Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:What a silly question. (Score 1) 402

You work for Boeing don't you? God I hated that place. Needed 4 people looking over my shoulder while I followed a script designed for a monkey. If you wanted a monkey, why did you hire an experienced HPC analyst/engineer?

There's a lot of 'military thinking' that goes on at defense contractors: everyone should be interchangeable, everyone should follow orders to the letter. Some of that is because of the 'Quality' and 'Security' requirements too. Add together Top Secret clearances, ISO-9000, 6-Sigma, CMMI, WYSIWYG, AFK, WTF and BBW and you get a lot of fun documentation that doesn't really help anyone, needs to be updated every 5 minutes to make it reflect reality, and can't be looked at without five signatures from people you've never heard of and are perpetually on vacation.

Comment Re:Their equipment, their choice. (Score 1) 450

Fortunately, here in Germany you can't just fire someone like that, either. :)

In my opinion that's a sword that cuts both ways. Obviously I don't want my job endangered by some manager with a beef. I'd love not to be fired arbitrarily in that situation. But in that case I'm the good guy. The other case is I'm the bad guy: I don't work well with others, I shirk responsibility and half-ass everything if I ever DO get around to working, I make the work environment terrible for everyone else because of missed promises, bad attitudes, excessive complaining and poor hygiene and I *STILL* can't get fired because of protections put into place! And note, I'm not talking about state protections entirely. Plenty of large corporations make it difficult to get fired just to cover their butts. Often these people are toxic, demoralizing and worthless people, but still collect a paycheck because a system (one that BUSINESSES put into place! Amazing!) exists to shield them from the consequences of their actions.

I'd much prefer a world where when you have your job you can't be mistreated, if you lose your job, there are protections for you and your family, but where worthless people can be let go after repeated attempts to right their course.

Comment Re:Their equipment, their choice. (Score 1) 450

Now, back to the topic in question. So I own a company. I pay for the computer. I pay for the internet connection, electricity, desk, and even for the time you are there, supposed to be working. And I can't check on you ? Does that strike anyone else as utterly ridiculous ? Ok, I will accept (not agree) having to inform the employees the company will be monitoring. But not being able to check if the person is doing the work they get payed to do, is just stupid.

Christ, if you don't trust your employees don't hire them! If they're not getting work done (you have deadlines right? You have deliverables right? You have SOMETHING to judge them on right?) fire them! Why is that so hard? Adults earn trust and get privileges, kids are spied on to make sure their behavior conforms to norms (and I would even argue taking it to an extreme is bad parenting). Why can't you just get over your trust issues, assume your employees are doing the job until you see otherwise, and handle the lack of delivery when it occurs rather than ALL THE TIME by relentlessly spying on them?

Do you have the right to spy on your own equipment? Maybe. Is it worthwhile? Hardly. Counterproductive? Yes!

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 178

Hot damn! I live in Brevard county and I've seen lots of launches but never an orbiter up close like that.

I can't believe that we're putting that into oribt. That's redneck engineering at its best!

True story: one of the defense contractors around here got the idea to bring the technicians in on design reviews so they could offer their expertise. This is after the engineers would all huddle together, design something then hand it off to the techs after which they usually looked at it and said "Seriously!? Are you all idiots?" It's hard to make everything go according to plan when the plan is flat out impossible. So they figured by bringing the techs in on the design process they could remove some of the frank impossibilities from the design of their widgets and improve compliance (or some other buzzword). As a bonus, they offered cash bonuses if their input resulted in a positive design change.

It didn't last.

Because they ended up paying out too much money and stopped the program.

I'm sure there's a bunch of impossible designs running around out there that a diligent tech is fixing.

Bottom line: trust the techs. If you can, hire them. They ARE the best. You won't regret it.

Comment Re:Faster Solution (Score 1) 1139

Or they could design the train so that people could drive their cars onto it and park.

It'd kill the airlines in a week.

Eh, hasn't happened yet, and the auto train from Orlando to Washington DC has been operating for quite a while. It's a great idea - load up your car, stroll up to DC, take it off, repeat in reverse.

