Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Apples and oranges (Score 1) 225

Yes, there are a lot of very talented and driven international students who come to the US. I know many of them. Power to them. I'm happy to have them stay.

The issue here is jobs that don't require very talented and driven people. The article is about outsourcing accountant positions. We're not talking about MIT trained engineers; we're talking about run-of-the-mill, white-collar jobs that many people can do.

You're talking about the first category, but the article is about the second category: the H1B system was meant to bring in people from the first category, but the system is being abused to bring in people from the second category. The american education system is irrelevant to this discussion.

Comment The treaty won't last (Score 1) 162

The treaty is clear, and I imagine that most of us agree with the spirit of the treaty, but the treaty goes too far. It effectively bans any permanent settlement on the moon. If that ever becomes practical, this treaty will be mincemeat. We should make a better treaty now before the current one gets dumped -- possibly without a replacement.

Comment That tidbit clarifies nothing (Score 1) 381

"when offering their services in Europe" is still too vague. It clarifies nothing. It could mean: as long as you offer your services in Europe, our rules apply to you everywhere. Or it could mean: our ruling only applies to services offered in Europe.

Which one is it? Everyone seems to be trying to read between the lines to figure it out, but that merely means that everyone confirms their preexisting beliefs. Does anyone have a reputable citation with a definitive answer? (Preferably in English, but I realize that may not be possible.) My guess is that the answer is undefined; these regulators already seem pretty clueless about how the internet works.

Comment What exactly do the regulators want? (Score 1) 381

They are actually not trying to apply the law world wide. They are saying that it applies to all the search results Google serve to EU users, regardless of the URL used to access that search result (,, google.xx).

Is this actually true? I can't seem to find a straight answer on this. Some people are saying that the EU wants the "right" to be forgotten to apply worldwide. Others are saying it should only apply to searches coming from Europe. Does anyone have a reputable citation with a definitive answer? (Preferably in English, but I realize that may not be possible.) My guess is that the answer is undefined; these regulators already seem pretty clueless about how the internet works.

Comment Re:Revoked the keys, but is this still exploitable (Score 4, Informative) 67

Google Chrome no longer even bothers, ignoring revocation lists completely.

That's not quite what your article says. It says that google stopped checking with the cecurity authority using the Online Certificate Status Protocol. However, the article also says that chrome replaced that with a local list of revoked certificates that can be updated without restarting the browser. So, chrome still does keep track of revoked certificates.

Comment Re: Translated (Score 1) 451

Agreed. Note that at least two large manufacturers are missing, but I doubt Honda and Nissan will benefit because of the increased cost to other brands. In fact, I bet they'll soon jump on the bandwagon. Seriously, the cost of this is basically nill. It's mostly software and a couple bucks in sensors.

Comment Public roads (Score 1) 451

The driving we're talking about is done on public roads, so the public (and by extension the government) are entitled to require safety devices that reduce the risks to others on public roads. There is no "right" to drive on public roads without working brakes, lights, etc. The only slippery slopes here are the ones you'll spin out your unsafe car on -- and maybe hurt an innocent bystander. (That said, I think you should be allowed to drive without a seatbelt -- as idiotic as the idea is.)

Comment Try non ABS (Score 5, Interesting) 451

Speaking as someone who lives in WI, USA and, until recently, drove a car _without_ antilock brakes, you're nuts if you think that ABS is doing more harm than good. It takes very little to lock non-antilock brakes on a sowy road. ABS aren't part of some conspiracy. They're life savers. (FWIW I speak as an defacto American automotive Luddite with my manual transmission.)

Comment Just to be clear (Score 1) 191

TFA isn't saying that there might be no new particles. High energy physicists agree that there have to be new particles. TFA is saying that there will be new particles, but they may be almost impossible to find. That would be a bummer, but such is life. I think it's amazing that we've been able to probe such small length scales, but there are limits to what we can do given our resources.

Comment Re:Look at the prices (Score 1) 207

Response to your OT thought: It's still probably a net gain, mostly because gas-powered personal vehicles are just horribly inefficient. Consider this: it is more efficient to use the gasoline intended for your vehicle in a full-size gasoline-fueled power plant, generate electricity, send that electricity across power lines across long distances and incur lossage there, store it in a battery, incurring additional lossage, then use that to power an electric vehicle. All of those extra losses are still more efficient than just using the gasoline directly.

Do you have a source for this? I'm not saying it's false, I'm just curious.

a larger TV and such will match the significant difference of reducing the initial consumption by 1/4.

I didn't mean to suggest that buying a single TV would incur that much of an environmental cost. I meant the TV to be an example of increased spending on other things. I.e. if you're not spending money on a car, you might spend the money on more consumer electronics (not just a single TV), more travel, more beef, more furniture, etc. I think you're right that spending money on a car has less environmental impact than spending an equivalent amount of money on most other goods. I'm just saying that the effect of getting rid of the car is tempered by spending money on other things, and production of those other things are not captured in household electricity usage because they are produced outside the household. I.e the trick to reducing your environmental footprint is to buy fewer things in general -- not just spending less on cars.

All science is either physics or stamp collecting. -- Ernest Rutherford