Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Fixed it for you. (Score 1) 409

But a realist would say Ashley Madison is just a thief stealing money from lonely, unhappy men.

But a realist would say Ashley Madison is just cheating men cheating on their wives.

I think a realist would say that Ashley Madison is just men trying to cheat on their wives but generally failing because there are no women to cheat with.

The Josh Duggar revelation took me by surprise because my first thought was "He was unfaithful, really? With who - I don't think there were any real women on that site." (Now it sounds like it was unfaithful through other venues. I wonder if he even had a genuine affair through AM. For awhile I wondered if he was just calling the act of signing up alone "unfaithful.")

Comment Re:Don't trust [Re:Lovely summary.] (Score 2) 1024

Stepping in AS a Sad Puppy Supporter, for three years.

Actually, the Hugos STARTED going downhill, as a general measure, from the late 1990s, and the trend has accellerated to the point that it was pretty obvious 4-5 years ago.

I've voted in Hugos for 20-odd years, and while there HAVE been lovely works (Lois McMaster Bujold comes immediately to mind), the ideological slant has trended left since the I've been voting them.

I'll also note the emergence of the "Social Justice Warrior" has been a relatively recent thing, I never even HEARD the phrase until late 2012-early 2013 or so, so putting the bounds of your list 25 years before that is moving the goalposts.

The REAL issue of the Puppies, is that we believe that the STORY is the most important aspect of a work: is it engrossing, well-written, solid plot and characters. Any Social or Political message, if included, should be part of the story, not the story as a convenient vehicle to preach a particular message.

Instead, we saw more and more messages, wrapped in a story, and generally dystopic in nature. We thought that we'd like to see some nominees with good STORIES. And so Larry Correia kicked off Sad Puppies 1. And the opposition went berserk. No nominations. So Larry came back in 2014: we got no nominations. Got told that if we wanted Hugos, we had to up our game.

At this point, Larry stepped down, and Brad Torgersen stepped up. We had a list of recommendations for most of the categories. And then Vox Day/Ted Beale popped up with his alternate "Rabid Puppies" list, even bootstrapping our logo with a variant, and a full slate for ALL the categories. And we did get a larger number of people to register and nominate. So, from the numbers, did Vox and his Rabids.

The result was unexpected. A Puppy sweep of the nominations, duplicating almost precisely the Rabid Puppy Slate. And the progressive wing of fandom collectively lost their minds. In the following days, we saw widespread media stories condemning us for "stuffing the ballot box". All of which quoted progressive sources, often identically, and yet NEVER contacted anyone on our side. We were accused of standing for white male supremacy and worse, despite a broad range of nominees across ethnic, gender, and political spectrums. Our female nominees were often amused at seeing in print that they were white Mormon males.

We were repeatedly accused of being racist, sexist, homophobic, even neo-Nazis. And every time we proved otherwise, the cry of "VOX DAY!" went up. People seem to think that, somehow, if several groups of people are working towards similar ends, we MUST be coordinating action.

To which I reply: have you ever tried coordinating people who trend conservative-to-libertarian ? It makes herding CATS look easy. I don't speak for Vox. I've occasionally interacted with him over the years, and I've read his nominated works. But Vox and his "dread ilk" are independent players, and they can speak for themselves. I know Larry, Brad, and next year's trio, Kate, Sarah, and Amanda. They're good people, interested in good stories.

And none of us care bit one about the politics, ethnicity, sex, or who and how they prefer to sleep with. That's irrelevant, all we care about is a good story.

Anyway, that's my significantly-more-than-2-cents on the subject. . . .

Comment Re:n=6? Seriously? (Score 1) 94

I think you are missing a critical point. N=6 is perfectly fine for what they were trying to accomplish, they were simply doing a proof of concept.

From the Article

The [experimental] designs were different, but the end results were very similar and highly complementary, says Ian Wilson, co-author on the Science paper and a structural and computational biologist at the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego, California. Its a promising first step, and it's very exciting to see this research come to fruition. Authors of both studies say the next step is expanding protection to other strains of influenza, namely H3 and H7.

It does not make any sense to start out every new drug and vaccine with an N>100 experiment.

Comment Re:Happily married? (Score 4, Interesting) 286

Happily married? Seems to be at odds with having an affair.

Nope, check the research of Dr. Willard Harley. An unhappy marriage is not the defining feature leading to an affair, and a number of happily married people do fall into affairs. The defining feature is lack of boundaries around the opposite sex.

Comment Re:Keeping up (Score 2) 242

I've been programming since 1965. I did programming 'cause I liked it. Then I started taking high-paying 3 month contract jobs and it all went to hell. Once I escaped the electronic sweatshop I started to enjoy programming again. These days, on the verge of retirement, I do almost no contract programming (unless the job is very interesting) and today I am involved in a small number of projects that totally interest me.

What is the outcome of marketing your skills on social media, etc.? Mostly un-inspired positions at un-inspired companies doing mediocre work. Then countless interviews, competition for the position based on irrelevant criteria, judged by people who don't have a clue. These positions are better suited to people who are inspired by money and benefits, not programming. Old programmers like myself seem to be more interested in job satisfaction than money. And making these jobs hard to get doesn't increase their desirability once you get them.

IMNSHO, a good thinker using Rational Rose or Embarcadero and optimizing the output can outperform and out-create most of the young code-doggies. I'd rather be the one creating the tools like Rational or Embarcadero.

Old programmers have special skills and talents that younger programmers haven't developed yet. Companies who want these skills and talents might be better off recognizing that the pool of people with these talents are different from the just the general pool of programmers. If they really want these skills and talents, they should use the right bait and fish in a different pond.

But then, if you are an old programmer looking for income, the price you have to pay is the effort needed to market yourself where the interest is.

The world is coming to an end--save your buffers!