Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:GPLv3 - the kiss of death (Score 4, Interesting) 296

Do you know the value of a "free" platform nobody can integrate into their own product without their product becoming GPL, and whose reference implementation can't be used?

Not a damned thing.

So people can use it, but they need to write their own. They can't reference the reference implementation without tainting their own.

So, what exactly is the incentive to give a damn about the format?

Because I'm reading this as "look at our super awesome new format ... want a lick? Psyche!".

So, something already GPLd will integrate this. And pretty much everyone else will wonder what they can do with it.

Comment Re:Let's not forget (Score 1) 107

Yes, well, I think first America is going to have to come to terms with what the meaning of their "influence" was besides as effectively an occupying colonial power. It's now 50 years later, and if they think they're going back to controlling a benign dictator who was happy to fuck over the Cubans in exchange for Americans being able to profit ... well, I don't see that happening.

Though, as usual, America is already planning on how to carve up the land and the profits.

Which tells me what Americans think will happen is as cluelessly out of touch as when they were planning on how Iraq was going to pay them billions in oil money for liberating them. An awful lot of elected officials in the US were practically counting that money before they went in.

You say "keep", I say "operating under the delusion they ever had any legitimacy there or that Cubans want that again".

By "keep" you mean propping up a ruthless self appointed dictator to act as a puppet for US interests ... only to find a new, ruthless self appointed dictator acting not in US interests.

Stop pretending that "influence" is your natural right, and start listening. The Cubans don't hate Americans .. but they sure as hell don't want to be told by Americans what to do next.

Comment Re:My experience with Infosys (Score 2) 340

You know, sometimes the problem is getting upper management to admit it was they who got their dumb asses swindled, and no matter how much they complain, they can't hire back the competent people for the same price as the incompetent people they themselves chose.

I've seen more cases of this being the management who chose this stuff in the first place and then being unable to fix it than I have of middle management doing it and realizing they chose poorly.

The guy loudly saying "we can save 25%" is seldom on the hook if that savings turns into shitty outcomes ... they just say "well, we saved you 25%, if you can't make use of them that's your fault".

Of course, in large companies, those people are often either no longer around (but got their massive payout), or are no longer in that role and can escape any responsibility.

I've lost track of how many people in management I've seen who have a knack for making bad policy decisions and then making sure the shit doesn't stick to them.

Comment Re:Translation ... (Score 1) 141

LOL ... you know, at least people playing the lottery generally know it's gambling.

When people get told they need to be investing in speculative IPOs because that's how you get rich, I question if they realize how terrible that advice is for most people, and how it's just people in the financial industry selling products?

All those poor schmucks who got stuck holding .com era stocks ... either they went loopy and thought they'd be gazillionaires (and should have know they were essentially placing a bet), or their stock brokers went loopy and told them they'd be gazillionaires.

I consider it a good rule of thumb if your financial guy has gone loopy and is giving you advise which boils down to "zomg we're gonna be rich", you should run like hell. Because he's either incompetent, or scamming you.

Comment Re:My experience with Infosys (Score 4, Interesting) 340

This is what happens when management becomes penny wise and pound foolish.

They say "hey, we can save 20% here". They don't factor in the other costs, like increased downtime, longer times to get stuff done, or the sheer amount of time wasted "helping" them do their jobs.

I was in a situation not long ago in which an out-sourcing company was being brought in. In my opinion, they were largely incompetent.

You'd submit a request to get something installed on 4 machines ... they'd make a hash of it on one machine, and then send you the instructions to install it on your remaining 3 machines and ask you to do it. Sorry, your job is to do all of this, we don't own it. If you can't do it and you expect me to do it, what value do you bring? Once people started refusing to pick up their slack it became apparent they really couldn't do the job.

The problem is the people who make these decisions do not have visibility into how much the associated costs go up as people have to do their own job and the job of the outsourced people.

To then come back after several years and say "we're getting shitty service, can you do this as cheap as the people giving us shitty service" says they have no idea of how they caused their own problems. If you want shitty service, pay the shitty service rates.

The decision makers and accountants are removed from the actual ramifications of their own decisions. Which means they evaluate their own decisions on faulty and incomplete information, pat themselves on the back, and give themselves bonuses for saving money.

In fact what they've really done is fuck up things which worked, make the system work terribly, failed to account for all of the new problems, and then they act as if they've saved the world.

If your expensive staff all have to devote 35% more time to make up for the slack of the cheaper workers .. what the hell are you saving?

If you can't measure your own productivity and effectiveness, and the other costs created by hiring the incompetent out-sourcing people, you have no way of evaluating your own decision. The problem is management frequently has no way of evaluating their own decisions -- and I often suspect that is by design.

And the shortsightedness of this says people are incapable of realizing if you are sacking the cheaper company because they gave terrible service and poor results, you can't go back to the original vendor and expect them to give you good service for the new lower price.

That kind of stuff is at best wishful thinking, and at worst completely delusional.

But then again, many of us think that's what management is for.

Comment Re:Translation ... (Score 1) 141

Not exactly. The dot com era was your grandmother and her cats investing in the latest tech stock tip that inflated the bubble.

Worse than that. During the .com era your grandmother and her cats knew not a damned thing about tech.

The problem was every idiot in the financial sector telling clients they should be investing in .com stuff because it was the way of the future and they had to get in on the ground floor.

The industry itself created the stock bubble .. in no small part to they could sell their shares to the unsuspecting public.

I remember when Red Hat went IPO, along with every other .com era company -- in the morning, the big institutional investors get first crack, and scoop up the shares; then they pawn it off on the other suckers (using the hype they themselves helped to build by telling your granny to buy) ... and by the end of the day the stock is even more overvalued that it was at the beginning of the day, and institutional investors have transferred other people's money to their own accounts.

