Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Define "corrupt" (Score 1) 176

Entering something incorrectly into a database using some standard system the FAA would use to do so isn't "corrupt". Downloading or transferring data or a file, and having that transfer interrupted, resulting in the loss of or alteration of data, is "corrupt" in the technical sense, where I come from.

Sometimes we are far far far removed from the description given from the IT folks involved to their superiors; I'm sure the issue would be pretty clear to us in technical terms, but a public-facing answer such as "a file got corrupted" is fucking nonsense.

Agree.
This sounds more like a copy/paste from a Word or Excel doc into a database.

Comment Re:Research (Score 1) 344

What if they found out that getting water service cost $27K

Are you serious?

cable companies in some locations being vital services but acting like they're not

As of now, they're not. That needs to change (specifically Internet classified as a utility).

And if you ask "do you provide service to "123 Olive Ave" and you don't live there, then they can reasonably refuse to give you this information for privacy reasons.

As noted. I simply had to visit the provider's website and put in the new address to validate if services are available. That's not a privacy violation. I'm not asking if the current residents have that particular service.

Comment Re:Research (Score 1) 344

This is really the thing. An investment of this size absolutely requires diligence.

Why? Why do you need diligence? Why is anyone making assumptions? This is an almost uniquely American problem, a strange situation where people are not only not provided (by legal mandate) complete information about the house, but worse a basic utility is missing from a house within the city limits of a state's capital city.

Yeah I get it, people should check this. BUT THEY SHOULD NOT NEED TO.

I've never checked whether a house I purchase has an internet connection, because everywhere I've lived it has been an absolute given. Also my current house has no fibre connection, but there is fibre in the street. Cost to run it in: 450EUR.

America is broken.

It is well known as you noted in the US, regardless if it is right or wrong, Internet access is not reliably found.
Until it is, the person purchasing a home should verify the services.

Comment Re:Research (Score 4, Insightful) 344

They should have researched the area before buying the house.

It sucks that it will cost this much, but when doing an investment like this, you really should do research.

The homes in this neighborhood run from 450K - $1.45M.

https://www.trulia.com/n/wa/se...

This is really the thing. An investment of this size absolutely requires diligence. These people made assumptions incorrectly, and that is on them. Before placing an offer on my house, I researched all available internet options via the providers website and putting in the address to ensure it was available. Took all of 15 minutes.

Cost of the home is irrelevant in this matter however.

Comment Re:Chernobyl (Score 1) 92

They even threw in a female who came in and "saved the day". None of that actually happened of course.

As noted at the end of the series, the female scientist character represented the group of scientists that came together to address the situation. Perhaps the use of a female actor was significant in modern circumstances, but that doesn't take away from how well the series was executed - unless you feel threatened by fictional characters.

Comment Re:What's the point of a merger anyway . . . ? (Score 2) 95

Unfortunately the term "The companies first priority should be to the share holders" has been taken out of context. Back when it was written, Companies would often take the share holders money and use it just to enrich themselves, or will give it away to their church, or other crazy cause, even at the companies expense. So the shareholders were often investing in companies that were killing themselves. With the change of focus to prioritize the shareholder, it means that the company should use their money to invest back into the company, sell more product, higher people to make better products... Even if this is at a cost of a bad quarterly report. However the statement had been taken out of context so now it is about hacking the numbers to keep the shareholders quarterly profits high. At the expense of long term growth.

I would mod this up 100 times if I could. Once a company goes public, it's no longer about running a good, solid organization and producing a good product. Instead it becomes maximizing profits at the cost of what made the company attractive in the first place to keep from getting murdered by Wall Street.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.

Working...