Except it costs $900 to do it and takes DAYS.

Small airlines have sprouted up in the Melbourne Florida area just to take defense contractor people to DC, Virginia, Baltimore, etc. Their tickets are ass-cheap because they have such predetermined routes. The exact OPPOSITE of what you said would happen happened. There's simply no contest between the auto train and a cheap flight + rental. Only if I were moving up north - to those EXACT places it goes would I use the auto train. And then I might just drive instead unless someone else was paying for it.

Comment Re:Sleep (Score 1) 259

Saw a different doctor, just an old GP, after mine had given up, and he asked me if I had tried an anti-anxiety drug. When I said nope, he wrote me a scrip for 100 4mg xanax.

Cripes, I may be way off but that is an obscene amount of Xanax. My doctor refuses to go over .25mg (but he's kind of a lightweight). That being said, I'm glad that you can just pop one and not get hooked. However, you do realize that Xanax and Ambien are in the same class of drugs right?

Comment Re:How is this different? (Score 5, Insightful) 120

I'm sorry, but how is this fundamentally different from the sort of tiered service that net-neutrality advocates worry about? Google pays Verizon a substantial sum of money, and in return Google gets preferential access to the network in the form of local datacenters.

This is different in that Google actually paid for something physical and not just a 'It'd be a shame if your nice internet caught on fire' protection scheme. What *I* feared about a lack of net neutrality wasn't Google getting faster because they paid, but everyone else getting slower. These large communication companies have a history of trying to sell the same infrastructure as many times as they can. This is different in that new infrastructure was created instead of old infrastructure unfairly and arbitrarily reapportioned.

Comment Re:How secure (Score 1) 491

The thing is, you're comparing the value of gold against another currency. That currency is subject to a lot of inflation, so the value of gold going up indicates it's superiority as a container of value.

And you're assuming that gold has a set 'value' that the dollar or any other currency rises and falls against. If we found a mountain of easily-accessible gold tomorrow the price of gold would go waaaaay down... and not because the value of a dollar went waaaaay up.

Comment Re:2 words for Monsanto... (Score 1) 835

Wait, so if the corn isn't capable of reproducing, then how would it spread over the globe in some kind of apocalyptic way?

Well, it's not apocalyptic, but if you planned on saving seed from your crop (which is a poor poor practice for western farmers, but I digress) and your crop gets pollinated by something with the terminator gene (very possible - it all just flies on the wind as far as the wind will take it) then next year your crop doesn't grow and you have to re-buy your seed stock. If there were enough terminator-including crops around then its possible that you couldn't successfully save seed ever and you'd have to buy it all - possibly contributing to a monoculture of plants that may all get wiped out by a disease.

Of course, if that happened to me I'd go to court with Monsanto, prove I actively attempted to cull their worthless half-breed seed out of my stock and failed, show monetary damage that wasn't covered by crop insurance and force them to pay me because they robbed me of value with their seed. You might win. Hint: the farmers who lose against Monsanto usually try to retain the GMO lines that accidentally breed their corn. It's a bit suspicious when your corn has strong GMO sequences in it 3 years after everyone around you stopped planting that strain...

One more thing: with corn at least the only reliable way to ensure that you don't cross-pollinate with anything else is to manually remove the tassles. By hand. In July. No one does that for non-seed crops (no one really saves seed either BTW).

Comment Re:GM (Score 1) 835

There's something I've never understood coming from critics of the environmentalist movement: Where do you get the idea that people want to drag down the standard of living?

Generally I get it from the people in the environmentalist movement who seem to be against the application of power to solve everyday problems because it's 'wasteful' somehow. For many, their agenda is to push their own values on to me in the name of 'conserving' things - electricity, air, water, environment in general, etc. A small example: you should dry your clothes on a line to save the electricity a dryer would use (typically despite any other considerations: schedule, availability of clothes lines, it's raining outside, etc). Some environmentalists would deny me dry clothes for a day or more because its' raining outside. That lowers my standard of living.

