Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:show me the measurement for programmers (Score 1) 507

by danheskett (#48678953) Attached to: Paul Graham: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

And guess what, we issue about 3-5k of them a year, which happens to be exactly what he says he wants.

Of course, O1 requires under penalty real certification of excellence.

What Mr. Graham really wants of course is to find promising young programmers, bring them to the US for next to nothing, pay them a middling wage, and then cut him or her loose as soon that venture goes tits up. Then we have another programmer floating around, willing to work for below market wages.

Comment: Re:Mod parent up. (Score 1) 507

by danheskett (#48678943) Attached to: Paul Graham: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

I'll say it: there's not a shortage of programmers, there's a shortage of valid business plans. That's SV's real problem.

Exactly. That is perfect. Silicon Valley culture sucks. The best don't all want to work there, toiling on some stupid app or web project that's going to crash and burn when Series A dry's up and you can't raise Series B.

Comment: Drop Dead (Score 3, Insightful) 507

by danheskett (#48678939) Attached to: Paul Graham: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

I have a few thoughts:

1. Mr. Graham can drop dead. I had to look up who this guy is, Y Combinator has produced such companies as:

Scribd, reddit, Airbnb, Dropbox, Disqus, Stripe

These are not the companies that make the US a "tech superpower". We have a document sharing company, an online community that is 33% porn, 33% cats, and 33% reposts, a house-sharing operation that is constantly on the run from regulators, a company that resells cloud storage to end users, a company that facilitates cat-posts online, and a credit card payment processor. News flash, the world let alone the United States does not revolve around Silicon Valley and your narrow alleged needs. This guy is crazy if he thinks we are going to screw with the iron clad law of supply-and-demand and let in a "few thousand programmers" for no good reason.

2. Mr. Graham knows that he can already get in the very best programmers. We have plenty of avenues for letting in the very best. For one, it means, we have a real shortage. Secondly, it might mean we educate them here. Finally, it may mean you have to really invest in attracting the top talent internationally. That may mean - gasp - setting up foreign operations, and then domesticating the worker after a few years. That's right, Mr. Graham, years. What he really means is "we want to attract the best programmers, for cheap, chain them to a job, and then wash our hands of them when the job dries up or it doesn't work out".

3. This is yet another case of an over-privileged idiot trying to social costs and privatize profits.

4. The reason you can't find as many American top programmers to work for you is because Silicon Valley sucks. The culture sucks, the location (esp. real estate) sucks, the working environment sucks, the stability sucks. It's just another gold rush scenario, this time with Aeron chairs and floor to ceiling whiteboards, and lots of fast talk. And let's be honest. The work sucks. Most of these starts up are doing nothing at all really useful. A huge majority will fail, suddenly, having wasted everyone's time and someone poor suckers money. Spinning this as disruptive, or revolutionary is sad, and a lot of people are jaded against it. The company structure sucks. There are many programmers who have been to three, four, five failed startup operations, going through the same stress, the same pain, the same loss only to end up being told they are now too old for another try at the pie. There are no plans to provide for a long-term company, no hope for a business that is lasting and built upon solving problems that people are willing to pay to have solved.

5. The fact that Mr. Graham and his friends can't attract a few thousand of the best of the best to work for them just means that the costs outweigh the rewards. Instead of fixing their toxic culture, failing mentality, and gold rush dynamic, they want to break the country further. Because they feel entitled to have what they want, without putting in the years, or decades that other industries have to make it to stability. They've already been given a subsidized work force, where they feel entitled to reap the top talent for middling pay, massive cultural influence, outsized political influence, and regulatory preferences. And yet, they've done almost nothing for the country. We are plus 10 new billionaires, but there has been no standard of living bump for most Americans.

TLDR: Drop dead, Mr. Graham. You do something for the country, and the rest of flyover territory will think about doing something for you.

Comment: Re:Allow me to point out... (Score 1) 347

by Jeremiah Cornelius (#48672595) Attached to: Ars: Final Hobbit Movie Is 'Soulless End' To 'Flawed' Trilogy

Bizarre argumentation. One hardly knows where to begin with your assumptions and red-herring analogies.

