Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Interesting point, but meaningless to most (Score 1) 166

When I run out of games to play on my Samsung, I still won't consider Apple because I think their interface and control-freak issues mostly suck the big one. My company forced me to have one for awhile, so I had two phones. I just recently gave it back because a 'free' phone is worth exactly that; I'd rather pay for my Android than use a free iPhone.

Fortunately, I'm not one of those people who just have to have the latest game or phone so I can be part of the 'in' crowd. I'm happy waiting until my old phone breaks before getting a new one and playing the few games I have for the few minutes a day I play them because I'm not addicted to my fucking phone.

Comment Re:This is fantastic. (Score 2) 247

The problem with the US elections has nothing to do with money (at least not directly) or whether people are capable of deciding who to vote for.

I'll prove it with this statement ... why don't you run for office???

I'll wait while you form a response ....

I'll bet the reasons fell into either it doesn't interest you, you can't afford to take the time off, you don't want the public scrutiny, you don't think you could get elected, you are too busy, or a ton of other reasons.

Which is why we basically have dedicated politicians, only someone who really wants to be a politician wants to run for office. And they usually have some sort of dedicated income so they don't worry about having a job if they lose. Or in 4 years when they get kicked out.

I've talked with a few people who have run for local political positions, and most have said they would never do it again because of the experience. My wife discourages me from public office whenever I bring it up because she was involved in local elections when she was young.

We get the politicians we get because no one else wants the job.

On a side note, I always find it funny that people complain about money in politics, and how they want to get rid of it. But what they really mean is they want to get rid of all the money from groups they don't approve of. They don't want the Koch brothers to have any say, but they don't mind if the Sierra Club or Everytown does. They complain about how money influences politics. But can't answer the question about why, if it influences it so much, doesn't the NRA give a lot of money to anti-gun politicians in order to sway their opinions??

Maybe it's the actions of the politicians that attract the money, not the money changing the actions of the politicians. Doesn't it make more sense for organizations to give money to the politicians they want to get elected rather than give money to those that disagree with them?? In other words, just because ice cream sales go up in the summer and it's hot in the summer doesn't mean that ice cream makes it hot out. Just because the NRA gives money to a politician that votes against gun control doesn't mean that the money caused him to vote that way. After all, Bloomberg has pretty big pockets too.

Comment Or .. this is what happens. (Score 2) 229

Our company started up some Big Data projects. Well, no one at work knows Big Data, so they went out and hired a bunch of new people. There are no 'old people' on the team. So naturally, none of the 'old people' are going to know it, except possible by some book learning. It's the company's own fault that none of the 'old people' know Big Data, because they won't put them on the teams.

In our company, we do sprints, and only put people in projects that already have the skills necessary to do the work. There is one special team that does research into new tech, but nine times out of ten, we hire people to implement it rather than train internally. Why?? Because we are already all busy and we don't have time to wait for me to train my replacement and then for me to learn the new stuff.

And this crap about new people not knowing the old tech is the same thing. Back in the 'old days', we had a concept where we would rotate people through maintenance and new development. That way they learn multiple systems and skills. But we don't do that anymore because Johnny is a web developer and we need his skills on the web development team. We don't have time for him to learn back end development.

The largest blame for corporations not having 'talented' people is the corporate environment and it's stupid rules. However, there are also a lot of people that won't learn new things, or old things. Mostly because they just aren't as bright as they think they are, and it takes too much effort.

Now, I'm a 56 year old 38 year IT veteran, who started out hacking the college HP so I could get accounts with better priority. I'm the kind of person that says "I don't know it, but I can learn it" and over the years have seen my salary grow because I can just as easily write in COBOL as I can Java, and a host of other languages. I can hand wire serial and network cables, build windows and unix servers, run cables through ceilings, and even administer phone systems. Because I've been lucky enough to work for smaller companies that didn't have the luxury of hiring specialized talents. Or stupid rules about what a developer is allowed to have access to.

My advice to developers is stop working for the big guys, take a small cut in pay and go work for someone that doesn't have a big shop so you can learn lots of stuff. Because, when you can work in any aspect of the IT world, you become far more valuable to your company when they realize they can put you in any project and you can perform.

Comment Re:Manipulate people opinions (Score 2, Interesting) 133

Those supposed health groups that try and tell all of us that sugar, soda, and corn syrup are all evil and shouldn't be consumed have been playing this same game. How dare Coke try and refute the lies those groups are spreading.

Funny thing, I rarely drink soda anymore, and I'm still overweight. Could it possibly be that other factors are involved?? Like not having enough physical activity?? Or just simply eating too much??

