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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved (Score 1) 59

that's actually the problem with most technology

nuclear for example

i haven't a single doubt that we have the technological means to maintain nuclear plants forever without a single accident

but what we don't have is the social and political means to do that

money is always being cut, indefinitely, and the people making that decision are not exactly technically proficient. the incentive to cut costs form the general public and bosses who want to trumpet cost cutting trumps all other concerns, because other concerns, no matter how vital, are simply not understood. combine that with a technical person that responds with anger and arrogance at the idea of vital safety mechanisms being underfunded, the manager will simply disregard him or her as a person with a personality problem, and then disasters happen

people who champion nuclear, especially on a website like this, understand the technology well, and are correct when they announce we never have to have a nuclear accident ever again due to technological issues

but they don't consider the political and social aspects of our species that means vital funding of safety mechanisms and maintenance of absolutely crucial technology *will* be broken. it's simply a matter of when, not if

and then people who champion nuclear get angry at people like me, and accuse us of not understanding the technology. oh we understand the technology is wonderful. but it is you who doesn't understand humanity

the imperative on cutting costs and doing as little effort as possible is always trumping all other concerns. always. and people like this wind up being the managers, not the underlings. they can't be fired, they do the firing

incompetence is a force that destroys everything. sober up and accept that

Comment Re:I can understand the change in motto (Score 1) 214

It dates from the really early days when Google was basically just a bunch of engineers doing R&D. It was cutesy, the brand they went for was cutesy, it fitted.

The problem with it IMO is that, basically, too many people can't handle it. "Evil" is a really high bar. It's a word that smells objective. But not many business activities really qualify for such a strong word. Drone striking a wedding is evil. When Microsoft tried to take over and then kill off the web (or rather, progress in the web) because they wanted everyone to write Windows apps instead of using open infrastructure, that was roaming around in the general area, maybe, if we want to be hyperbolic. Though it's debatable.

Changing the colour scheme in Gmail is clearly not evil. Attempting to integrate social features of products together is not evil, even if you didn't like it. But unfortunately as Google got big enough it reached the point where basically any change resulted in this motto being thrown back in their face. So it ended up being meaningless. Someone saying "don't be evil" just became some sort of trite cliche. Worse, internally some of its own employees would tend to describe any action they didn't like as "evil" which of course wasn't great for team building and morale (I used to work there so I saw this problem in action many times).

I'm not surprised they have eventually changed it, although even that change will itself be described as evil in a sort of implosion of recursive irony. "Do the right thing" might seem watered down, but by taking out the cartoon emotive character assassination words, it sets a probably more realistic goal by accepting that "the right thing" is inherently subjective and debatable.

Comment Re: weakly disguised hit-piece (Score 1) 299

you're making excuses. there's plenty of differences but not of the kind and of the type to make germany different enough that basic economic facts about socialized healthcare and higher education wouldn't work in the usa

you're desperate and reaching for straws to bvoid the obvious lesson

"germany is less square miles so gravity doesn't work the same in germany"

that's what you sound like

we're talking basic economic principles here

you're not being intellectually honest

"cultural differences" is the new cheat by pridefully ignorant assholes to avoid basic lessons about the reality they live in

Comment Re:Hmm... (Score 1) 203

ah yes, that orthodox leftist creed of keeping drugs safe

there's no need for it, it's a severe authoritarian need to control people, right? like a cartoon movie script: "ooh, i'm a lefty, i'm here to destroy your rights {insert manaical laugh}. why? i dunno. it's just what we do since central casting by joe mccarthy in the 1950s"

you need a cartoon villain to have your cartoon belief system

because these problems don't exist:

that's just from last week

how many millions of more examples do you want you ignorant asshole before you try matching your beliefs to reality?

that is the actual threat. that is why we have government regulations like the FDA: to protect us from the actual fucking real threat: industry

meanwhile, you want to whine about "orthodox leftist creeds"

that's not the actual threat, that's your uneducated delusion you ignorant piece of shit

did i make up executives who will kill you and poison you to make $1 more? am i making that shit up? do you read the fucking news? there's 3 links above from last week. do you want some more you shitbag before you try the slightest bit of intellectual honesty for the first time in your low iq life?

you imagine regulation as the threat, when the fucking story you are commenting under shows the real threat is industry. reality

why do you persist with a belief that fucking contradicts simple facts and simple reality around you

what the fuck is the source of your colossal ignorance you useless propagandized piece of shit?

you're a zombie. walking through the world blind, unable to see or understand anything. just regurgitating the same tired wrong ignorance, without the slightest effort to accept facts. prideful ignorance

Comment Re: weakly disguised hit-piece (Score 2) 299

you want to give the benefit of the doubt. it is mostly stupid people out there. nine times out of ten, they genuinely don't understand what the fuck they are talking about but open their mouths anyway

if i am having a conversation here with mostly europeans, and the difference is therefore in terminology (there are dumb europeans as well as dumb americans, but the terminology differences means indeed i have to side with caution), then i apologize

but if i am talking to the usual low iq propagandized american retard on this topic, there is no apology necessary

i am not using empty insults. we are talking about, objectively, morons. who talk about economic concepts they don't understand, merely regurgitating quasireligous beliefs their propaganda channels spoonfeed to the useful fools. genuine morons

do you respect a creationist when talking about evolution? an antivaxxer when talking about biology? no and no. these people need to be castigated and rejected. they reject reason so there is no use arguing with them. so it is with free market fundamentalist retards. they have beliefs that only exist when ignoring economics and simple history

Comment Re:weakly disguised hit-piece (Score 1) 299

you're an uneducated idiot. stop talking about topics you don't understand. libertarianism was originally about social issues in europe. then it got coopted and repurposed (so stolen... ironically) to be used as a term for economic issues in the usa

to the point that people now can call themselves libertarians in europe, or libertarians in the usa, and actually stand for completely oppposite positions in the economic and social spheres

The term libertarian was first used by late-Enlightenment freethinkers to refer to the metaphysical belief in free will, as opposed to determinism.[12] The first recorded use was in 1789, when William Belsham wrote about libertarianism in opposition to "necessitarian", i.e. determinist, views.[13][14]

Libertarian came to mean an advocate or defender of liberty, especially in the political and social spheres, as early as 1796, when the London Packet printed on 12 February: "Lately marched out of the Prison at Bristol, 450 of the French Libertarians."[15] The word was again used in a political sense in 1802, in a short piece critiquing a poem by "the author of Gebir", and has since been used with this meaning.[16][17][18]

The use of the word libertarian to describe a new set of political positions has been traced to the French cognate, libertaire, coined in a scathing letter French libertarian communist Joseph Déjacque wrote to mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857, castigating him for his sexist political views.[19][20] Déjacque also used the term for his anarchist publication Le Libertaire: Journal du Mouvement Social, which was printed from 9 June 1858 to 4 February 1861 in New York City.[21][22] In the mid-1890s, Sébastien Faure began publishing a new Le Libertaire while France's Third Republic enacted the lois scélérates ("villainous laws"), which banned anarchist publications in France. Libertarianism has frequently been used as a synonym for anarchism since this time.[23][24][25]

Although the word libertarian continues to be widely used to refer to socialists internationally, its meaning in the United States has deviated from its political origins.[26][27] Libertarianism in the United States has been described as conservative on economic issues and liberal on personal freedom[28] (for common meanings of conservative and liberal in the United States); it is also often associated with a foreign policy of non-interventionism.[29][30] Since the resurgence of neoliberalism in the 1970s, free-market capitalist libertarianism has spread beyond North America via think tanks and political parties.[31]

Last yeer I kudn't spel Engineer. Now I are won.