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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: Is Agile Development a Failing Concept? (Score 1) 507

by drkstr1 (#49695131) Attached to: Is Agile Development a Failing Concept?
Maybe off topic, but is there good money in DevOps? I've always thought it would be something I excel at, and I usually ending up filling that roll anyways at the small shops I've worked at anyways. Are there fun and interesting problems to solve in that position, or is it mostly an admin task? How does it compare to something like systems design / architecture as a career path?

Comment: Re:let's be real for a second (Score 1) 429

by drkstr1 (#49641899) Attached to: Why Companies Should Hire Older Developers
Hehe, this reminds me of when I was a young buck, fresh out of school, and working for a small credit union. Since I was the only "expert" there, it was up to me to integrate / test a very expensive software system to handle our mortgage loans. I remember putting up quite a stink when I discovered special chars could be saved in the form fields. How could they be so incompetent! Clearly they should strip these chars out, and on the client-side no less! I even provided the JavaScript to do it. This resulted in several meetings between the big bosses and the vendors (which I was not invited to, of course). In the end no changes were made.

Boy what a fool I was at that age hahaha. (: don't sweat it kid, we all go through that stage in our life. Just make sure to learn from your mistakes, and you will be a pro in no time.


+ - Why Not Utopia? Mark Bittman on basic income and increasing automation->

Submitted by Paul Fernhout
Paul Fernhout writes: Mark Bittman wrote an op-ed in the New York Times suggesting a basic income as a solution to increasing automation leading to job loss. He concludes: "We have achieved a level of social equality barely imagined by progressives 50 years ago, but economic equality has gotten much worse. No one knows what the world will look like in 50 years, but if we resign ourselves to dystopia — in which capital has full control, as it nearly does now — we'll surely have one. Let's resolve to build something better. In the long run we know that we'll make the transition from capitalism to some less destructive and hopefully more just system. Why not begin that transition now? If there is going to be a global market that will further enrich capitalists, there must be guarantees that the rest of the population can at least afford housing and food. And things can be even better than that: We'll have the robots work for us."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Universal wants me to use YouTube more (Score 1) 117

by drkstr1 (#49318373) Attached to: Universal Reportedly Wants Spotify To Scale Back Its Free Streaming
It makes a lot more sense when you realize that over 95% of all media in the US is owned by 6 companies[1]. When you control the national dialog, you get to decide what's popular and what's not. This is why media companies despise the internet, and even worse, the big bad "piracy" boogie man. Us plebs being able to spread ideas and information without them being the gage keeper is literally their worst nightmare. Hell we might just go and do something crazy, like choose our own poloticians to vote for The chump change they get from media sales is nothing compared to the loss of control these companies stand to lose.

[1] Source:

(please excuse the typos... I'm on the mobile)

Comment: Re:I Don't Know (Score 1) 284

by drkstr1 (#49210179) Attached to: UK Gov't Asks: Is 10 Years In Jail the Answer To Online Pirates?

"Someone, someday?"


This problem has been solved for years.

We invented the legal fiction of copyright for exactly one reason. To find a way to pay artists to create their work. We wanted successful artists and a society made rich and beautiful by their work.

There are a total of 12 business models that are known to have ever made money at all. One of them is to make a product and sell it above cost. Others include things like loaning money and charging interest, leasing a property, buying wholesale and selling retail, providing insurance against risk. What all of these have in common is that none of them make any sense at all for turning art into money on the Internet.

There are a few models that obviously work just fine.

1. Become famous and sell tickets to live concerts. Been done too often to think about. 2. Become good enough to aggregate an audience, use your influence to advertise things that people actually want to buy. Every Youtube star does this. Every TV show does this. Everyone who puts on a "free" show at a coffee shop or a bar does this. 3. Build a catalog and charge for access - make sure it is sufficiently convenient an inexpensive that the "happy to pay crowd" outweighs the "I'll just copy it" crowd. Musically I know about the weird case of Magnatune. Also done by every single Porn site in existence, and you don't exactly hear the Porn industry complaining that the Internet ruined their movie business, do you? 4. Lastly, and most directly, is to recognize the obvious: Distribution online is effectively free. Creating the work in the first place is expensive. So quit trying to prop up the DISTRIBUTION industries and start paying the artists for CREATION. If you need crowd funding, take a look at Kickstarter. You want a crowd funding subscription to the service of artistic creation, head over to Patreon.

Again. This problem has been solved for years.

