man-years thinking about it however, not so much. There, it's just how things are.

Comment Re:She makes mistakes, and punishes laid off worke (Score 1) 217

If they required these managers to invest significant amounts of their own money in the company before taking the job, they wouldn't take the job in the first place because it would always be a horrible investment from a diversification standpoint.

The simple and easy solution to this is to completely eliminate the shielding that exists between investors' personal assets and the concrete results of corporate policies.

If an investor is personally responsible for everything his money helped cause, then extreme diversification becomes a severe liability. Did you invest in an investment fund that purchased shares in your name from a company that was found to subcontract to a company involved in child slavery? Now you are guilty of personally trading in child slavery, will all the legal and criminal implications involved in it, including the legal obligation to fully compensate your victims, no workarounds allowed, not even insurance shielding. Don't want risk ending bankrupt and in jail because you put your money where it shouldn't be? Don't invest in anything you don't know perfectly well, be always on top of things, and never allow it to lead to anything even remotely socially negative.

That alone would do wonders in making the entire world of big business turn from the greedy rapaciousness we came to expect of it into one in which every rich person takes extreme care about where they put their money, as putting their money anywhere, including in a bank account, now has consequences that go far beyond merely losing that amount.

Investment funds would still exist, but they'd be very different. Instead of just huge analytical schemes trying to find where's the highest ROI and switching what they according this one single parameter, they'd have troops of managers directly combing very finely every legal and moral aspect of whatever they were looking into putting their clients' money so as to be absolutely sure not only their clients, but they themselves, would not end up poor and in jail.

Do you know that old saying according which freedom requires responsibility? Modern capitalism has set things in such a way that the rich have tons of freedom and very little actual responsibility. Fixing that doesn't require toppling capitalism. Rebalancing things so that responsibility grows proportionally with freedom would to the trick.

Comment Re:Why for new projects though? (Score 4, Interesting) 358

If you need a performant, statically typed language, there are better alternatives.

Sometimes you want a performant, statically typed language that also has a massive number of robust, mature open source libraries available for it. In general, if you want to do something that some other person conceivably may have wanted to do at some point in time, there's a Java library for it that has hundreds of users. Developing a load-balanced application server that uses websockets, communicates with a high-performance database, and uses PKI authentication? Heck, there's probably a maven stereotype that will take care of 95% of the boilerplate code for you. Not to mention the tools that are available -- there are few IDEs or profilers for any language that are as powerful as IntelliJ IDEA and JProfiler, for example.

Plus, learning something new is hard. Learning a new language can be tough enough, but it's far worse if you're switching frameworks on top of that. It doesn't matter if an alternative is better if Java is good enough and it's what you know.

Comment Re:Probably a lie (Score 1) 163

PP was a project of of eugenicists back in the day. They didn't want to outright kill blacks, but they wanted blacks to have less children than whites and thus, over time, for their relative (and maybe absolute) numbers to decrease in comparison to that of whites, thus "whitening" American society. A "soft genocide", so to speak.

The Wikipedia article on PP's founder provides more details about her views. Which, it is important to note, aren't the current view of PP.

Comment Re:I'll tell you why (Score 1) 207

Stop trying to explain the past to people who read about it already.

Sure! I'll tell that to all my teachers back at the University, in particular the ones who taught me Philosophy of Science I to IV, Philosophy of Physics and Philosophy of Biology. They'll love finally finding themselves enlightened! Thanks a bunch! (y)

Comment Re:I'll tell you why (Score 2) 207

especially the natural philosophers, or as we call them now, scientists

No. Scientist work from within a set of philosophical assumptions about a huge number of things, assumptions that are taken as givens "just because".

The good philosophers open up that black box of assumption and go on questioning, HARD, every single one of those. And none of those stuff scientists assume can be falsified, because they're the very basis upon which non-falsifiable methodological constructs such as the principle of falsifiability are built.

Philosophy is the art of making the annoying questions, no matter who gets annoyed, all the while never accepting hand waves such as "well, it works".

Comment Re:I'll tell you why (Score 1) 207

Science is "how", philosophy is "why".

Actually, philosophy is "wait a minute..."

What all philosopher, from everywhere and every time, did best, was to look around, think really hard about what they were seeing, notice something didn't fit, and express it. Expressing it usually comes in the form of trying to solve the problem (it's rare the person who simply asks the questions and stays at that), so it isn't a surprise that such a proposed solution, being the first attempt at solving that problem no one else had noticed, is weak. But then come others who down the line actually manage to solve it well.

Aristotle, by all accounts the third philosopher, wrote a book called "Questions". If I remember correctly, it's 400 pages of just that. After 2400 years we solved 20% of the book, and most of those 20% solutions only very recently.

Add to that all the questions philosophers since then made, and how the attempt at solving those questions led to progresses in all area, and you see that the task philosophers have is actually quite important. Annoying as hell, but important all the same.

Comment Re:Bigger picture of opposing whaling per se (Score 4, Insightful) 214

If they don't want to eat whales or use their skins - that's fine - but they don't have the right to ram down their viewpoints down everyone else's throats, particularly other countries. It reminds me of abortion - if you don't like it, then don't have one but leave other people alone.

Precisely. And the same should be applied to laws against animal torture. If you don't like to slowly rip the flesh out from living kittens, then smashing their toes with hammers, and finally setting their bloodied bodies in fire, then just don't do it. As for those who enjoy hearing the screams of tortured dying kittens, let them. /sarcasm

Submission + - American McGee's sister, Mercy Covington, Goes Missing after Threats (

An anonymous reader writes: American McGee, known for his work on the Doom, Quake, and Alice series, began receiving death threats that specifically named and placed his sister after he criticized controversial blogger Anita Sarkeesian. His sister disappeared on and has been missing since November 10. Right now little else is known, but anybody who lives in the Dallas area is encouraged to keep an eye out or contact the police if you have any information.

Comment Re:I guess I'm the only one who likes Thunderbird? (Score 2) 418

Claws Mail is pretty nice. It's still regularly maintained and very fast.

I use Thunderbird because I like using its Lightning extension to access CalDav calendars, and Claws doesn't have anything like that (or very good calendaring support in general), but I'd probably use Claws if e-mail was the only thing I cared about.

Comment Re:Devs continue to develop for these gimped thing (Score 3, Interesting) 143

Exactly. The "PC Master Race" seems to forget that piracy has really killed games on PC, at least the AAA titles. Indies are huge on PC (as they are on mobile), so that's all left.

Sorry, what did you say? I can't hear you over the sound of The Witcher 3, Fallout 4, Just Cause 3, Starcraft 2, Diablo 3... (some of which got console ports, but none of which were developed before the PC version)

Otherwise why else would developers subject themselves to content approvals and all sorts of other things when they can release on PC for free.

1) Releasing on PC isn't free if you're distributing through a major platform like Steam or GOG, which you'd be a fool not to do.
2) The cost of content approvals and other such things is more than worth the amount of money the console ports will bring in.

You're not wrong about developers doing multi-platform releases to make as much money as they can, but in the end piracy hasn't made a dent in PC games. Steam's DRM is effective enough that it stops casual pirates; the only people who pirate PC games are those who were never going to buy them in the first place. Then you've also got publishers are GOG, who are completely DRM-free, and somehow they still seem to be doing quite well for themselves.

Slashdot Top Deals

The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness. -- John Muir