Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Clearance (Score 2) 720

by gcnaddict (#48542841) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Can a Felon Work In IT?
Clearances are about trust and risk. Can a candidate be trusted? Can a candidate sufficiently avoid blackmail? If both are true, the candidate has a good likelihood of getting cleared.

Everything that's evaluated is done so against these two questions. With this in mind, the list of crimes which can sufficiently bar a person from cleared work is very, very low.

Comment: Clearance (Score 4, Interesting) 720

by gcnaddict (#48542601) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Can a Felon Work In IT?
Seek federal jobs which offer a clearance. If you admit to everything thoroughly and give the investigators the truth, and if they're not worried about you after all of that (they think the risk of recidivism is low), you'll get the job and you can say on your resume you were cleared for federal work.

Whenever you decide to leave, the fact that you had a clearance might actually help counteract your priors.

Comment: Re:Special service available!=net neutrality viola (Score 4, Interesting) 55

by gcnaddict (#48537991) Attached to: EU May Not Unify Its Data Protection Rules After All
Everyone who doesn't have a personal stake in the game is naturally inclined to act recklessly. See the decade-ly cycles of recession and depression economies slip into when markets (housing, finance, oil, whatever) forget that someone else's money is still of value and not to be treated with total abandon.

The decisionmakers at ISPs don't have a piece of skin in this fight because they have special classes of access just as a benefit of being where they are within their companies, and they stand to make more personally from making profit-minded decisions. For these reasons, there's very little personal incentive to uphold the moral high ground because the decisions don't have an immediate negative impact on them. They might feel it once they retire and/or if they go to a different industry, but that's after they've made their profit, and it's long after their short-term decisionmaking window.

It's just human nature. We haven't had this trait bred out, and it's doubtful we as a species ever will. The only way to counter short-sighted thinking is by shortening the mental leap between short-sighted decisions and long-term consequences, which is what everyone fighting for net neutrality is trying to demonstrate right now by citing live examples of where a lack of enforcement has already gone wrong (T-Mobile Unlimited Music, Netflix v. Comcast/VZ, etc.)

Comment: Re: Not a Tablet (Score 4, Informative) 101

by gcnaddict (#48490775) Attached to: Forbes Revisits the Surface Pro 3, Which May Face LG Competition
October 25, 2014, via ComputerWorld:

After two years and nearly $2 billion in losses, Microsoft's Surface turned a profit in the September quarter, the company said Thursday.

October 31, 2014, via the Motley Fool:

The Surface Pro 3, released earlier this year, is selling far better than its predecessors, and for the first time Microsoft has recorded a positive gross profit for the Surface business.

It would do you well to source timely things, sir.

Comment: Re:Not voting!=voting no to all (Score 3, Interesting) 468

by gcnaddict (#48284879) Attached to: Boo! The House Majority PAC Is Watching You
Disagreed. While not voting is still an active decision, it's not a no-vote. It's a make-everyone-else's-vote-more-powerful vote. Not voting magnifies the group which decides to vote.

The right decision would be to vote for a write-in or a throw-away. You still vote, and if enough people do that in elections where a majority is required, a run-off election might be the end result. This is the preferred outcome as it forces all leading candidates to restate their case and take actual voting metrics into account, potentially changing which groups are catered.

+ - Google Developing a Pill To Detect Cancer->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "The Google X research lab has unveiled a new project: developing a pill capable of detecting cancer, imminent heart attacks, and other diseases. According to the article, "the company is fashioning nanoparticles—particles about one billionth of a meter in width—that combine a magnetic material with antibodies or proteins that can attach to and detect other molecules inside the body." When a person ingests the pill, these particles interact with the particular markers for a given disease. Since they're magnetic, they can then be guided back to a particular spot where they can be scanned to determine if any interactions took place. Google X's head of life sciences, Andrew Conrad, said, "What we are trying to do is change medicine from reactive and transactional to proactive and preventative. Nanoparticles... give you the ability to explore the body at a molecular and cellular level.""
Link to Original Source

The algorithm for finding the longest path in a graph is NP-complete. For you systems people, that means it's *real slow*. -- Bart Miller

Working...