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


Forgot your password?

Comment: True (Score 4, Insightful) 52

by goldcd (#49523311) Attached to: Protein Converts Pancreatic Cancer Cells Back Into Healthy Cells
But my memory of what's special about Pancreatic Cancer - is that you are f*cked to a high degree of certainty if you get it.

Not the most common type of cancer, and there are many types of it - but for those with this cancer, in this place, it's pretty damn important as there weren't a surfeit of alternatives.

Comment: It's a joke. (Score 5, Insightful) 107

If somebody could point to some line that Asad's Syria (or whoever you perceive to be an enemy), refused to cross, but the CIA/NSA/GCHQ did...
Well I'd be very surprised.
I'm British. I like my "western, secular, demcocracy"
But then our governments have shown no sign of respecting any limits either.
I think we find ourselves today existing in a world where every power, will do whatever it can, and answers to nobody. I don't like it, I've seen the 'revelations' but none of us seem to have stepped up and prosecuted any hypocrisy.
Defending something should come with a cost.
Defending is supposed to be about making a stand.
If your justify your defending by ripping up your own rules, then you've tainted yourself forevermore.

Comment: Well the gaming community just wants pixels (Score 3, Insightful) 184

on their screens - speaking for myself.
Extending that - I as a purchaser of games don't give a flying fig what engine was used - but I'll judge the devs I gave my money to on their decision.
I'm assuming the 'freeness' of commercial offerings is based upon trying to get devs to use their software and then taking a percentage if it ever takes off and sells.
So, what you're asking is a question to the devs - what to the commercial offerings that might skim from your future income offer, that OOS doesn't?
My guess would be a huge amount of support/tools, that OOS doesn't, and is only ever going to take a small percentage of your profit (if you make any).
Rah capitalism.

Comment: +1 (Score 1) 167

by goldcd (#48985507) Attached to: Google Quietly Unveils Android 5.1 Lollipop
CM is 'nice' but (and I might be being cowardly here) - has enough rough edges and battery hammering on their bleeding edge stuff, to make me want to shy away.
If you want 'latest stock' ideally get a Nexus or a "Google Play edition" phone (which you can 'upgrade' your carrier bollocksed phone to easily enough if they support your model).
Should phone vendor specific bells and whistles be your thing, or there's no Google play rom, then just randonly pick a foreign GSM carrier that got their release out early (normally as they didn't mess too much with the original, unlike some of the larger mobile companies who seem to feel 'they know best' (and want their useless music store cluttering up your phone)).
*points to XDA developers*

Comment: Not sure if it's "down to women" (Score 1) 271

by goldcd (#48984271) Attached to: Female-Run Companies Often do Better Than Male-Run Ones (Video)
Entirely without bothering to google the information and randomly grabbing the headline examples that come to mind - HP, bad, Yahoo, good, GM, bad etc.
I simply think that a company that it less set in its historical ways (men strong and better) has more flexibility - and is therefore more likely to promote a woman if she's the best person for the job.
I happen to work for an evil-capitalistic-Israeli-mega-corp. I could bang on about their shortcomings for a very long time - *but* - they do have a pretty enlightened gender oblivious attitude - and we're better for it.
Oh I'm wandering off-topic here - but my point is mainly that if you consider men and women, on average, to be equally competent and the current sausage-party of male-dominated everything to therefore be a historical hangover, then it's not a huge leap to realize that more progressive companies, are more likely be succeeding and also to have plonked a female CEO on the seat.

Comment: Yes, but (Score 1) 271

by goldcd (#48882769) Attached to: The Tech Industry's Legacy: Creating Disposable Employees
That assumes the product owner is developing what's needed - not they shiny new feature he was able to sell to the product budget holder.
Also assumes that the people deploying/using the software are involved in the Agile process.
i.e. Product may be developed in an Agile way, but if product just releases a new version every year, that emerges from a black-box, then it really doesn't matter what methodology was followed.

Comment: Didn't so much mean the individuals (Score 1) 271

by goldcd (#48868627) Attached to: The Tech Industry's Legacy: Creating Disposable Employees
and really wasn't complaining even about the groups - more just the environment they've all been put in (apart from marketing, who should all be shot... as long as they keep selling the stuff that pays my salary... OK, I'll give some of them a pass..).
The guy leading the scrum team, who tells me he sees the issue and isn't going to fix it, isn't personally being a bastard. Actually, he's probably a pretty good leader, protecting his team from my random requests, leading to team late nights, leading to tester queries and defects all based around something he wasn't supposed to be doing in the first place.
It has to come top down. At one end there's a happy customer throwing money at us for our flexible "can-do" attitude - and it's just making sure that money and accompanying 'kudos' attaches itself to everybody in the chain. If you've got hard walls between depts in that chain, each one just seems to want to shaft the ones on either side of it - skim off as much as they can as it goes from the customer to dev. So, when it reaches dev finally they look at the risk/reward and (rightly) determine it's not worth the effort - so nobody benefits.