To address your first point - with it's ill-considered implications of parity between democracy, capitalism and actual worth or value: Commercial success at this scale simply indicate how thoroughly that vulgarity and thoughtlessness have been cultivated and encouraged by this media-driven culture over the past 90-100 years or so.

When people make "free choices" in such a society, they do so in appalling ignorance, with a maximum of empty stimulation. This is the post-Edward Bernays world.

Comment: Re:Many people have thunk it. (Score 1) 361

by MisterSquid (#48670073) Attached to: Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force

I will admit that I am pretty quick to shout heads up and escalate the verbal stakes (e.g. cursing) when motorists honk if I (for example) legally and quickly take the full lane, but I only do so in the interest of encouraging safer driving and cycling. I have zero interest in provoking a fight.

"Quickly?" In other words, you're riding along the right hand side of your lane, and as a car approaches intending to pass you, you quickly move into the middle or left of the lane to force them to quickly slow down to prevent passing. Doing anything "quickly" that obstructs others is a dick move and you know it. You're an asshole who makes the rest of us cyclists look bad. Only in very rare situations would that "quickly" move promote safety. It's unsafe to anger another driver, both to you and the next cyclist they come upon. You're not doing it to promote safety, you're doing it to express dominance, like a gorilla beating its chest.

Next time you try that, think about this - are you doing it to promote safety, or are you doing it to try to express dominance by proving that you can legally be a dick? Believe me, the other driver doesn't care how big your penis is, so be the better person and don't be a dick or a dumbass to cars when you're on your bike, you're making the rest of us look bad, and it hurts us when we actually want to promote safety or policy changes (who wants their tax dollars to pay for bike lanes for a bunch of assholes like you?)

What's with your attitude? As far as anyone can tell, you're the asshole for all your presumption.

In any case, I do signal before moving from the edge of a lane to the middle, and I do assess if it's OK to do so.

Also, where I live (California), drivers may only pass when there is three or more feet between a cyclist and a driver.

Why don't you take your sanctimoniousness someplace where it's warranted?

Comment: Re:Many people have thunk it. (Score 1) 361

by MisterSquid (#48668773) Attached to: Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force

"legally and quickly take the full lane" as long as you are not impeding the flow of traffic, i have no problems.

Where I live, as in many municipalities, motorists must yield to cyclists who may be avoiding hazards that motorists cannot see such as roadside debris, potholes, opening doors, etc.

Additionally, in major metropolitan areas, it's safer to yield to bicyclists who will pass through traffic once they've done taking the full lane as they need.

With regard to cycling safety: when I drive, I think like a bicyclist and when I bike, I think like a motorist.

Comment: Re:Many people have thunk it. (Score 1) 361

by MisterSquid (#48667143) Attached to: Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force

Not all motorists are calmed when they see my camera, but it seems many are (for example, they'll ease off tailgating me and shadowing my blind spots).

You are on a bicycle. You have no blind spots.

That's ridiculous.

Just as when driving your blind spots are at 7 o'clock and 5 o'clock. And just as when driving, one compensates by turning one's head or using a mirror.

Comment: Many people have thunk it. (Score 4, Insightful) 361

by MisterSquid (#48666817) Attached to: Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force

I cycle in a major metro area and started wearing a highly visible helmet camera for liability reasons.

I also noticed (anecdata!) that the camera tended to have a calming effect on motorists near me as I would (for example) turn to look over my shoulder and the camera profile was visible.

Not all motorists are calmed when they see my camera, but it seems many are (for example, they'll ease off tailgating me and shadowing my blind spots).

I will admit that I am pretty quick to shout heads up and escalate the verbal stakes (e.g. cursing) when motorists honk if I (for example) legally and quickly take the full lane, but I only do so in the interest of encouraging safer driving and cycling. I have zero interest in provoking a fight.

YMMV

No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it. -- C. Schulz

Working...