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


Forgot your password?

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:Should have been spelled out in the contract (Score 1) 65

by Tailhook (#49352351) Attached to: GAO Denied Access To Webb Telescope Workers By Northrop Grumman

Lesson learned for how to draw up future contracts, I guess.

That's a two way street, son. The contractor is hat in hand looking for more funds beyond the terms of the current contract. All of the contract terms are on the table, as they should be, when a contractor fails to perform.

Comment: Re: 9 whole billion? OUTRAGEOUS! (Score 1) 65

by gl4ss (#49351909) Attached to: GAO Denied Access To Webb Telescope Workers By Northrop Grumman

that could make sense if the addition was 3 million / 30 guys - not 1 billion. 1 billion extra needs some manufacturing contracting price to rise.

for the amount of people involved, it's an outrageous addition to the budget, especially for adding costs to planning. they techies certainly do not cost 30 million per head per year or anything near that.

the latest one billion addition can be summed up by "because we can ask for it". never mind they got the project because of their low bid.

but you're seriously kind of a right wing nutjob if you think multiple billions additions can be justified by such personnel movings. the personnel costs should be a percentage of the quote OR they would have no problem retaining the people(because apparently, they would be paying them millions already for engineering and techie jobs).

Comment: Booth Babes never made sense at RSA (Score 2) 266

by billstewart (#49351139) Attached to: RSA Conference Bans "Booth Babes"

They were a really clear indicator that the occasional companies that hired them seriously didn't understand their audience, and hadn't brought anybody who knew anything technical to their booth, probably not even any marketing people who understood the product, so you could pretty much skip them, because they were pretty much always useless as well as unprofessional.

On the other hand, you can totally bribe us with chocolate or especially coffee, and we might sit through your silly magician act for a raffle ticket for an iThing as long as there was technical content at your booth, and we'll pick up blinky tchotchkes with your logo on them. The woman I'd rather talk to at your booth is the one who developed the cool product, or can explain it well.

When my company's been at trade shows in the area, about half their staff are booth-running professionals, rather than product-related, from the people who set the thing up and make sure all the marketing content is there to the people who herd customers in, figure out what they're interested in (even if it's just at the buzzword level), bring them over to the right part of the booth or find the right person if they need to, scan your contact info, get the speakers on and off the stage, etc., and about half are either main-office or local people who know something about whatever we're trying to sell. They seem to do a good job on the mechanics of it (I've occasionally ended up as local booth staff), and they're seriously good at respecting the audience.

Comment: Re:Congress is a bunch of fucking retards (Score -1) 65

by SuperKendall (#49350733) Attached to: GAO Denied Access To Webb Telescope Workers By Northrop Grumman

Voting for the other corporate-controlled, militaristic party doesn't seem like a viable plan for getting out of this mess.

We already tried that a few times; voting in Democrats does not help.

Republicans are only into conflicts they can win and stop fighting; Democrats are the ones who like to cause endless conflicts they can pour money and people into. Under Bush we helped turn Iraq into democracy; under Obama we abandoned them to be consumed by ISIS, at least to the point we get to go over and fight for the same land all over again.

Comment: Re:Reveal what? (Score 1) 165

by SuperKendall (#49350397) Attached to: NJ School District Hit With Ransomware-For-Bitcoins Scheme

So you have no philosophical objection the the NSA acting completely outside the law

Everyone else is acting completely outside the law these days, and the law has been built up over time to give too many protections to guilty people, so I've pretty much stopped caring.

My objections are on the level of "well, I wouldn't do it personally, but whatever".

Especially for the guys that encrypt other people's data and ransom that. Who cares what happens to those jerks.

Comment: Re:Not concerned (Score 1) 152

by drinkypoo (#49349953) Attached to: German Auto Firms Face Roadblock In Testing Driverless Car Software

The "trucking industry" is unlikely to be an agent of change. They are entrenched incumbents who will fight, lobby, and bribe to stop automation.

Again, why would they do that? The only members of the "trucking industry" who stand to lose if trucks go automated are truckers themselves, but they can't possibly out-lobby trucking companies.

Progress is more likely to be driven by customers such as WalMart, or entirely new transport companies.

No. Wal-Mart will just contract with whoever can moves the trucks most cheaply. But they're not going to do the leg-work themselves. They'll just contract whoever has the self-driving trucks, after they do the lobbying.

Wal-Mart doesn't give a shit how cheap trucking is, only that they get it at the lowest possible cost, because they don't care what their prices are, only that they are lower than the competition.

Comment: Re:too bad.... but... (Score 1) 532

by drinkypoo (#49349927) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear

The refrigerator thing would definitely deserve being yelled at, don't you think? Employees have been fired for lesser offences.

It still wouldn't justify a 20 minute screaming tantrum that disrupted the entire hotel.

You're assuming that there were not earlier events which led to this event, and also that the producer didn't say anything to exacerbate the situation.

Look, violence is not a wonderful answer to something other than violence or impending violence, but the anti-Clarkson force seems to believe that he just got the wind up his arse and started throwing fists. But since none of us were party to the conversation, and none of us know what was said, none of us knows how unreasonable violence was as a response.

As someone who was bullied in almost every possible way in school, including a whole lot of verbal abuse, I know that verbal abuse can be as painful as the physical kind. In fact, studies have shown that emotional abuse actually causes physical pain responses in the nervous system. That's right, words literally hurt. If the BBC were as progressive as they'll have you believe, they'd fire people for saying mean things to other people. And then it might well have been the producer who was out of a job, before he even got a chance to eat a fist.

Comment: Re:BBC not to blame here, Clarkson is (Score 1) 532

by drinkypoo (#49349877) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear

Fact is BBC are getting dragged over the coals for letting all kinds of behavior from past stars go unchecked in order to keep the money flowing, including pedophiles.

So they cracked down on a shot to the jaw as a response to being soft on pedophilia?

Even if that is not true what is not in dispute is that he physically assaulted another person and some lines cannot be crossed no matter who you are or what you bring in.

Nobody really believes that "no excuse for violence" canard, do they? The world certainly isn't run that way.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -- Dr. Warren Jackson, Director, UTCS