Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:How's your Russian? (Score 1) 317

by ultranova (#46799395) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Hungry Students, How Common?

The problem is that those in charge in the EU will sit on their collective hands and do absolutely nothing until any problem has become so massive that they are dependent on US military assistance in order to hope to survive.

The problem is that many EU countries are dependent on Russian oil and gas. US military can't solve that problem.

Of course, Russia is also dependent on EU buying said resources. A disruption of trade would, at the very least, topple Putin. He's counting on EU being unwilling to take the pain, but it's becoming increasingly clear he's trying to rebuild Soviet Empire. Sooner or later he'll miscalculate, and at that point it's a question whether he can gets removed from power before starting another (world?) war as a desperation move.

But no, Russia cannot win a war with the EU. EU has 3.5 times as much population and almost 8 times as large economy. Even with all the inefficiency inherent in coordinating multiple independent militaries, it could only end in Russian defeat or nuclear escalation.

Comment: Re:Here's a trick: Don't live in the U.S. (Score 1) 317

by ultranova (#46799275) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Hungry Students, How Common?

I was dirt poor as a student in college, but I still managed to eat just fine and have a car I could get away with when I needed a break.

So you were dirt poor, except you had both property and income and could afford to waste them taking leisure drives? Good for you, but how is this relevant in a discussion about people who have trouble getting food?

Comment: Re: degrees (Score 1) 317

by ultranova (#46799185) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Hungry Students, How Common?

Lazy HR by keyword sorting is the culprit.

It's not necessarily laziness but another symptom of the oversupply of labour. When there's a 100+ applications for every position, it's impossible to evaluate them without resorting to data mining techniques. And at that point, if your application is not Search Engine Optimized, for example if you lack a diploma, sucks to be you.

The underlaying problem is that our current economic model, and our model of employment as its subset, is based on the needs of the Industrial Era, which is ending. Capitalism is breaking down just like Feudalism before it, and whatever will replace it hasn't emerged into the mainstream yet. The question is: how long and painful will the transition be this time around?

Comment: Re:I would think (Score 1) 144

by causality (#46799169) Attached to: OpenSSL Cleanup: Hundreds of Commits In a Week

disagree: mocking people for making mistakes that they should know better is a way to help that person permanently try harder to avoid those mistakes in the future.

with failure, comes mockery, especially if you are skilled and it should never have happened.

mistakes can't go unpunished, even if the person doing the punishing is yourself, you can't tell other people to back off, you deserve it, sit back and take it on the chin and try harder next time otherwise people won't have any reason to try, because the penalty for failure is barely noticeable.

That's the old-school view, in which one's self-esteem is based on achievement of some kind. Those who achieve little or nothing had low self-esteem and this was a principal incentive to identify one's own weaknesses and overcome them with directed effort. The extreme form is Japanese students throwing themselves off buildings (etc.) because their grades didn't quite measure up, making them nobodies.

The newer view is that everyone is a special snowflake. No matter what. The extreme form is shown by the public schools that play soccer without keeping score, because scoring implies winners and losers and that might hurt someone's feelings.

I mostly agree with you in that actions have consequences and you should accept the consequences of your own actions. Otherwise nothing really matters and there is no reason to improve yourself and you turn into one of these "perpetual victims" who never take responsibility for anything while simultaneously wondering why nothing ever changes. But that should be tempered with the fact that some mistakes are much more preventable (less understandable) than others, and as Orlando Battista once said, an error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.

There's no reason to metaphorically crucify someone for an honest mistake, but certainly there is going to be a reaction to it and people aren't going to like it. That's to be expected. It's reasonable to expect someone to accept that and yes, it is an incentive to learn something from the experience and be more careful in the future. If I were a programmer and found that completely unacceptable, I could always choose not to work on such an important project critical to the security of so many.

As an aside: I think replying to you is much more edifying than being like the cowards who modded you down to -1 without once putting forth their own viewpoint which they clearly think is superior. There's too much of that going on at this site. There is no "-1 Disagree" mod for a reason.

Comment: Re:I would think (Score 2) 144

by causality (#46798999) Attached to: OpenSSL Cleanup: Hundreds of Commits In a Week

As for why so many bugs, "so many eyes" only works if you still have tons of people actively participating in the project's development. At a glance, it seems like the OpenBSD guys are saying the OpenSSL project was getting stale. Stale projects do not have anywhere near as many eyes going through their code nor as many people actively looking for potential bugs to fix before they get reported in the wild.

Yes the "logic" used by many in this thread is specious at best.

Premise: when there are many eyes looking at open source, it leads to more bugs getting fixed.

Faulty reasoning (of too many people): this project didn't have many eyes, therefore the premise is false. Herp derp.

Correct reasoning: when the condition of "many eyes" was met, the premise is shown to be true.

Conclusion: some people dislike Open Source for ideological reasons and saw this as a chance to take cheap shots at it and show everyone how clever they are ... and failed because of faulty reasoning. Just like what you see in politics - if you happen not to like something, it must be BAD!! and cannot possibly have merits that you simply don't value.

Comment: I was there when TOR was young (Score 1) 124

by symbolset (#46798025) Attached to: New 'Google' For the Dark Web Makes Buying Dope and Guns Easy
True forward anonymity is a useful thing and it served the myriad dissidents escaping opression which is good. Being involved in it also meant facilitating the use of others involved in slavery, abuse of minors, and so on. On balance I decided that I could not justify facilitating the downside, no matter how important the upside was. There has to be a better way than dancing with the devil. If you dance with the devil, you will pay his fee.

Comment: Re:What can you do? (Score 1) 336

by HiThere (#46796173) Attached to: Beer Price Crisis On the Horizon

I think you're wrong. Both sides go in for regulation, regardless of their rhetoric. (Cicero originally formalized rhetoric as a way of lying in a convincing manner, and taught it in a school for Roman politicians.)

They do tend to regulate different things, but neither side ever seems to undo the other sides regulations, no matter how adversely they may affect the citizenry. After all, they need something to vilify their opponents about.

Comment: Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (Score 2) 336

by HiThere (#46796023) Attached to: Beer Price Crisis On the Horizon

I think you overstate the inefficiency of ethanol as a fuel...though perhaps you need to tune your engine differently to take advantage of it.

OTOH, it is a remarkably poor fuel when one considers the costs of originally producing it. Sugar cane is much more plausible, but doesn't grow in the same areas. The best argument for corn derived ethanol fuel that I can see is that any corn used as fuel won't be turned into fructose syrup. AFAIKT, this is basically a government subsidy to the large growers. A very inefficient one, too.

While money can't buy happiness, it certainly lets you choose your own form of misery.