Everyone knows that too many calories and not enough physical activity causes weight gain. But a few feel it is their responsibility to get things banned because some people just can't control their own eating habits. They would ban something that many enjoy in moderation just to impact the few that still will be overweight because they have numerous issues with their caloric intake and burn rates.

I grew up with soda in the house. It was a treat. We had it once in awhile. We always had whole milk for dinner. I drank water in the summer from the hose, and the rest of the time from the tap. I had one or two bowls of sugary cereal every morning for breakfast. Yet I wasn't overweight because I rode my bike or walked everywhere I needed, my parents didn't cart my sorry ass around town unless the weather was really bad. I had a newspaper route, which for some reason has been deemed too dangerous for kids anymore. My parents let me walk the three blocks to the school playground as a young child without worry some nosy busybody would call the cops on them abandoning their kids. Oh .. wait .. my dad was a cop. We ate pizza and had milk shakes in the school cafeteria,. Yet, two years after I graduated from high school, a friends mom said I looked much better than that skinny kid I was in high school. Apparently, school lunches, soda, and sugary cereals don't make kids fat because most of my friends lived the same way.

Soda is not causing our kids to get fat. Frosted Flakes are not causing our kids to get fat.

Parents who don't encourage their kids to get off their asses and play outside are causing our kids to get fat. Parents who don't know how to cook and get carry-out every night are causing our kids to get fat. Parents who believe Kraft Mac and Cheese can be served several nights a week are making our kids fat. Parents who keep large supplies of soda and snacks around the house are making our kids fat.

In general, parents are making our kids fat. And no one else, not even the schools, are responsible.

Comment Apple has never innovated ... (Score 1) 440

... but they are GREAT at marketing and making pretty looking products.

EVERY product they have ever come out with was made using existing technology, just packaged in a pretty container.

And people paid more because Apple did a great job at marketing.

There is nothing wrong with that, I won't deny Apple their ability to make tremendous profit margins.

Just stop saying their products are any better than other products.

They are just prettier.

Comment Re:Beautiful (Score 1) 53

Bull shit on the battery life. I get 3 days on my Samsung watch, 4 if I turn mine off at night. I've had it for over a year and haven't noticed any change in battery life either. I'm sure there are some people that get only 2 days, I did when I first got it and was looking at it every 5 minutes.

They need to add a wireless charge option though, my Samsung phone has that. No reason the watch can't.

Comment Re:Great, more toys for rich Republicans (Score 1) 53

And the Apple watch is a toy for even richer liberals. Must be, because it has fewer functions and costs more. (The low end Apple watch doesn't have the same type of screen glass as the one that is priced just higher than the Samsung watch.)

Did you actually have a point???

Comment Re: Battery life (Score 0) 53

At the end of the day, my Samsgung watch is at 85%. I easily get 3 days of use before having to recharge. 4 if I turn it off overnight.

Suck it Apple .. you weren't even clever enough to figure out how to make your throwback watch waterproof or figure out how to include a camera.

What an overpriced, last generation POS the Apple watch is. But all the Apple users are like 'Ooooohhh ... look at the pretty button'.

Meh .. if you have an Apple phone, then I guess you are already used to Apple's lackluster choice of options. And lack of innovation. They can only 'innovate' if someone else does it first.

Comment Re:Interesting (Score 1) 29

While I think this is a great advance over current tech, I have current tech on my wrist. And it is very useful. I charge it once every three days, overnight. And while it's display is off all the time, turning it to look at it turns it on, so I don't understand what your complaint is.

I'm sure a minority of people who couldn't afford them complained about the big, bulky cell phones when they first came out and didn't see a need for them. Jealousy often results in such feelings, it's like the Aesop fable about the fox who couldn't reach the grapes, and concluded they were probably sour anyway. Many like that wouldn't survive a day without their modern cell phone.

But ... back to your real point .. I also see no reason why a gray-scale device like this wouldn't be perfect. There is nothing on my current smart watch that requires color, other than to make things look pretty. However, it will have to have some type of light to be view-able in the dark.

And a camera. It has to have a camera. So many current models don't have one, and they are missing out on one of the most convenient features of a wearable computer.

Comment Re:Unfortunately (Score 4, Insightful) 468

So, your solution is to penalize all of those that know how to use a gun in order to stop the few that cause problems. Which has been shown repeatedly doesn't work, criminals are a very creative bunch. Instead, people point to senseless statistics as if killing 9 people is acceptable, but 10 is not.

You sir, sound like an idiot. An idiot who likes to generalize. I've known many people who shoot, and the vast majority of them are not beer drinking good 'ol boys. They are my neighbors, my family, my friends, and my fellow geeky workers.

