Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Greedy bastards. (Score 1) 174

by aardvarkjoe (#49155089) Attached to: Google Taking Over New TLDs

You're missing the point of how powerful branding can be.

No, I'm not. But it's not the ".dev" TLD that makes the branding. You're making the assumption that having a ".dev" domain registered to yourself will transform into that branding without any evidence, and against all logic.

Tell that to every good developer who wasn't hired because some shitty developer with an MSDN certification and no experience got hired instead.

So what? Idiot hiring managers will do what they do, and there's a huge list of stupid reasons why they might refuse to hire somebody. The availability of .dev domains doesn't make any difference in that respect -- anyone who would make a decision based on something that moronic would just find some other stupid reason to hire the poor candidate.

Comment: Re:Greedy bastards. (Score 1) 174

by aardvarkjoe (#49155001) Attached to: Google Taking Over New TLDs

At first it's not going to be considered an exclusive requirement that good developers have .dev, but eventually, as the .dev becomes a cognitive shortcut for "good developer" people will start thinking that those without .dev are in some way suspect - after all, if they were that good, why wouldn't they have a .dev?

If Google was capable of doing this, then there would already be a perception that all good developers are Google developers. And that isn't anywhere close to true.

This isn't just speculation, either - the same thing can be seen in the computer world today (or at least recently) with the "XXX Certification" nonsense, be it A+ / MSDN / whatever. I've seen job hiring requirements that require certifications that are pointless to the job, or that focus more on certifications than actual job experience or ability.

Nobody but idiot managers think that not having a particular certification means that someone is a bad developer. This isn't a problem where general perception is concerned.

Comment: Re:All your dev are belong to us.... (Score 1) 174

by aardvarkjoe (#49154573) Attached to: Google Taking Over New TLDs

But why does that matter?

I really can't see any reason why this is any "worse" than a single entity owning, say, http://developer.com/. Domain names really aren't like real estate -- the namespace is so big that you're always going to be able to find an alternative.

If there's some group organization that feels strongly that there should be a TLD reserved for developers, then they should go ahead and register one.

Comment: Re:Greedy bastards. (Score 3, Insightful) 174

by aardvarkjoe (#49154527) Attached to: Google Taking Over New TLDs

That no non-Google developer can register a .dev is akin to saying that if you don't work for Google you're not really a developer.

This doesn't make much sense. No developers have a .dev URL today, so obviously nobody associates the two that way right now. And if it's restricted to Google developers, that association is never going to be formed in the future either.

Comment: Re:If you hate Change so much...... (Score 1) 495

by aardvarkjoe (#49137657) Attached to: Users Decry New Icon Look In Windows 10

1c coin exists because there is a zinc lobby though they have agreed to a compromise which is a problem for the vending machine lobby. There is fundamentally no good reason economically and even politically this would be fixable given a less destructive congress.

The zinc lobby is a large part of the reason why the government won't make the change, but not the only one. The last time I discussed it with anyone, I was amazed at the number of seemingly rational people who were convinced that any attempt to get rid of the penny was a conspiracy to drive up prices.

Change of any sort frightens people, even over the stupidest of things.

Comment: Re:That clinches it. (Score 1) 393

by aardvarkjoe (#49091263) Attached to: PC-BSD: Set For Serious Growth?

You're arguing from a misconception, and looking like an idiot doing it. I haven't "lost" anything, because I'm not in a competition with anyone. This war that you think I'm fighting against Microsoft exists only in your own mind.

It is undeniable reality that millions of people, many of them non-technical, use a Linux desktop every day. You can make up your own definition for "year of the Linux desktop" if you like, but good luck getting everybody else to follow your lead.

I won't even throw a temper tantrum if you dare to present an alternative definition.

Comment: Re:someone explain for the ignorant (Score 1) 448

by aardvarkjoe (#49087847) Attached to: Credit Card Fraud Could Peak In 2015 As the US Moves To EMV

Wrong. The merchant's agreement says they are required to check. There's anecdotal evidence that CC companies audit merchants for compliance.

This is false. (Where are you getting your information from?) Not only are they not required to check, both Visa's and Mastercard's policies say that although the merchant may ask for ID, they cannot refuse a transaction if you refuse to show it.

Discover apparently does say that they should check alternate ID if there are any suspicions, although it doesn't require it all the time.

Sources:
http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/card-acceptance-guidelines-for-visa-merchants.pdf
http://www.mastercard.com/us/merchant/pdf/BM-Entire_Manual_public.pdf

Comment: Re:someone explain for the ignorant (Score 1) 448

by aardvarkjoe (#49084855) Attached to: Credit Card Fraud Could Peak In 2015 As the US Moves To EMV

While it's common in the US, both Visa and Mastercard policies say that merchants should not accept a card with "see ID" or similar instead of a signature. Technically, the merchant could be on the hook for fraudulent charges if they accept a card without a signature.

From a practical point of view, I've only heard of refusal to accept a payment because of that once or twice. But the cashiers aren't obligated to check your ID to validate the signature, so you don't have much call to get mad at them because of that.

Comment: Re:That clinches it. (Score 1) 393

by aardvarkjoe (#49074247) Attached to: PC-BSD: Set For Serious Growth?

Are you REALLY buying your own BS, or are you just trolling? As one Linux friendly site easily defines "a year of the desktop where Linux desktop market share suddenly rises in relatively dramatic fashion."

That's their definition. It's by no means a universally-accepted one.

If you want to argue about whether or not particular goals have been met, then you're going to have to define what those goals are and who is trying to achieve them. The phrase "year of linux on the desktop" doesn't do so.

Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.

Working...