Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Why should? (Score 1) 100

Because death by airplane crash is more exotic than death by car crash.

More like it is so rare AND so many people die that the news organizations play it over and over and Over and OVER and OVER!!!

Now imagine if those news organizations gave that same coverage to every single car crash (with a fatality).

The news would be nothing but car crashes.

And people would start to be terrified of driving anywhere.

Also TFA is incredibly stupid. His examples are meaningless in this context. An autonomous car SHOULD be able to stop itself and turn control over to a human when it encounters something it cannot handle.

And, over time, those cars WILL become more popular because the people who use them will pay lower insurance rates. That is because any accident they are in SHOULD be the fault of another driver OR the programming.

Look at the airports around Thanksgiving. They will be packed with people. Because people see the value in flying. Even when they give up control to someone else and it could result in an "exotic" death. The same with autonomous cars.

Comment Code monkey (Score 4, Informative) 230

But it is possible to take someone with no experience and turn him/her into a code monkey in only 2 years.

And I think that that is the point with this. They aren't looking to educate new "engineers". They want cheap, fast labour. Code monkeys.

If one of those people goes on to learn more, on their own, so much the better.

If not, well the CxO's of those companies will claim that it is the fault of the workers.

Comment Mod parent up. (Score 4, Insightful) 360

If you want to change the system then you have to be involved a lot sooner than voting day.

And it all starts at the grassroots level.

Don't simply vote for the "lesser evil" in your local elections. Get out and help campaign for someone whom you could actually support.

Get your friends together and form your own voting bloc.

Schedule time to meet with the candidates. Even the ones who "have no chance".

MAKE the change instead of waiting for someone who's already bought to do so for you. Because that isn't going to work.

Comment Re:This guy should be a lawyer (Score 3, Insightful) 203

Oh your car chose to kill a kid on a bike instead of hit an old person crossing the road?

What? Why do you think that a car would be programmed to hit "obstacle B" when "obstacle A" appears in front of it?

Instead, wouldn't the car be programmed to avoid ALL obstacles and apply the brakes with maximum efficiency?

Comment Re:Duh (Score 4, Insightful) 131

And that article is one of the worst I've seen.

I would say that I see our primary role is to proactively drive positive change while developing the right responses to capitalize on disruption in our industry.

If that even made sense ... is there any "management" or CxO role in a company where the exact same could NOT be said?

I would make it clear that my team is not going to spend a lot of time spinning wheels on inventorying every nuance and the current state of our infrastructure.

I've worked for hazardous waste disposal companies, insurance companies and manufacturing companies. The CRITICAL parts are always 100% "nuance".

Otherwise you're operating the same as someone else and they're probably doing it for less than you charge. And taking all your clients.

We're also tasked with taking innovative new technology and coming up with a plan to apply that innovation to dominate the competition.

In other words, you want to play beta-tester with the company's business. For technology that you do NOT control.

The rest of it really is focused on driving change and optimizing.

I'm reminded of some old advice for CxO's. Claim something is a problem and then change it. No one ever filled out their resume with "maintained the status quo".

We will do everything in our power to build that trust and to aid in taking advantage of the rapid change that is happening in our industry.

What "rapid change"? If your name is "Google" or "Amazon" then you're probably doing the same thing in the same way in the same time you've been doing it for 10 years.

I'm more reminded of this:

Comment Re:The real problem (Score 1) 299

Isn't that known as "gathering requirements"?

It can be difficult and they can change and they will probably be incomplete ... but as you get more experience you should be better prepared to deal with those issues.

I've seen a company build a new production center and not know where the people would be who would be operating it. Some of it was backwards. We ended up putting down tape to delineate the different areas so they could be painted. So yeah, stupidity is rampant.

But the contractors all got paid. They didn't care whether what they were delivering met the customers actual needs (that the customer could not identify) as long as what they delivered met the specs and was up to code.

Software should, for the most part, be the same way. I'd guess that less than 1% of the programmers out there are really doing anything new.

Comment Re:PP slogans won't cut it (Score 2) 233

The problem of traditional IT departments in large corporation is not getting "Ubered"; it's just a matter of having a large organization with all the bureaucracy that comes with it.

Which does not seem to be addressed by any of the people in TFA.

I see it as a manifestation of the The Dunningâ"Kruger effect. Those people got their positions NOT through creating something new and valuable but through relationships with other people.

So, should they be worried about getting "Ubered"? If by "Ubered" you mean "having your business cut out from under you by some who understands IT better than you" then yes.

The LAST thing I want is some idiot CIO trying to "fix" things that are not broken.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 148

Now imagine that one of those junk sites gets cracked. They now have:

1. your email address
2. your password for that site
3. the "security" answers you've provided

Using #1 & #2 they can try to access other sites to collect more of #3.

Have you used the same email address (#1) and security answers (#3) on critical sites? If so, they can potentially bypass the password (#2) that they do not have for those critical sites.

So, unique passwords AND unique email addresses (with unique passwords) for critical sites.

Comment Re:If only there were a system like this... (Score 1) 128

But that's not even the greatest flaw. The greatest problem is expecting people to do a bunch of research to dig through past archives (thousands and thousands of jokes?) to determine if any of those are a substantial match with this one.

There are MANY flaws with Bennett Haselton's idea. There always are. That's the problem with his posts getting front page placement.

Anyway, let's deal with them in order of time.

1. Who is going to sign up to read a list of JOKES just because it promises "new" jokes in exchange for your work?

2. Who is going to SUBMIT jokes FOR FREE to that list to reach those readers?

3. Who is going to do the work FOR FREE of documenting duplicate jokes?

4. Who is going to do the work FOR FREE of verifying the documentation of #3?

That's why I think sock puppets will be the biggest exploit of those flaws. Anyone incentivized to reach the people in #1 will be incentivized to game it by creating sock puppets. It won't take many sock puppets because most people will soon give up on the effort to document a joke / moderate the documentation of a joke.

Eventually you will end up with sock puppets documenting jokes and sock puppets moderating that documentation. And the list of jokes will devolve into whatever personal vendetta the guy with the most sock puppets has.

Comment Re:If only there were a system like this... (Score 1) 128

We should implement Haselton's stupid idea then!

EVERY story should be emailed to 1,000 /. users who will ignore it and hope that they will do the research necessary to find if it is a dupe or similar enough to something that they will remember and care enough to link to so that SOMEONE ELSE can check that it is valid before releasing it.

Bennett Haselton has, once again, come up with an idiot "solution" to a problem that does not exist and and he expects free labour from THOUSANDS of people will solve this problem.

Yes, you idiot, that idea is "gameable" because sock puppet accounts will be the most likely to respond while real users will not have the time/dedication to research (for FREE) whether a joke is a dupe or not.

Who the fuck even cares?

Why is Bennett Haselton still posting to the front page of /.?

The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was.