Comment: Oh I live in this world as well (Score 3) 271

by goldcd (#48867591) Attached to: The Tech Industry's Legacy: Creating Disposable Employees
My counter-view (sitting, between product and customer).
Product have made something that's not quite right. We ask them to fix it. They don't want to, as they're adding the latest shiny new feature instead.
This makes sense to them, shiney got given budget, fixing something would mean them admitting they screwed up before and there'll be a teensy bit less shiny/budget. They don't like doing that.
So, I have to fix it. I can't charge the customer more, I can't internally pay product less, so I just got myself some additional work.
I can then repeat this process for each customer - or hope that product pick up the fix/feature and integrate it.
This second favoured option whilst easiest for me, sticks in the craw a bit as it's not really motivating product to actually make what we need - throw something out the door, and it'll get fixed if we missed anything important.
Now, obviously you get to point when you lose your rag a bit - and tell the customer it's all borked, tell them to escalate it, and sit back as product fixes product. This can only be used rarely, too often and the customer twigs it's all messed up internally.

A better alternative, and something we seem to be moving towards, is to slice the company the other way - Take chunks of sales, site, delivery, support, product to create a 'functional slice' through all of them. Common purpose, common(ish) pot of money - "We" have a problem, "We" need to fix, or our whole slice is screwed (and the multi-VP shit will rain down equally on all of us).
Above still isn't perfect (more services, than product) but even as a small step, if you get product closer to the customer it improves. Not just people feel more involved in actually providing a solution, but helps shape the product roadmap - These aren't just new "Shiny Features" - They're "A Shiny feature we know if we add to the product, has landed us all another million dollars in the next release".
I guess if I had to sum it up, it's just being more open and then trying to align all the interests. People want to do a good job, but asking them to sacrifice themselves to do something they'll never be rewarded for just demeans and pisses them off, which leads to resentment, which leads to the internal barriers, fiefdoms and all the rest.

Comment: That would be my argument - yes (Score 1) 119

I seem to originally recall when he was first arrested, that he was charged with actually having people killed.
This having been proudly announced before they actually knew who these people were, had any bodies, just ridiculously, laughable over-charging (and clearly designed to bias whatever came next).
I'm interest to see where this all goes - but so far it appears to be utter bollocks and lies (now) from both sides.

Comment: FUD (Score 0) 119

by goldcd (#48824651) Attached to: Silk Road Trial Defense: Mt. Gox CEO Was the Real Dread Pirate Roberts
Or maybe it isn't.
Just personally I'd liked the idea of the defendant stepping up, admitting running the whole thing, and saying he'd arranged a x many hundred thousand/million drug deals where nobody got hurt, nobody was coerced and to possibly point out that the major issue with narcotics is merely how they're handled, rather than their eternal existence and the last century's completely useless attempts at prohibition.
Whoever ran SR, they'll forever have my admiration for what they did and voluntarily banning the sale of items that certain governments to this day refuse to consider as 'harmful'.
The Charlie Hebdo incident that occurred last week. Would this be more, or less likely to have occurred if we lived under the rules of the USA or Silk Road?

Comment: And I fully agree with the sentiment (Score 4, Interesting) 463

by goldcd (#48732177) Attached to: Writer: How My Mom Got Hacked
But that's just a sentiment.
Once you're in their jaws, I suspect that your feelings may vary - and not as if any of us are going to reward her for towing the unified line
Actually, that's maybe the solution - you cough up your own cash to reward those that "say no to extortion" - It's not a massive leap, the majority of our governments already do this with our taxes already. Sure, it costs more in the long run (those SAS/SEAL raids where everybody ends up dead and poorer) - but it's nice to take a principled stand in the abstract (when your loved one isn't going to die as a hostage, nor as a soldier sent to rescue them).
The French - they mainly just seem to pay up, and walk away with their hostages unharmed.
Now I'm sure there may be some objections to this (I've got some myself) - but our governments seem to have managed to overlook their scruples and the urge to teach lessons when a few banks asked for a bit of cash (or we'd have all descended into anarchy, seemingly).
My point, I'm not sure. It's vaguely around the point that we don't 'pay when extorted' - and yet we all pretty much do. What's interesting is the type of extortion your government buckles and pays for.

The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was.