Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: "weapons grade encryption" (Score 1) 71

by green1 (#49737221) Attached to: 'Logjam' Vulnerability Threatens Encrypted Connections

Encryption is a defensive technology, not a weapon.

I can't see any good reason (plenty of bad ones!) for ever limiting defensive technologies. Weapons are a different matter because they can cause direct harm to others, but a shield, or armour, or encryption, are all defense only with no offensive angle. They should never be limited.

Comment: Re:Sites designed to look good on mobile and deskt (Score 1) 356

by green1 (#49522791) Attached to: 'Mobilegeddon': Google To Punish Mobile-Hostile Sites Starting Today

Those sites tend to be ones where they skipped making a useful desktop version and only made a crippled mobile version and called it their website. Many very large corporations think this is the way to go these days, but it doesn't make for a better site.

The correct answer is to go the other way, make only a fully functional desktop site, and let mobile users use it without blocking them with crippled "mobile" sites, broken apps, etc.

Comment: Re:Instead... (Score 1) 356

by green1 (#49522623) Attached to: 'Mobilegeddon': Google To Punish Mobile-Hostile Sites Starting Today

And that's what makes this so ridiculous. Companies are being rewarded for breaking their websites by offering a useless "mobile version" (like slashdot does) and penalized for a website that just works on every browser ever made.

Slashdot isn't an example of google being lenient, it's an example of google looking for all the wrong things.

What I want google to do is penalize any website that even claims to have a mobile version of it's website, and reward the ones that don't force me to use a substandard site when I visit from my full blown computer that just happens to be in the palm of my hand instead of on a desk.

Comment: Re:Instead... (Score 1) 356

by green1 (#49522581) Attached to: 'Mobilegeddon': Google To Punish Mobile-Hostile Sites Starting Today

Except that Google is completely wrong on it's criteria. I built a page on my own server, for only my own use. The page is what I use as my homepage on my phone and has everything I need at my fingertips. I love it on my phone, but also use it on my PC. Google tells me it's not "mobile friendly" and offers me a whole bunch of suggestions on how I can make it "better". Every one of those suggestions would make it useless for me.

Mobile websites, as a general rule, need to completely die. The only one I have ever found that I prefer over the desktop version is XKCD (because I don't have to hover to read the real joke) Of course I use the mobile version of that site on my desktop too. Every other site, I do my best to convince the site to load the desktop version on my phone so I can actually use it.

Comment: Re:Instead... (Score 1) 356

by green1 (#49522507) Attached to: 'Mobilegeddon': Google To Punish Mobile-Hostile Sites Starting Today

Interestingly enough, XKCD just happens to be the only website I ever go to where I prefer to use the mobile version instead of the desktop version (on both my phone and PC)
every other site I try my best to avoid the mobile version as it is usually just a crippled version of the site when the full site works just fine on my phone.

I'd rather google did the reverse and penalized sites that have a mobile version, preferring sites that just work in any browser.

Comment: Re:Dissenting 3 votes (Score 1) 409

It's my understanding that the dogs are used to find reasonable cause to search the vehicle when they didn't otherwise have it. Therefore, if they had reasonable cause to search the vehicle, they should do so without needing the dog, if they do NOT have reasonable cause to search the vehicle, they shouldn't bring a dog in to try to find reasonable cause.

Now if they DID have reasonable cause to search the vehicle, but required the assistance of the dog to do a proper search, that would be a different matter, and bringing in the dog, even if it caused a delay, would seem appropriate.

Comment: Re: Hmm (Score 1) 892

I've had 2 offers at once, and every job since then has been me shopping for a new job while still employed. In none of those situations will I work for you if you don't beat the other offer in some way (I'll be honest, that way doesn't have to be financial, the 2 offers at once incident I took the lower financial offer to get a better work place)

Comment: Re:Hmm (Score 1) 892

This depends, different companies work in different ways, and the labour market will also matter. In general there's always negotiating room, but you have to know when to negotiate. In the case of my current job, all the negotiation was before the offer, and it was a bit odd because the negotiation didn't really involve actual numbers from the company, just vague ranges and such, however it was clear that this was where I needed to set down what I expected, and when the offer actually arrived it was exactly the number I had expected. I was then told that I could feel free to negotiate from there, but I was also told that there's no way the negotiation would be successful.
I got the pay I wanted, but had I waited for the offer and negotiation phase of the process I never would have, and I wouldn't have taken the job.

Comment: Re:Hmm (Score 1) 892

That's exactly where I am in my current role. I told my hiring manager straight up that I wanted to work there, but I would not accept lower than I was already making (which was significantly above the normal starting wage for the job)
When the offer came, it was (I'm sure entirely coincidentally) priced at exactly the figure I had quoted. I was then told that I was allowed to negotiate from there, but I was also told that any negotiations wouldn't be successful.

Had they been offering their starting wage, there is no possible way they would have recruited anyone qualified to do the job as it was more than $10,000 below the normal pay rate for a job that was pre-requisite experience.

Keep in mind it's a negotiation only because both sides have something the other wants. Refusing to negotiate pretty much admits that you don't care if you get the person or not. If they think they can do better elsewhere, they will, and that will be your loss.

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Working...