Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Not surprised ... (Score 1) 12

I've seen a fair bit of evidence of shady players (most of whom seem to be recruiters) on LinkedIn.

I recently got an invite from someone who had crafted their profile to strongly suggest they had worked at a previous employer, and you had to look pretty closely to realize they didn't. Either he was a shady recruiter, or an even shadier player -- definitely a profile which took me several minutes to look at against who I thought it could me.

I have a fairly firm policy that if I don't know you, I'm not adding you. So all those recruiters who are obviously recruiters get ignored.

But the ones who have carefully crafted a profile to mislead you into thinking it could be someone you know, those are much more worrying. I even saw that one of those misleading ones had been added by someone I did formerly work with, because it was a good enough fake that people would fall for it.

This has always been a problem with social networks in my opinion: if the goal is to collect as many links as possible without actually stopping to think of "just who the hell is this person again?", then people are going to be suckered into linking to people they don't know at all.

So you pretty much have a platform in which people are trying to expand their network, and don't seem to think critically enough about just who those people are and if you really want a random recruiter or someone you don't know in your network. Me, I've pretty much decided that I won't link to people I don't actually know.

So, am I surprised to see stuff like this? Not hardly, because in a lot of ways LinkedIn is as much of a pest on the internet as Facebook and Twitter. And if fooling people into adding you into their network gives you a way to fool more people, it's all the more reason to look at those invites and ask "who the fuck is this and why the hell do I care?".

Comment Re:Bullshit ... (Score 5, Insightful) 415

No, the point (made many times already, try googling for once)

Oh go fuck yourself.

VW lied about how they achieved these numbers, and are claiming a couple of software engineers are the culprits.

So, yes, actual mechanical parts they never implemented and then lied about, and now they're looking for a scapegoat.

The people responsible for the engine design pretty much had to know this. Blaming it on software engineers is an outright lie.

They lied about how they did this, they lied about how they faked it, and they're lying about who is at fault. The only "clever design" was systematic fraud.

Comment Bullshit ... (Score 5, Insightful) 415

Aren't there actual mechanical parts of the engine which simply weren't even implemented and then this kludge was done in software?

You can't design this way of cheating without people who know the details of the engine signing off on it.

This is so much bullshit it isn't funny.

A software engineer could not have made the decision to leave off the components which were supposed to make clean diesel.

This is purely about finding a scapegoat.

Comment Pretty much screwed ... (Score 1) 36

He allegedly encouraged the hackers to use the credentials to âoego fuck some shit up.â

And, really, if that was his attitude, he gets no sympathy.

In terms of the definition of "computer fraud and abuse", that's pretty much it.

Of course, the problem is you could do a LOT of non-digital crimes and do a LOT less time, which makes me ask if these prison sentences are even sane.

Hell, you could probably intentionally run down someone with your car and do less prison time.

Comment Re:MOOC = Massive Open Online Course (Score 1) 106

Bah ... MOOCs are for cows, you're all cows ... MOOC cow ... MOOC ... cower before me and stuff.

Yay cows ... or whatever that cow thing is supposed to say. It's cows all the way down.

MOOC may be used a lot, but so are all other bullshit buzzwords ... Massively Online Ocelots and Cows or something.

It may surprise you that a lot of us don't give a crap about these buzzwords, and don't keep track.

Now moove along.

Comment Re:Define speeding (Score 1) 153

Really? You mean I can tell the officer I was doing 80 in a 50 zone because I was passing someone?

I'm pretty sure I've never heard of passing as an exemption to speed limits. I'm pretty sure they don't write traffic laws which says "you can't go faster than X ever, unless you're passing, then it's OK".

Are you sure it's actually "legal"? Or just something you heard once?

Comment Re:Idiots (Score 1) 340

Unfortunately, in the modern context "mentally infirm" is pretty much a design feature, and people feel they're entitled to believe any old irrational shit and that should be OK.

There's a tremendous amount of people who seem to wear their own self-created ignorance as some kind of badge of honor.

"Complete idiots" now probably covers a good portion of society these days ... and we seem to accept this as a fairly normal thing.

Comment Re:I don't think it will mean much (Score 2) 194

But it will have to be made to mean something.

I've been saying for quite a while that self-driving cars can't just go into a failure mode which says "OK, meat sock, you do it I'm confused" and expect humans to be able to respond or take liability.

It's completely unrealistic to expect humans to transition from not actively driving to being required to take over in the event of an emergency.

Why would I pay insurance on a self-driving car? That would be idiotic, and basically means everyone else is footing the bill for the adoption of unfinished technology.

If the passengers aren't the source of the risk, they sure as hell shouldn't be the ones pay for the insurance.

Comment Re:Too little, too late (Score 5, Insightful) 235

I'm sorry, but who is pushing a new iPhone "through the throats of customers"??

You are completely free to not fucking buy one.

Did you know that car makers push out a new version, only slightly different, annually? Companies who make golf clubs, also push out new versions at least annually. And companies who make TVs, they also do this.

If customers buy a new expensive phone every year or two, don't blame the vendor. Free will doesn't stop just because you've bought a product.

Comment Re:Acquisition and creating/destroying value (Score 1) 93

I was at a company once, and they'd grown by acquisitions. I'm sure everybody has by now.

Invariably, the VP of R&D of the last major acquisition became the VP of R&D for the entire company. And, also invariably, that VP of R&D would develop a massive case of Not Invented Here, and attempt to kill off any products outside of his own core knowledge.

This usually led to idiotic decisions which were inconsistent with why that company was bought in the first place -- precisely because they stupidly wanted to kill off the products they'd been intended to augment and improve, not wipe out and destroy.

At the employee level, it just became a pathetic running joke ... oh,. look, another acquisition, we should throw away our core business for whatever widget these idiots do.

And then there's all the examples where the company being bought had cooked the books to the point that what they actually were worth had nothing to do with what got paid for them ... like HP and Autonomy.

Acquisition MIGHT be something which can be made to work. Far too often it just ends up destroying the thing which had enough value to have bought in the first place.

Comment Re:Not a science ... (Score 1) 204

I know the scientific method is how you investigate stuff ... I also know economics is pretty much 50% ideology, which means it's wrapping itself up in the claims of being a science while not really being one.

Yes, economics affects our lives ... and in terms of telling us what has historically happened, it has some uses ... and then it falls to shit in terms of being either predictive of what will happen, or being successful in telling us what we should do to achieve an outcome.

But as far as being an objective science, it's sure as hell not that.

How you interpret what happened, and how you define what should happen is entirely driven by your ideology ... at which point you might as well call it what it is, a fucking belief system someone is trying to quantify with bad math while claiming it's science.

And that aint science. That's sophistry.

Comment Re:Evil, Mean and Cruel + Dell (Score 2) 93

You know, from what I've been able to see, the M+A culture in tech for the last 20+ years has consistently made the same stupid mistakes ... companies buy other companies who aren't really good matches, screw up the product, lay off a bunch of people, and consolidate into an ever smaller amount of companies.

And those large entities become worse and worse at even knowing what they have, and making use of them.

Often to the point that the reasons they spent huge sums of money on the acquisition in the first place get lost, and then they stop selling the product entirely.

I would argue that acquisitions is more destructive than constructive. All it really does is gut smaller companies, give those executives huge payouts while laying off their staff, and then leaving the new company to ignore/neglect/screw up the product offerings of the company which got bought.

I'm betting hundreds of companies with good products have essentially been destroyed in the process, largely so some half-wit of a CEO could add another buzzword or two to his portfolio of lies and bullshit.

To communicate is the beginning of understanding. -- AT&T