Spending $3 on a light bulb will make me poor?

Not me, but someone much poorer than me. The shame of all of this CFL business is that it's a fairly large upfront cost: you'll spend hundreds of dollars to replace all of the bulbs in your house to save maybe $5-$10 a month. It's definitely a choice I'd make, but I have more than a hundred dollars sitting around. If you live in the People's Republic of California and you can't buy the $.50 incandescent anymore, suddenly the $3 you spent on the bulb is money you can't spend on gas or food or something else. The poor don't see the benefit of saving money on their bills monthly because they don't have the upfront money to invest in replacing all of their bulbs, and when push comes to shove the far left environmentalist position denies the poor folk $2.50 to spend on food. Or $2.50 to spend on cigarettes and booze - it's their money anyhow.

What exactly brings down my standard of living when I ... drive in a more fuel-efficient manner (NOT buying a different car)? All of these are 'environmentalist' choices, yet they cost nothing except the effort required to modify my behavior slightly.

Are you serious? Do you know what a Prius costs in comparison to a cheap car? Add $10K or so. That's a car for the rich. And it's such a marginal improvement in gas mileage it's hardly worth it. Remember kids, you save a lot more gas going from 15MPG to 30MPG than you do from 30MPG to 60MPG. I can't believe any environmentalist would approve of that choice BTW.

For me it comes down to environmentalists NEVER performing a cost/benefit analysis on the measures they propose and the costs are always on the end user - us. Is $3 here and $10 there that bad? Not individually, but together, yes! Some people do NOT have the means to afford the difference between $.50 and $3, and not everyone can spend $10K more to have a car that saves you $5 on gas a month. But the furthest left environmentalists would make cheap incandescents and marginally less fuel-efficient cars illegal and push the cost onto the poor because they always assign a value of infinity to the smallest and most insignificant part of nature (of which man is obviously not a part) and assign next to nothing to the potential suffering of their fellow man.

Comment Re:Why so discriminating? (Score 1) 1036

Even the new testament criticises homosexual relationships (and the only laws of the old testament that were "updated" in the new testament were ones to do with sacrifices and what you could put into your body).

Incorrect - it was decided that new converts to Christianity who weren't Jews didn't have to follow ANY of the Jewish laws.

It also tries to claim that the passage about Sodom and Gomorrah is nothing to do with Sodomy and that "know" literally means know rather than "have sex with", when Lot clearly offers his daughters to "do with what you will" instead of the men.

'Know' in the Bible means have carnal relations with - I agree with you there. But according to Jewish interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah incident says that the sin of those cities was that they were unwelcoming of strangers - not necessarily teh buttsecks. Lot was allowed to live because he invited the angels in, fed them and protected them from the crowd who wanted to rape them. I guess if the crowd had chatted them up a bit before bringing up the topic of 'knowing' them it might have been better...

Comment Re:Draconian? (Score 1) 509

Not necessarily. The phone's Market app periodically polls the Android Market server for update information. If "delete immediately" is a possible update status in Market, they don't even need to know which users installed the app to remove it, much less have access to their phones. This seems like the more efficient approach, since trying to overtly contact and send "remove this app" commands to everyone who's installed the app individually would be a pain.

You can bet it'd be a pain, but I'll bet that Steve Jobs wouldn't let that approach fly with the iPhone. 'Oh it's too hard to let the user know you're deleting an application from their phone so you elected not to tell them? No.' He'd make the programmer have the app store send a text message to each iPhone user who bought the app and bully AT&T into ensuring the text message was free. THAT is why the iPhone is better than your bog-average Android phone: attention to detail and dedication to user experience forced down the developers' throats by Steve Jobs.

Comment Re:It's not violence (Score 1) 236

Partially because teenage pregnancy wasn't particularly looked-down upon by Puritans - it's just that the teenagers got married when it happened and started their lives off. Apparently it was common to say that an eager young bride could do in 6 or 7 months what it took other wives 9 full months to do. I wonder why THAT was....

Slashdot Top Deals

Your program is sick! Shoot it and put it out of its memory.