Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Not a myth if it really happens (Score 2) 47 47

Sure the chances are, as you say, low that the company you join will IPO and/or make it big.

That doesn't mea it doesn't happen though, and that the company you are joining might have an idea you like enough that you want to push to make it succeeded.

But even if you are just being cynical, there are still a lot of rewards to be had from joining a startup as (at least in CA) the pay is still really, really good thanks to large pools of VC money sloshing all over the place. There's a lot of room to navigate there in ways that mean your own personal success even if the company never hits it big.

Comment Re:The Onion had it right (Score 4, Interesting) 105 105

So at the end of the day: if these populations wish to enter the first world, the first step to take is to assert their ownership of the land they occupy on the continent, decide on their own borders

Bad borders are bad, but trying to redraw borders? That can be much, much worse.

One of the big rules in Africa (and pretty much everywhere) is you don't change national borders because that introduces massive stakes and is a recipe for wars and rebellion since every group decides they want their own country comprising of every bit of land they think their group is entitled to.

or (like other countries in the first world), abandon tribal identity so they progress on to greater things like indoor plumbing and medical research.

That's the solution but I think it's far from simple. Look at the US, there are two parties sharing a white Christian base and the political system has been deadlocked and dysfunctional for half a decade.

What do you think would happen if half the country was Protestant and the other half Muslim, or New Jersey was 50+% Italian descent, Michigan 50+% Nigerian, Texas 50+% Mexican, etc. Getting people to cooperate in a political system is not simple.

Comment Re:The Onion had it right (Score 4, Informative) 105 105

I'm sure that some people will still blame "colonialism", although that hasn't even been an issue for generations now.
  Even then, we've seen many other regions, like most of Europe, China, Japan, South Korea and even Vietnam, go from total devastation due to war to modern societies capable of producing such research, over roughly the same period of time. Why isn't Africa progressing when so many other nations, often with much fewer resources and far less support, and coming from a much worse situation, managed to turn things around?

Colonialism is still a huge issue because the colonial borders are still in place, the borders were designed to keep them weak by putting rival tribes in the same country.

In Europe and Asia a government can get reasonable levels of support across most of the country because they figure they're all on the same side, so you get investment in the future and a generally functional society.

But in Africa it's really hard to develop a country when a government can never get real support outside of their ethnic group, everyone ends up playing a zero-sum game and you end up with corruption and violence. All that's going to fix it is a lot of time until African's start thinking of themselves as primarily members of their country and not of a tribe.

Comment Re:Think like a soldier in the next war for a mome (Score 1) 296 296

You're implying that we just killed a quarter million people with no context, reason, and that we did so intentionally.

No I didn't, I was doing it in the context of the Iraq war where they're understood to be excess deaths.

You're also attributing all deaths to our actions when the responsibility has to be spread around to include the taliban, various terrorist sponsors, and natural forces like famine etc that kill people without any direct human volition.

I glibly dismiss the question because it isn't intellectually valid.

If you want to talk about death tolls in war zones we can do that. But laying all the death's at our feet like we intentionally killed all those people, had no reason to in, and we are solely responsible is invalid.

It's a standard methodology. Over the period X deaths would normally be expected instead Y occur, Z=X-Y is roughly the number of excess deaths attributable to your actions. You're not as nearly guilty as someone who pulled the trigger but in a debate of whether an act contributed to the greater good the fact remains that Z lives were lost due to that act is completely relevant.

Wrong, we tried to actually rehabilitate Russia. We would not have funded their space program or made so many diplomatic gestures if we wanted to treat them like an enemy.

There was even serious talk about inviting them into NATO.

As to surrounding them with enemies... all we wanted to do was secure the self determination of past victims of their aggression. Our intention was not to threaten Russia but to give other nations a chance at freedom, modernity, and prosperity.

NATO was an alliance formed to counter Russia, it's easy to see why inviting former Warsaw pact members into NATO would be viewed as a hostile act.

So your suggestion when NATO members invoke our aid to deal with a relevant operation in their territory and put diplomatic pressure on the US to provide logistical and tactical support... we should do nothing?

It's not just the conflict itself but the internal dialogue. You don't think other countries are listening when presidential candidates talk about invading other countries like it's no big deal?

As to the legitimacy of Israel... it is no less legitimate than any other power in the middle east.

I didn't say it was illegitimate, I said that its creation was a legitimate target for criticism as a very ugly form of colonialism (lets treat the land owned by these brown people like they're not even there and let some white Europeans settle it). And their current settlement policy is so indefensible I don't know that I've actually seen anyone ever defend it.

What nation do you hail from?


As to innocent people getting killed in a war... that is not unique to the drone strike.

As to collateral damage ratios... we spend more money and effort avoiding collateral damage than any other power in world history.

In WWII the axis powers inflicted a 3-1 civilian-military death ratio, and that includes the holocaust.