An IPO is a giant ponzi scheme. The company along with the financial industry first set up a grossly overvalued IPO, convince everybody else they need to buy this, and then leave the individual investors holding the bag at the end of the day.

Oh, wait, the entire stock market is a giant ponzi scheme, the IPO is just in miniature.

The bubble in the .com era was also created with too much money coming from the VCs in the manic hope that it would turn into a bazillion dollars. But you still have to swindle grandma into buying the stock so it isn't just the big investors ... someone needs to get fleeced.

I'd be willing to bet the $2 billion valuation of github is based on complete fictions, and represents about 3 decades of revenue which will never materialize.

It's just more funny money in the tech industry. I don't understand why people keep taking this crap seriously.

Comment Translation ... (Score 5, Insightful) 141

and how the company is trying to live up to its $2 billion valuation

Sooner or later people will realize just how horribly overvalued we actually are, and we are desperately trying to do stupid things like turning everybody into a programmer so we can continue to prop up our overvalued company and continue to reap such awesome executive bonuses.

Honestly, WTF revenue do they have? I see so damned many companies being valued in the billions, and for what seems like no justifiable reason.

It's the .com era all over again ... "zomg, we have teh social" or whatever the daily buzzword is.

It's a great way to separate investors from their money. But I remain unconvinced any of these companies are actually worth anything in the billions.

Comment Re:Won't buy from Motorola or Verizon again! (Score 2) 123

That's not your ONLY solution...

GP talks about Android, story is about Android ... and you spout off about iOS.

Sorry, thanks for playing ... here's a lovely parting gift.

Look, I have both Android and iOS devices. But, honestly, randomly saying "yarg, use teh Apple" is kind of pointless here.

And, quite frankly, having had Apple upgrade my original iPad to the point of uselessness and then abandon it, I'm not willing to update my iPod touch ... because I no longer trust Apple to not fuck up my device and then tell me I'm not supported.

Comment Re:inadequate (Score 5, Insightful) 158

And as long as they have no legal liability for keeping this stuff safe, an insincere "I'm sorry" is all you will ever get. If corporations can hold your private data and have no consequences for having shit security, they will continue to do so.

For a credit agency to store that much personally identifying information and be hacked tells me that agencies like this need to have some pretty severe penalties for shit like this ... because they have pretty much everything required to steal your identify.

If we're going to entrust this data to these entities, we should sure as hell make certain we can actually trust them with it. And I would say that Experian has more or less demonstrated themselves to be incompetent to hold this information.

It really is time to stop letting companies treat this as "their" data, and realize they have an obligation to safeguard our data, and to be legally responsible when they fail to do so.

Comment Re:Right Of Way (Score 1) 277

Oh god, yes ... I once got the shit scared out of me as some kid made a 90 degree turn, extended his arm, and started walking across the street.

No stop and look. No eye contact. No making sure the driver stops.

Just turn, arm, and walk in one fluid motion.

Whatever clueless idiot taught children that had no idea what they were doing.

And I sure as shit didn't want to have to explain how the kid just turned and started walking, so he scared the life out of me.

Stupidest pedestrian training ever.

Comment Re: In other words ... (Score 1) 117

No, I'm saying that in the physical world if I walked into a store and some marketing asshole physically tried to attach a tracking tag to me I'd beat him senseless, same if he physically shoved an ad in my face. Just like most people would.

And as a follow on, I'm saying "why the hell should we accept this on the internet if we don't accept it in real life?"

It's an intentionally absurd example, because in the real world, nobody from marketing would ever think it is their right to slap a tracking tag on you. But somehow, on the internet, a dozen web sites all want to set cookies, or run scripts as soon as you enter -- and think it is their right to do it because their business model calls for it.

In the real world they know damned well they'd never be allowed to affix tracking tags to humans.

On the internet, the marketers have no such issue, and do things which if they did in the real world, would get them either criminally charged or physically assaulted.

So, I prevent them from setting cookies and tracking me the exact same way I do in the real world. So when a store asks for my phone number, they get told to piss off.

When an ad company asks to set a cookie or run a script, they also get told to piss off.

I have zero desire for violent conflict. But I consider ad companies harvesting my data and injecting themselves into my life to be as annoying as if they tried the same thing in meatspace.

So, I walk on by and give them a talk to the hand. But if the guy in the kiosk trying to get me to sign up for a credit card follows me and won't stop ... well, then we're going to have a different outcome. Only in real life, the marketing people don't do that.

Comment Re:In other words ... (Score 1) 117

I got tired of seeing the password prompt, and there are other web sites which cross link to them ... since I have no intention of signing up for them or allowing them to set cookies, I've just blocked them.

This way I know to press the back button faster.

I don't "oppose" paywalls, in that it's their right to do it. But I don't give a damn enough to try to read their content either.

NYT is now a non-entity for me. I'm sure they're utterly heart-broken.

Comment Re:Let's get this out of the way (Score 5, Insightful) 445

I believe you've just demonstrated the point .... the ability for random people to review other people without their consent is going to lead to libel and slander.

You can't just say "well, someone reviewed you, tough".

This is going to lead to lawsuits and all sorts of crap. What an idiotic thing to be building. I just don't see this being anything other than a series of bad outcomes, all because someone thinks they have a business model.

Trusting the founder of an app who stands to make money from it telling us this will be used responsibly is like having an oil company tell us there will be no spills .. you simply can't trust them to be doing anything other than serving their own interests.

"positivity app for positive people" is a nice slogan, but it's competely bullshit.

"Open the pod bay doors, HAL." -- Dave Bowman, 2001