Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Why is this news? (Score 2) 152

Is it? I've noted this blind acceptance of this particular meme, while in the same breath demanding every iota of information (Facebook passwords, credit history, etc.) from prospective employees. And especially in this instance, no actual harm was done to Nintendo, so where is the justification?

People talking shop about their jobs is as old as the hills. The fact that this encompasses new technologies is maybe slightly different, but it is that gray area that the web inhabits between journalism and hobby.

And again, no harm was done by his disclosure.

But now Nintendo gets to look like paranoid control freak even more.

Well played.

Comment Ageist or sexist (Score 1) 388

Use to work with several menopausal women who wanted things noticable cooler than the others, and ultimately it was agreed that either the women could walk around near nude or the rest could wear sweaters. Sweaters were the easiest compromise.

So by the researchers findings, is that ageist or sexist? I see that attempting to accomodate with the least amount of fuss is far too difficult in this PC age, and now the battle of the sexes is even fought with the thermostat.

Imagine my surprise when they didn't differentiate between older and younger women, upbringing (feral children are known to run naked in the snow, delighting in the cold, and those in northern climates tend to prefer things cooler than those in the south), or any of the numerous other factors that affect perception of temperature.

Nope, just sexism.

Comment Re:Why Fight It? (Score 0) 133

Related- why the hell would you want to innovate at a place that looks unfavorably upon independent thinking? The absolute best thing that could happen is for that business to die a flaming death, consumed by their own ineptitude and bureaucracy. Taking matters into your own hands only extends their reach, propping up their inefficiencies to suck the life out of even more people.

Mooch a paycheck if it is the only thing available, but definitely keep your best work under wraps. They've made it abundantly clear that's not what they are paying you for, so oblige them, even going so far as to gleefully compound their organizational problems. You'll probably get a promotion out of it, which will set yourself up better for finding another job.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 1) 581

And your entire argument is essentially framing the discourse into something no has demanded.

However, there is a bit of misrepresentation, as reddit originally posited that they were a bastion of free speech. And while it is fashionable to view it as reddit, out of the goodness of their hearts, provided a free platform for miscreants to corrupt the youth, the other side to that is users operated in good faith that reddit would keep their end of the agreement in creating free content.

Not like they can take their ball and go home now is it?

And regardless, criticizing reddit does fall under free speech, does it not? The government aspect is just a red herring.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 1) 581


Similarly, being in prison doesn't prevent you from voicing your opinions. Nor does being fined millions of dollars (just earn more money, citizen, so you too can enjoy the same freedoms of billionaires!) Nor does it prevent you from setting up a website to discuss controversial opinions.

Except when it does (funny how credit card companies refused to process donations to Wikileaks right after the release of the Afghan War Diary. But that was just private companies exercising their rights not to make a profit, and had nothing to do with government collusion. Nosiree!).

You might be a little slow on the uptake, but the definition of censorship doesn't specify government and non-government, and as there have been numerous other websites that were harangued by both governments and private companies being leaned on by governments.

You probably think a private company contracted by the government to doesn't abridge 4th amendment protections because, get this, it isn't the government doing it.

Except for the legislative framework that made it legal in the first place.


Comment Re:Odd sense of hypocrisy (Score 2) 191

The essence of being a politician (in a representative democracy) is representing the interests of those who voted for you. Failure to do that is basically an abrogation of you duty. Otherwise we could just go with direct voting and cut out the middle-man.

Horse-trading is more in line with cutting deal. In a real world sense, it is the process of figuring out where your preferences lie. It may be a fine line, but it is there.

And neither have anything to do with the shady deals most politicians engage in. It is the pinnacle of moral relativism to excuse exercise of authority (and let's be frank, most of what happens in Congress is power for its own sake, with a thin veneer of regard to sell it) to betray, and name it just and good, and in the service of the public.

And especially that a politician would justify as such, especially after keeping a male prostitute while looking the other way at the imprisonment of others who would do the same, doesn't make you a paragon of real politic. It just means you are fucking corrupt.

Comment Re:Why is it (Score 1) 503

Yeah, but this becomes more of an issue of moving the goalposts than anything else. If you say basic needs (food, clothing, shelter) can be addressed through welfare, someone always posits “but not everyone has a 1,000,000,000 Ferraris, so post-scarcity can’t exist!”, which was never the point in the first place. Is there enough over-production to cover food, clothes, and shelter? The answer is an emphatic yes.

And the most puzzling aspect is that working models have come from the right, with everything from negative income tax to basic income. And these were conceived as a means to reduce total welfare expenditure by making it more efficient.

So no, even Hayek endorsed a form of basic income, and not being forced to work to simply live changes the dynamic of business dramatically.

Comment Re:Statements taken out of context and manipulated (Score 5, Insightful) 371

If anything, this whole debacle has made me question the Royal Society and UCL, It speaks poorly upon those organizations that they would go off half cocked without collecting evidence and performing a full investigation, which is the hallmark of good science.

And it makes me wonder how well they could handle a real controversy in the scientific community, when they can't weather a twitter storm of questionable origin. If you can't bear the slightest political intrigue, what makes you qualified to answer questions about the world? Just post the questions to twitter and let the masses decide the properties of time.