It may be hard to become a great artist, but there is absolutely nothing complicated about paying artists to create work that we can download and copy for free. The only reason we have this problem is because we keep listening to corporate mouth-pieces of the completely redundant distribution companies who were NEVER INTERESTED IN PAYING ARTISTS TO BEGIN WITH.

Stop listening to the corporate mouth-pieces. Please. You are far to intelligent to fall for their BS.

(Bumping insightful AC comment rated at 0)

Comment: Re:Exactly! Recognizing irony is key... (Score 1) 47

by Paul Fernhout (#49205399) Attached to: Is Cyber Arms Control a Lost Cause?

And a major reason people want to control other people is... getting needed resources. :-)

Of course, since "needed resources" for some people can include specific mates (who need to be impressed or dominated or whatever), there is complexity there. James P. Hogan talks about the issue of achieving status in a post-scarcity economy in his 1982 sci-fi novel "Voyage From Yesteryear".

But, while prestige and status of a country relative to other countries is a cause of war (including to deter aggression), the personal level of status is rarely the reason entire nations are convinced into going to war. That is true even if personal status among leaders may have something to do with why leaders try to convince their countries to foolishly go to war.

For example, in this survey of the causes of war in 2008, every one except the top one of "ideological change" essentially comes down to control of resources.
"Why wars happen"

And I'd suggest even "ideological change" most often has a strong component of access to resources in order to manage them in specific ways (for example, having enough territory to implement some vision of some form of law or politics).

Anyway, this is a complex topic. There are many lists of reasons on why wars happen. I'm trying to say that issues of perceived scarcity drive a lot of them. Also, scarcity-thinking also often keeps people on a treadmill where they never seem to have time to learn about alternative ways of handling conflict than knee-jerk violence. And then further, fighting over perceived scarcity with super powerful tools of abundance (like computer code that can cause billions of potentially useful things to happen all at once across the world) is what creates the biggest current risks (like nuclear war). Without these tools of abundance like computers, communications, nanotech, biotech, nuclear power, advanced materials, rocketry, and so on, we would not be worried about the end of the human race by just some few people in one small area throwing rocks at each other.

Comment: Exactly! Recognizing irony is key... (Score 2) 47

by Paul Fernhout (#49202077) Attached to: Is Cyber Arms Control a Lost Cause?

As I wrote here:
" Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?
    Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?
    Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere?
    These militaristic socio-economic ironies would be hilarious if they were not so deadly serious. Here is some dark humor I wrote on the topic: A post-scarcity "Downfall" parody remix of the bunker scene. See also a little ironic story I wrote on trying to talk the USA out of collective suicide because it feels "Burdened by Bags of Sand". Or this YouTube video I put together: The Richest Man in the World: A parable about structural unemployment and a basic income.
    Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing. I discuss that at length here:
    There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. ...
      The big problem is that all these new war machines and the surrounding infrastructure are created with the tools of abundance. The irony is that these tools of abundance are being wielded by people still obsessed with fighting over scarcity. So, the scarcity-based political mindset driving the military uses the technologies of abundance to create artificial scarcity. That is a tremendously deep irony that remains so far unappreciated by the mainstream.
    We the people need to redefine security in a sustainable and resilient way. Much current US military doctrine is based around unilateral security ("I'm safe because you are nervous") and extrinsic security ("I'm safe despite long supply lines because I have a bunch of soldiers to defend them"), which both lead to expensive arms races. We need as a society to move to other paradigms like Morton Deutsch's mutual security ("We're all looking out for each other's safety")
and Amory Lovin's intrinsic security ("Our redundant decentralized local systems can take a lot of pounding whether from storm, earthquake, or bombs and would still would keep working").
    There are lots of alternatives I helped organize here for helping transcend an economy based around militarism and artificial scarcity:
    Still, we must accept that there is nothing wrong with wanting some security. The issue is how we go about it in a non-ironic way that works for everyone. The people serving the USA in uniform are some of the most idealistic, brave, and altruistic people around; they just unfortunately are often misled for reasons of profit and power that Major General Butler outlined very clearly in "War is a Racket" decades ago. We need to build a better world where our trusting young people (and the people who give them orders) have more options for helping build a world that works for everyone than "war play". We need to build a better world where some of our most hopeful and trusting citizens are not coming home with PTSD as shattered people (or worse, coming home in body bags) because they were asked to kill and die for an unrecognized irony of using the tools of abundance to create artificial scarcity. ..."

Don't hit the keys so hard, it hurts.