The 10-1 ratios in drone strikes that I cited, which are the only decent estimate I could find, are not something to brag about.

And even if they were lower than usual they're only acceptable if the acts themselves are necessary, I find it dubious that these actors in other countries are particularly legitimate terrorist threats.

What is also plain to me is that our heart strings are being played upon here. You say what you think will effect us emotionally and psychologically.

Were I a soulless monster you would not be telling me these things. You cite civilian causalities because you know it effects me and you know I care.

See, I am aware of myself. I don't cite this becuase I don't care but because I make a point of stepping outside myself and getting the bigger picture. You are attempting to manipulate me with pathos.

I don't like it when people use arguments on me that are designed to work on a child or a peasant. I am neither.

Re-read what I said, I wasn't 'm not appealing to your heart strings, I was talking about the bigger picture.

The drone strikes are counterproductive because of the ill-will they inflict by causing mass collateral damage.

In war, you use the best tools your people have to execute the missions. Our enemies have large numbers of deluded religious zealots. I will not casually sacrifice my own soldiers just so you feel some "fair" ratio of kills to deaths is met.

Ideally I want 100 percent of the enemy dead to 0 US soldiers lost. That is my ideal in war.

Many of the people upset with the US use of drones wants something like a 1:1 ratio of US dead to enemy dead. I completely and categorically reject that as being an acceptable goal.

Anything that improves the US K/D ratio in combat without other serious and reasonable issues should be employed. If we send our people to war, we owe it to them to give them the best chance to complete their missions and come home to enjoy the peace.

If we can use killer robots that will engage the radicals largely mitigating US troop losses... then I will do it.

You're still missing the point I'm talking about... which is kind of my point in arguing against the drones and autonomous weapons.

It's not just US dead vs enemy dead. It's US dead vs all the different categories of people who are killed or harmed by military action. Because you dehumanize the enemy (not a criticism, just human nature) you don't really give those other people the proper weight and are way too eager to deploy military force.

The point of having US military personnel in harms way isn't to have them harmed, it's to have people realize their at risk and so give some consideration as to whether the conflict is actually worth it.

Comment Isn't HoloLens way more useful for this? (Score 1) 44 44

Glass, it seems to me, is inherently far more limited than actual VR systems like the HoloLens. With the HoloLens you could choose where to put the small square of information you can see, plus of course there are all of the options of overlaying more info on top of physical objects you can computationally recognize...

I guess one big draw would be battery life, Glass you would think would be a lot better in that regard than the HoloLens.

Comment When the Man In the Middle is You (Score 2) 53 53

Crazy that the phone is not just some kind of passthrough ,but instead somewhere in he binary contains enough rights to do anything it likes with your car... the device must be just convincing the app that OnStar said it was OK to use it's unlimited powers to unlock the car and start the engine or whatever.

On the other hand, perhaps that ALSO means the attack cannot work with any arbitrary car, but only with an instance of an app you have already paired to your car so it was given the right credentials? If so it's a much less serious attack than it would seem at first.

The real issue would be, if a rooted Android or iPhone device could have the car-specific credentials scraped, to use at a later time with thier own OnStar app.

Comment Re:How soon until x86 is dropped? (Score 1) 152 152

They're selling more chips for less profit--Intel still has them trounced in terms of the R&D budget regardless of how many units they ship. All you have as an argument is "ARM is better so eventually it will actually be better", but the instruction set frankly just doesn't matter very much.

Note that Intel is a fairly large ARM vendor, and had other RISC products in the past. They still design & build such chips for embedded controllers, so it's not like they don't know how to do it, but if they thought that was the best path forward for general purpose CPUs they probably wouldn't have sold that tech off to Marvell.

Comment I know about me (Score 1) 865 865

but I need to stretch my legs and rest a bit after driving 180ish miles. so stopping every 3 hours is still roughly in line with typical driving practices

I enjoy the five minute stop to get gas every 300 miles or so in my own car on road trips. I do NOT enjoy a 30 minute stop every 200 miles... That's called a "breakdown".

That's the kind of thing that turns a 10 hour one-day drive into a 17 hour mandatory two-day trip.

It's not like that is so uncommon either, lots of families I know only really stop for lunch, otherwise they are driving very long distances per day with short refueling stops.

Something else no-one seems to consider is the vastly larger number of "refueling" stations required if most cars are electric, each car has to stop for 10x longer, at shorter intervals...

Comment Re:Streetlights useful to remark road in bad weath (Score 1) 292 292

Some would argue that if you can't see the road, you shouldn't be driving.

You shouldn't start driving.

But you should keep driving if it means the difference between arriving at shelter for the night or risking sleeping in a car in a blizzard with extremely low temperatures, with the constant worry another car might hit yours.

It's not so hard to lift yourself by your bootstraps once you're off the ground. -- Daniel B. Luten