Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Whatabout we demand equal time of our views ins (Score 4, Informative) 667

Being a scientific organization is one of the major listed justifications for tax exempt status - assuming the other criteria are met.

The part in bold there is kind of the point. Scientific organizations--actually educational organizations of all kinds--can indeed apply for non-profit status, but they have to prove they meet the standards. Churches are assumed to qualify a priori.

Comment Re:"Creationists" (Score 1) 220

The AC does have a point: "creationism" (and "intelligent design") are potentially ambiguous terms to people who aren't engaged in the evolution debate.

Then if they want to engage in that debate, they should learn how those terms are used. AC's sub-Objectivist ranting doesn't make me think he's interested in that level of intellectual effort, though.

Comment Re:Going bust not unique to drop-outs (Score 1) 281

23 year old high school grads with five years of software development experience simply do not exist: In the real world, no 18 year old high school grad will ever be able to get that first job where he can gain years of experienc

I see the resumes everyday, and I've interviewed and hired some. It happens. First off, usually, through connections or freelancing, a H.S. grad gets a nice job at the entry level of the industry, perhaps as a tester, a test case coder, in QA, somewhere. Not at a big company, a small or medium sized outfit. He does well, he learns a few things, and he's a really hardcore self-motiviated learner. Yes, those first years of experience are not as valuable as the next few years. Just doesn't work that way. But he gets real knowledge of what the world is doing in practice.

Secondly, for every outstanding great candidate from a great CS program, like you describe, you get as many candidates or more from bad programs at for-profit colleges. When you talk to their advisers or professors they don't stand out, they don't have a picture of the student in his mind. Their internships are garbage - getting coffee for mangers or proofreading technical documents.

If you are able to hire the best, best, best graduates, you will be fantastic shape. If you are able to only attract the average or below candidates, you should keep digging and see if there are non-traditional candidates.

Comment Re:Going bust not unique to drop-outs (Score 1) 281

Right, there comes a point at which your work experience becomes more important than the degree. But the point is you are at an advantage in getting that necessary experience if you start out with a degree. For people too young to have an outstanding working history, that HR door is solidly closed.

And that point is.. at the begining of your career.

Guess what, as a person who hires programmers, I can tell you that a 22 or 23 year old coming to me with NO EXPERIENCE but a great college degree is severely disadvantaged from a programmer who is probably 22 or 23, and has had two or three jobs involved programming or IT, maybe done some freelance work, has a nice online presence, etc.

It's especially true if the candidate reveals he has a lot of student loans. How happy do you think a 23 year old kid is going to be living at home probably, paying a large monthly student loan payment, without really having any hope of living on his own, having a normal adult life, for many years while his debt is worked off? Meanwhile his straight from high-school to work doppelganger has maybe a car payment (but not necessarily), his own apartment, maybe is well on his way to getting married. As an employer/manager, which person do I want to hire? If I want to beat the programmer into the ground, work him to the bone, underpay him and make him feel like crap, all the while lording his job and pay over his head while he clings to the job like a life raft, I hire the college grad with low-six figures of debt. If I want a nice long-term employee with a stable career path, I strongly consider the un-degreed fellow first.

Comment Re:Many members of Congress own car dealerships (Score 1) 342

The fact is that technology may not have driven the purchase price of a car down that much, but it HAS driven the cost of transportation down significantly, while at the same time dramatically increasing reliability, comfort, and safety

I don't think this is supportable by evidence. Cars, including total cost of ownership and operation, are more expensive than ever. Mostly because people are willing (and able) to spend for it. Our entire culture and civilization is designed around subisidizing the hidden costs of transportation, to the point where it's buried into everything we buy or make or sell.

Comment Re:Many members of Congress own car dealerships (Score 1) 342

1909 cost of a Model T Touring edition = $850, inflation adjusted 2012 dollars, $23,394.41.

The problem with this comparison is there is rough equivalence in value between a 1908 car and a modern car. There was no such thing as commuting. There was were no highways. There were no paved roads. No auto shops, nothing. It was the wild west. There is no equivalence of value. People in the early days of television used TV much as it is today. There is arguably more value now because of many choices, but the uses and how it fits into a value tree decision are essentially the same. There are also a few new users (i.e. as a general purpose digital display) which add value that was not useful in 1950 since there we not other sources other than broadcast for content. But I think either way, the comparison is useful.

VW is notorious for selling its old models in foreign countries.
The original VW Beetle was manufactured in Mexico until 2003.
The VW Bus is finally getting canceled in Brazil (and that's being fought).
The 2nd gen VW Passat was sold in China for almost 30 years until it was updated.

Yes, this is exactly right. It cannot be done in the US because of increasing regulatory burden, and the availability of cheap credit (which I will get to in a minute). The examples you give support my position. In Mexico, increasing standards are what also finally killed it, and led to major revisions in three different model years. The Beetle in Mexico, despite rising standards and material costs, was reduced in price several times over it's production run, and it is likely that if new standards had not have been added, it would have continued to drop in price. See for example.

a. it's never cheaper to buy a new car.

This is absurdly wrong. You can argue that it's not a better value, but it can be frequently less money, especially short-term, to buy a new car. And it's often easier. If you are facing a large repair bill and have even mediocre credit, you can almost always buy an entirely new car for less money out of pocket than fixing your old car. And with special terms and whatnot, you can appear to save monthly as well (except that the term and therefore costs long-term are very expensive). Cheap credit, predicated on financing, makes it attractive to buy cars over unreasonably long terms, continuing the ability of car makers to hide the costs behind a seemingly low monthly payment.

b. One of those regulatory agencies crash tested a 1959 Chevy Bel Air with a 2009 Malibu []
This video speaks for itself.

You are arguing that increased costs somehow are good for people because it puts them in safer cars. There is no argument that a 1959 Bel Air is not as safe as a 2009 Malibu, however, that is not the only piece of the equation. Why shouldn't the government (not insurance companies by the way) force every company to make a car as safe as a top of the line German built car?

Now you're just arguing with a straw man.
We're talking about the cheapest car of 1970 and the two cheapest cars of 2014

Yes, but the 2014 cars have many, many, many upgrades that are just plain flashy. People lived before air conditioning. People lived before automatic transmissions, CD players, airbags, LATCH, TPMS, etc.

Comment Re:hehe (Score 1) 342

You pretty much got it - the core of Microsoft's argument was 100% vindicated by history. It's one of the little quirks of nature:

1. Bundling DOES help the consumer. Apple is the proving point. The users crave a unified bundled approach. Even to the level MS never envisioned, hardware, service and software.

2. An upstart competition could arrive at anytime and take MS's market share, because unlike natural monopolies on resources, the human capital needed to fight MS was readily available to competitors. Google, Apple, Blackberry, all came from nowhere to drink MS's milkshake.

3. The browser is a natural part of the operating system and it's unfair to force MS to accommodate competitors who someday would be more profitable or powerful than MS.

4. MS doesn't have the ability to set prices which is a critical part of the monopoly power. This is so obviously true. MS exerts almost no price pressure on the market these days.

Slashdot Top Deals

Adding features does not necessarily increase functionality -- it just makes the manuals thicker.