Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Hold up (Score 1) 264

by narcc (#49350803) Attached to: Developers and the Fear of Apple

Retired, my home is what amounts to a small castle (ex-church), multiple vehicles, 200" home theater, no mortgage, no loans, investments a-plenty, two wholly owned, profitable businesses that run themselves, and the software that put me here now available for free to anyone...

Okay. Good for you? What does that have to do with the silly point you were making?

Moving on to something relevant:
$7k isn't exactly a big return over a period as short as two-months. Even $47k over a year isn't great working for yourself, by yourself, in most places. It could be okay if you live in an area with a low cost-of-living, you were single, worked out of your home, and didn't need health insurance.

If you hire anyone, expect that 7k to vanish in short order. Even at $47k, you'd be lucky to pay a second developer for more than a few months, even at a very low rate.

The point? The "hidden assumption" that development takes a year is nonsense.

Comment: Re:Here's MY test (Score 1) 515

by narcc (#49346619) Attached to: A Bechdel Test For Programmers?

You miss the point that people whose brains work in a specific way are more likely to enjoy and want to programming computers.

I didn't miss it, it's just total nonsense. I'd call it wishful thinking from socially inept basement-dwellers. They get to pretend that their poor hygiene and lack-of-success with women indicates that they're really super-programmers.

Comment: Re:Here's MY test (Score 1) 515

by narcc (#49342211) Attached to: A Bechdel Test For Programmers?

So it is relevant then. Hmm.

No, I was making fun of you. See, you believe that programming is just too difficult for women yet believe that the mentally challenged are qualified. I'm pointing out that it's easier than it has ever been -- a point to which you're sure to agree as you hold the absurd belief that mentally handicapped people are attracted to the profession.

It is possible that you're a mentally disabled programmer, and simply believe that your personal experience is common. That I'll believe.

Comment: Re:Here's MY test (Score 1) 515

by narcc (#49333545) Attached to: A Bechdel Test For Programmers?

Here's a third possibility: Women are generally less interested in computer science.

No. That's the problem. The question here is "why?"

My guess? The industry is a cesspit. It's hostile to all, but to women in particular. Hobbyist communities, online forums, and (particularly) OSS projects are even worse. It sucks for men, sure, but it sucks even more for women.

Think about the shitheads that make your workplace a living hell. Now imagine that, while you're physically weaker, they're also making unwanted sexual advances and, possibly on occasion, "accidentally" groping you. On top of all that, regardless of your actual performance, you're considered to be half as good as the worst guy on the team.

Does that sound like your dream job?

Comment: Re:Here's MY test (Score 1) 515

by narcc (#49333449) Attached to: A Bechdel Test For Programmers?

This is nonsense.

A fitting prelude to your post. At least you were honest about what followed. In case you were actually serious:

Neither autism nor any of the particular metaphysical assumptions you offer are relevant to the topic.

Further, while it's true that the average computer programming job in the 1960's is different than it is today, it's gotten significantly easier. So simple, in fact, that many mentally handicapped men, as you point out, opt for a career in programming.

Comment: Re: freedom (Score 1) 1089

by narcc (#49304185) Attached to: Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US

Do you realize just how many potential mandatory voters don't file taxes every year?

Let's say, just for fun, that it's 20%. An absurdly high estimate. Even if we also pretend that we don't have any information about them, it's still sufficient to make mandatory voting effective.

Of course, we do know who they are, so it's a silly non-point.

Mandatory voting would require the authorities to find them and, and this is the truly larger point CHARGE THEM WITH A CRIME.

It requires that we mail a letter, possibly a follow up or two. We already know who voted and who is eligible to vote, so it's not like any further investigation is required.

You can believe that power would be wielded honorably, but you'd quickly be proven wrong.

We have lots of things with mandatory participation now and we've managed to get along just fine. Somehow, the Soviet-style enforcement squads have not appeared.

I'd like to see more voter participation. It's important. Even if enforcement is weak or non-existant, it should still be enough to increase voter turn-out rates significantly. (Believe it or not, people don't actually want to break the law, even when there are no consequences. Not everyone is a paranoid anti-government conspiracy theorist.)

On the problem mentioned in the summary, publicly-funded elections would be a much more effective solution. Our political leaders should be beholden to their constituents, not to their contributors.

Comment: Re: freedom (Score 1) 1089

by narcc (#49298145) Attached to: Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US

Bzzzt. Wrong. Voted in every national level election since 1988.

Good, then you know that we have a record of who voted. Congratulations, you're almost there!

Those the vote would be known, those that don't vote would need to be looked into, investigated, or dare I say, spied upon.

How so? We know who voted and who did not. We also know who is eligible to vote and who is not. No spying, investigation, etc. would be necessary. We already have all the necessary data.

The government can't know who didn't vote without keeping meticulous records

They do that already. It's why I pay my taxes instead of ignoring them.

they'd need to be far more thorough than that in their tracking and monitoring

They already are!

Sure, they'll miss a small minority of people who fell off-grid, but who the hell cares? I suspect that existing records will cover well-above 99.9% Do you think it would be completely ineffective if it wasn't 100% perfect?

You're clearly a bit paranoid, so I hope this didn't disturb you too much.

The beer-cooled computer does not harm the ozone layer. -- John M. Ford, a.k.a. Dr. Mike

Working...