And especially now, when we have had similar occurrences in recent memory, with Donglegate and whatnot, I expect institutions of the pedigree of the Royal Society to show a little more discernment in handling situations like these. I mean christ, Sir Newton wasn't exactly an uncontroversial figure in his day, and that whole row was dealt with with more class and sobriety than this.

The scary future is here.

Comment Re:Statists vs. Libertarians (Score 1) 144

No, that's not true at all. The Libertarians do recognize the government as necessary — we just want its role to be as limited, as it was during the times of Jefferson and Franklin. It is to only play the roles given to it by the Constitution

Then strictly speaking, you aren't a libertarian, but a peculiar brand of constitutionalist that ignores the following 200 years of changes to the Constitution and evolution of the government. Turn back the hands of time, and you still end up with more government centuries later. You are living in the end result of that document.

When so called libertarians pay lip service to necessary government, it is always a given that the government services they think are needed are Good and Right, and everyone else who wants superfluous services, but when you get down to brass tacks, the situation isn't nearly as clear. Is public health a necessary government function? What about in a time of biological warfare? And when you speak of not having welfare in the time of Jefferson, are you forgetting An Act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen? What a terribly ignorant and romanticized view of history.

First of all, take the "will of the people" part off — that's just a better-sounding spin on the "mob rule".

Why? Do you believe the Constitution was transcribed from the mind of god? Any, organization of more than a few ends up with some form of government, or as you so euphemistically put it, mob rule.

The rest of us know it as the give and take of working within a group, and essentially "the will of the people" as opposed to "the will of the king". If your associations end in lynchings, I feel badly for you.

Second, the bigger the beast, the less tractable it is — and that's the point of the Libertarian teaching in general

As proven by monarchies being smaller than republics, therefore must be easier to control, no? Or are platitudes by someone who has never had to deal with a corrupt small town government pass as fact now?

We can further reduce the size of the Federal government by getting rid of the checks and balances. Or maybe there is a flaw in your logic.

Yes, "corporations" are the scary bogey-man of all Statists these days.

And with good reason. When a Mouse can buy legislation outright, nullifying that precious Constitution, you understand where real power lies.

It's not as if corporations or business are outside the realm of government, but inherent to it, and also compete with each other to insure the government reflects their own goals.

thus automatically less powerful than the government.

Except governments are at least localized, while corporations are trans-global. They can influence the polices of multitudes of governments.

You might rethink your notion of monopoly.

Comment Re:Statists vs. Libertarians (Score 1) 144

The end, as you noted elsewhere, is to compel Reason into suspicious activity to its user base under trumped up charges. Not to mention what good is power unless you flaunt it every now and then?

The typical libertarian argument against government posits it as an all or nothing deal. The difficulty is not that the government gives you everything, it's that the beast must be tractable to, at a minimum, the rule of law and the will of the people. That holds true regardless of the size of government. Or corporation for that matter.

Comment Re:Statists vs. Libertarians (Score 1) 144

Not really. This is more a battle in Those Who Believe in the Rule of Law vs. The End Justifies the Means crowd.

A similar event happened when the NSA issued "official" letters to telecos demanding information. The NSA knew what they were asking for was illegal, the telecos also knew the requests were illegal, yet all complied except for Qwest. That didn't end well for them.

Of course. it is a different world now, where we can justify torture in the name of All-That-Is-Holy-And-Just, and the government regularly flaunts its power as it is accountable to no one.

What should be happening is an investigation into the Justice Department's request, and the rubber-stamping of the gag order. Not going to happen for small fry like Reason, but sends a clear message to those who question the status quo to mind your tongue. You are being monitored.

Welcome to Police State 2.0.

Comment Middle Management (Score 1) 381

So I wonder what percentage of middle management this will push into hourly employees?

As it is, I've notice a seemingly endless half-days for them as they bitterly complain about those below them demanding comp. time as a minimum.

Now they are in the same boat. I see a lot of bloat being cut from their ranks.

Who am I kidding? They will just give raises to just clear the threshold of of being salaried while demanding even more time since everyone just got a raise.

Comment Moral Panic (Score 4, Interesting) 490

This assumes that most of these girl specific initiatives intend to actually help girls. They aren't, and instead serve as flashpoints to draw money to charlatans, much like any of the "think of the children" campaigns from the last few decades.

I swear the similarities between modern feminism and the Satanism scare of the 80s are becoming increasingly uncomfortable.

And the conclusion is correct- most of the women coders I know were, in part, goaded into familiarity by playing with their brothers.

Comment Re:Missing? (Score 1) 277

On the other hand, only nerds know what Zork is. It's never made the leap out to the real world.

You've made essentially this same comment about other games in this thread, and I'm not sure it is a good metric to go by.

It would be like judging all of music by what is popular, since that is the only thing to have a real cultural impact (at least monetarily).

I'd rather if it were video game aficionado's pointing the way to the general public as to why these games are important, and perhaps how they shortchanged themselves by only following what is popular.

And a vote for Sini-Star.

Comment Re:In other words... (Score 1) 294

Oh, it gets better.

Too many forget we've been down this particular road before, and it ended with congress granting immunity to telecos for illegally supplying data without a warrant and woe be onto you if you question it like Quest.

That was the start of Obama's campaign, which he voted for immunity. Hilary as I recall voted against.

And now we're here, with everyone's data an open target.

"Don't try to outweird me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal." - Zaphod Beeblebrox in "Hithiker's Guide to the Galaxy"