Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Re:Exceeds state authority (Score 1) 192

How about any business carried out in a magnetically levitated platform (yes the magnets are on the ground, but the transactions occur on the platform while the platform is in the air) - exempt from state regulation including state taxes? I foresee hovering Apple stores, looks cool and saves you money! ;-)

Comment Re:some bosses are sociopaths (Score 1) 396

>> Describing their current state is not insulting them.
Yes it is, if you use inflammatory language like "As soon as you are ready to [...] act like an adult" - you are effectively calling their behavior childish. Even if absolutely true, it is not likely to make the angry person get less angry.

>> He's already pissed off, why exactly do you think he's yelling?
There are different levels of pissed off. He may be pissed off because his expectations were not met, or maybe even because he got exactly what he asked for but realized that is not what he wanted, or maybe because of some completely unrelated personal issue. On the other than if he feels disrespected or personally attacked, pissed off can escalate from yelling, to firing you on the spot, or even to physical violence. If you're going to intentionally piss people off, you need to be prepared for anything.

Comment Re:some bosses are sociopaths (Score 1) 396

>> Remain calm. Say, "As soon as you are ready to calm down and act like an adult, we can discuss this."

Wrong. That's insulting the client, which is unprofessional. As a contractor a better approach is to sit calmly and listen, take notes, ask clarifying questions, then make sure you bill for the "meeting" time. If you are looking to piss the guy off, look happy or even smile while he's yelling - works much more effectively and you don't have to resort to insults. But, if you want to continue getting paid, I'd suggest not pissing off the client. I've experienced it on one contract a while back and must say, the yelling quickly subsided after the first couple of billing cycles (I always itemized hours worked).

Comment Re:Uber = Public subsidized (Score 1) 204

The success of Uber has little to do with the insurance. Their main advantage is the ability to quickly and conveniently find transportation. I've called for a cab in the past, and if you're in the suburbs often was given 45 minute wait times which occasionally stretched to an hour and half. That is why I would call Uber over a cab. Price difference is not negligible but way further down the list of advantages, outweighed even by something as simple as having to know the address of where I am in order to call for a cab ("hey, anybody knows the exact address of this place?"). Saying Uber's main advantage is insurance is like saying digital cameras displayed most conventional film cameras because they are smaller. Yes they are smaller, but that is not their main advantage.

Comment Re:Insurance? (Score 2) 204

Insurance companies don't lose money in the long run. If NASA insists on SpaceX taking out an insurance policy, that cost will be passed right onto customers (oh wait, NASA being the main one). This is a new and evolving industry, so say the insurance companies determine 1 in 10 launches will fail. So the insurance will cost $25M for every $100M in coverage, add 10% for SpaceX administration, $27.5M. Every $275M of taxpayers money, the insurance industry will pay out $100M. And every time they pay out, the premiums go up too. Subtract 10% if NASA pays their own insurance - either way it's a losing proposition.

Insurance is meant for catastrophic events that would break the insurance holder. If $110M will break NASA, they should not be in space business in its current stage of development (one day it may become as routine as trucking, but not today).

Comment Re: Backpedalled? (Score 1) 740

The government does not have the right to sacrifice individuals for the good of the "herd". If they did, the government could kill people just so they can use their organs in other people, one dead saves many. Vaccinations have their risks, personally stopped vaccinating my kids after having to rush one to the hospital the morning after one vaccination. It was one of the risks listed on the waiver we were told. And no, the "herd" did not cover the ER bill, or followup costs. If the government said "we cover 100% of all medical costs caused by complications, no "in network" or "not covered procedure" bullshit, plus a hefty life insurance (not to profit from a death of a child but to add motivation for the government not too mandate risky vaccinations or go bancrupt), then maybe it would be easier to consider. And for those of you who say "risk is 1 in a million" I say "find the insurance company that will pay out on those odds and the cost will be less than the tax collected on the vaccine from production to injection". If you cannot find an insurance to uderwrite such coverage of any complications, then your risk assesment is probably spoonfed to you by the company making the vaccine, and completely wrong.

Comment Re: Backpedalled? (Score 1) 740

There is a growing movement of homeschoolers who simply don't want to inflict public schools on their children. Majority of the schools are more about crowd control than education, and you have to send the kids to school designated by the government, no choice at all. Sad but true. It's government sponsored babysitting.

Comment Re: Oh noes! (Score 1) 335

"You choose, you pay" is of little comfort to those who get hurt in accidents caused by these cameras. Also, the cameras are abused by governments. For example, I lived in a place where they had speeding cameras mounted on vans parked on the sides of highways. Speed limit was 100km/h. Initially they were set to trigger at some higher speed, but government greed eventually set them at 103km/h. To add to that, they were occasionally lined up one after another, up to 3 or 4 deep, so if you happened to drive by at 104km/h you would receive 4 tickets in a span of few hundred meters, each from a different police dept that parked they unit in a "good spot". So that's the abuse part. On safety part, I personally witnessed 2 car pileups caused by people slamming on breaks to avoid a ticket, on one of those I about killed the moron who jumped out of the photoradar van once the pileup started right in front of my car doing 100km/h -maybe he thought he was superman and he could stop my car with his bare hands. As for red light cameras, I live now in a place where they have them in some parts of town. I once watched them and they start shooting as soon as yellow light happens. I saw people slam on breaks, almost causing accidents. I adopted a different strategy to "not pay the voluntary tax" - i slow down to almost stop before each light, and it's still green i floor it across the intersection - less likely yo cause an accident than slamming on breaks when yellow light shows, though one time i there was a teenage pedestrian who must have thought i was slowing down because i was getting a red light and he decided to start walking across the street agaist a red "don't walk" sign, then almost ended up as my hood ornament - I guess by your logic since he broke the law he deserved to get hurt, yes?

Comment This is not about router security (Score 2) 148

If this can happen at home router level, think what can be done at the ISP. This is not an issue of router security, because your traffic can be intercepted with other techniques, this points to a much larger problem that electronic voting results can be changed in transit and they travel over open internet. Who can change packets in transit, let's see:
* US government (NSA, FBI, or any other agency with full access)
* Government sponsored hackers (Russia, China, etc...)
* Your ISP (Comcast, Verizon, etc)
* Backbone ISP (Level3, Sprint, MCI, etc)
* Non government sponsored hackers (Anonymous,...)
The traffic should be secured end-to-end - both authenticated and encrypted (the latter for privacy reasons).

Comment He's right (Score 1) 575

"It is fully possible to permit law enforcement to do its job while still adequately protecting personal privacy"
Absolutely possible, where does it say however that access to people's phone is required for law enforcement to do its job?

“Recent technological advances have the potential to greatly embolden online criminals, providing new methods for abusers to avoid detection,”
Absolutely correct, take a look at what the NSA has been doing.

Comment Back it up Apple (Score 1) 134

Such a meaningless statement because it isn't backed up by any consequences. How about "Apple will pay 1 billion US dollars to any individual or organization that has any information collected by Apple provided to any government organization, direct or indirect". At least then anyone compromised by Apple will be able to afford a good legal defense.

Leveraging always beats prototyping.