Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Age discrimination is obvious (Score 1) 340

Nevertheless I will be dying my hair for my next job interview.

The thing is, if your resume says you graduated with a BSc in 1992, it's pretty obvious you were born around 1970.

It's not what you look like that's the problem. Anywhere discriminating against older people almost certainly has an unwritten company code of "you have to devote yourself to the job, be single and available to work weekends or nights when we say so". Older people are (a) more likely to have family and other important outside interests and (b) won't put up with the same deluded shit that wannabe hotshots will, as they've seen it all before.

Good point. That's why my graduation date is not on my resume. ;-)

Comment Might not help (Score 1) 277

As a resident of the Boston, MA area I can say this might not help. In my experience, giving pedestrians right-of-way in all instances causes people to simply walk into traffic. I see it all the time. They just walk out expecting everyone to stop because they have the right-of-way. Just the other day some woman walked out onto a four lane divided highway, holding up her hand like a traffic cop!

Conversely I have seen drivers almost cause accidents by screeching to a halt to stop for a person who looks like they might possibly be considering the option of crossing the street. The problem seems to be that, behind the wheel or not, people aren't that bright.

Comment Re:Age discrimination is obvious (Score 2) 340

I interviewed with 2 companies last year that were very up front about my being mid-40's was a problem. In one company, 5 of the 7 people I talked to brought it up and a couple clearly had problems with it. The recruiter that flew me out congratulated me on putting up with it - what an asshat.

Over 40 in IT, hold on to the job you got because the next one won't hire anyone over 40.

I don't doubt the dynamic, but I'm surprised they would be so up front about engaging in illegal discrimination. Questions about your age are out-of-bounds AFAIK. Nevertheless I will be dying my hair for my next job interview.

Comment Re:This sounds like a problem only for slackers. (Score 1) 165

*I* pay *YOU*. Your SALARY is how I show you your value. Beyond that it is *not my job* to coddle you and deal with your emotional problems. If you don't feel valued as a human being, that is YOUR problem.

If you want a job where your boss gives you a hug every day, that's fine. Go look for it, because you will not find it here.

LOL! Don't worry, with an attitude like yours I won't be applying for your open position.

Comment Re:Big Surprise (Score 1) 483

that's communism. that's not what sanders stands for.

here is actually a range of economic systems in the world, thousands of them, of varying complexity. it's not just social darwinistic capitalism versus gulag and toilet paper lines communism. the problem is you're uneducated and you can only think in these ignorant simpleton cartoons. try looking at how the government of denmark, sweden, or norway works. or just canada. that's modern socialism. and they are richer, healthier, safer, freer, better educated, and happier than americans

american exceptionalism seems to be about thinking how you're better when everyone pities you. we do many things wrong, like our pathetic education funding and healthcare debacles, and we need to look to other countries who clearly do it better than us. but no: "america #1! drool, snort". american delusional derangement

You mean 65 years of American propaganda have somehow led us astray? Well, I just don't know what to think anymore!

Comment Re:Well, now we know she h8s the US Constitution (Score 1) 483

How's that "red line" in Syria holding up?

Given how thoroughly Iran has been schooling Obama, I'd bet money Fiorina could stand up to Iran better.

Iran is soon to be a nuclear power and is now taking their own damn samples to find out if they're cheating their agreement with Obama. Given that Iran had already broken the NPT that they'd signed, Iran breaking an agreement with a weakling like Obama is a foregone conclusion.

Yep, the Middle East will be a really fun place after the fruits of Obama's capitulation to Iran become apparent - and Saudi Arabia and Egypt both start working on getting nuclear weapons. Think with all those nukes floating around those wonderfully stable regimes, ISIS will be able to get their medieval paws on a few so they can pop 'em off in New York, Washington, London, or - in an attempt to return al Andalus to the realm of Islam - Madrid?

It wouldn't exactly be hard for Fiorina to better Obama given how Obama's reached rock bottom and has started blasting his way to China.

Bibi, if you're going to post here, at least create an account.

Comment Re:Well, now we know she h8s the US Constitution (Score 1) 483

Tabulating machines were not computers. Nor were comptometers. There were analog computers before digital ones, but IBM didn't make them.

Do you seriously not know this?

This is known history, and not controversial.

Comment Re:Well, now we know she h8s the US Constitution (Score 2) 483

And it just happens to be among the most evil acts that human beings can commit, as it is not merely about killing somebody, it is about complete destruction of a person.

Unfortunately in 2015, despite all of our experience, there are many people who think the ends justify the means. They still do not understand that the means determine the ends.

Comment Re:Well, now we know she h8s the US Constitution (Score 1) 483

Intellectuals think this answer is clever but it's completely wrong. Humanity might take a few thousand years, but eventually we figure out the world's not flat. Torture has been around far longer than that, clearly because its effective.

Really, is that the only conclusion you can come to? Even if correct, the next question is, "Effective at what?"

People being tortured certainly may say anything, but it's not like they let you go free afterwards. The threat is that if you're lying, they're going to come back and make it even worse. Eventually the threat is to be merciful and just kill you outright. It always works.

You seem tot be under the impression that the point of torture is to elicit reliable information that can be used to stop bad actors. That is what we have been told, after all. However, I would counter that the point of torture is to elicit confessions. You know, so you can say things like "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-professed mastermind of 9/11". For that it is indeed quite effective.

Comment Re:Unchecked power will ALWAYS be abused (Score 1) 86

There was a great episode of the old Penn & Teller show "Bullshit!" that dealt with this. They hired a bunch of random people as security monitors, gave them access to surveillance cameras, and told them not to use the cameras to spy on people's private lives (only on the fake security perimeter). Sure enough, 90% of them used the cameras to spy on people's personal shit.

Now couple that with the results of the Zimbardo Prison Study and you see how we got where we are and where we are going.

Comment Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony (Score 2) 86

To make it amply clear: If secret agencies feed law enforcement in your state, then you life in a police state or worse.

I would argue that the US is already a police state. It's just subtle enough (and portrayed in the Media in such a way) that most people don't notice.

Comment Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony (Score 4, Insightful) 86

The idea is not to admit the fruits of warrantless searches and coerced confessions, but to avoid suppressing valid evidence for pointless technical reasons.

The technical reasons are not pointless. They are there to keep Law Enforcement honest. It seems they are not entirely successful on that front.

If they discover valid evidence by violating your rights, you don't really have rights. As always, the ends don't justify the means. Police and prosecutors bitch about technicalities because they don't care about your rights; they only care about convicting you, guilty or not. It is entirely proper that a guilty person go free on a technicality. It shows that even guilty people have rights, as it should be.

Comment Re:My money is on.... (Score 1) 86

If the NSA's intrusive powers, constitutionality aside, are all about terrorists, what in God's name are they doing passing normal crime info on to the FBI and DEA?

I don't think this revealation is all that secret. I recall some extra special terrorist power being granted to the FBI late Clinton era, and they immediately used it to bust drug people. They didn't even bother with the sophistry that drug distribution is a kind of terrorism.

No, when asked directly, they said, "Well, I know what we promised to use it only for terrorists, but the law doesn't actually state terrorist investigations only, so tuff." They lied to get it through Congress, then immediately began misusing it in a way only a lawyer or someone planning to throw a coup would find reasonable.

Yes, or course. I remember back in 2001 or 2002 discussing all the new powers the government gave itself with a friend of mine. He actually believed it would only be used for terrorism cases. I was stunned by the naivete. Anyone with any sense should have known that any new powers will be used for any damn thing the Feds want.

Backed up the system lately?