NRA doesn't 'pander' to anyone. The NRA is supported by millions of people who use guns, and it simply echos their views. The tired generalization that somehow the NRA is pushing an agenda is misplaced, the millions of VOTERS who support the NRA are pushing an agenda. The NRA is no different from the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, who also are supported by millions of people who help to shape their agendas.

The real problem is idiots who think they know what is best for everyone else, probably because their ego is so huge. The majority of gun owners I know simply want to be left alone and allowed to target shoot in peace, buy a gun whenever they find one they like, and be able to defend themselves if necessary.

I am also anti-stupid-fucking-idiot-with-a-gun. The problem is determining who the stupid-fucking-idiots are. I personally don't trust you to make that judgement, it sounds to me you are like most car drivers .. everyone driving faster than you is an asshole and everyone driving slower is an idiot. You talk like you would think you are the only one that knows exactly the right speed to travel.

When you and your fellow anti-gun fanatics can come up with a method that keeps guns out of the hands of the very small minority of criminals and allow the far greater number of legal gun owners to go out and target shoot, carry a gun for defensive purposes, and collect guns without being overly burdened with fees or procedures, or having to register their property, let me know.

Until then, please leave me the fuck alone. Your tired, ignorant rhetoric is getting boring. My wife an I own several revolvers, pistols, bolt-action rifles, and semi-automatic rifles. Never once has any of them been pointed at another person or animal. They have been used to shred a large number of paper targets and put holes into plastic water-filled bottles (which where collected and recycled afterward.) They have been used to help my wife sleep at night when I'm away. And to make me feel a bit safer investigating what that noise was at night.In my 56 years of living, and probably 46 years of shooting, no one has been even remotely put into danger by my actions.

Insinuating that somehow I shouldn't be allowed to have guns because you know someone who is an idiot or because someone else shot somebody is just moronic. If we used that logic, we should also remove all the cars from the roads and knives from our kitchens.

Oh wait .. several years ago in the UK, a bunch of people suggested just that .. that pointy kitchen knives had no use other than killing people and should be banned. It seems that once guns were effectively banned, people started finding other ways to kill people. I can't wait for the day when cricket bats become the weapon of choice. Oh .. wait ... during some riots in London, miniature baseball bats became the self-defense weapon of choice when the unarmed police couldn't control the crowds.

The real problem is a very small minority of people sometimes want to hurt other people. And all the banning of devices in the world will never stop that.

Comment Been laid off twice, and gotten better jobs (Score 1) 179

It has always seemed to be a common thread with me and some of the people I've known over the years. They get the bad news, we don't need you anymore. Not the bad news that you suck and we don't need you, but we are cutting back and can't afford your services.

Almost everyone I've known, including myself, has gotten better jobs after a round downsizing. I think part of it is if you stay in one place too long, your value goes up, but your company is not willing to recognize you for it.

The best thing that every happened to me was getting laid off from a COBOL job back around 1990. I had run a project installing a Unix based bar code time clock system for a company that used Honeywell minicomputers. I had worked for this company for 7 years, and thought I was pretty safe, especially after such a successful project (under budget and on time). One day, my boss came in and told me it was time for me to go. This was after they had already gotten rid of the night shift computer operator, and we were on four 10 hour day shifts to cover his work. The company had already reduced the development staff from 4 to just me and my boss.

I went to a recruiter who told me that COBOL programmers were a dime a dozen, and asked if I had other skills. I told her about the barcode project, and she said it didn't count. She said she would try, but couldn't promise anything.

Boy .. was she wrong.

Turns out that some people I had met while investigating different systems were very interested in me. Their VP spent an entire afternoon talking with me. After two hours, I asked him 'Excuse me, but what job am I applying for'. To which he replied, 'Oh .. you aren't really applying. We are going to hire you. I'm just trying to figure out what position to put you in'.

From that point on, I never again called a recruiter when I was ready to switch jobs, I just called people I knew.

Two years ago, I was working a dead-end job supporting Java on Windows and Sql Server for a company that had gone from 50 people to about 10. The Boss called me in, and said they couldn't afford me anymore. He actually gave me 90 days to find a job. I should have known the writing was on the wall when they hired another developer from India, and paid him about 75% of what I was making.

Called some people I knew, and got a 25% raise. I'm still writing Java, but at least it's on Unix and more web based work than back end work. The benefits are much better, and I get to work from home a couple of days a week.

If you are a smart person, don't fear the layoff. Make sure you keep in contact with past acquaintances, and you'll end up better off I'm sure.

I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.