Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: The Ethical Implications are Staggering (Score 1) 230

Either you "play God" and accept all responsibilities for your actions, or don't get involved in the first place. The bullshit attitude of fucking around with the code of nature, introducing change, and then washing your hands of the problem via stating natural evolution is a cop-out. Either your involved and stay involved forever, or you're not. There is no other way around it.

Comment Re:The Ethical Implications are Staggering (Score 1) 230

Civilizations rise and fall. What happens after 500 years of this suppression that the human race no longer has access to high tech (thermonuclear war)? We've just doomed millions of children about to be conceived during this period. And while it would be a minor issue compared to an event of a societal collapse, it's still another form of misery we have inflicted on future generations.

You do know we have a "doomsday vault" holding most (if not all) the seeds for the crops we grow, right? The idea being they serve as an original genetic source in the event we genetically engineer our plants to extinction. It's a way of saying "oops, we hit a dead end and now need to walk back and start over with original source material". We don't have that luxury with human beings let alone other animals. People aren't Cabbage Patch Kids; you can't grow them in the ground. With seeds at least, anyone in this world can plant them should the world turn post-apocalyptic.

Comment Re:What person thinks this is OK? (Score 5, Informative) 191

What person thinks this is OK?

Every single non-technical person in the company, who have no clue whatsoever about the implications of this, don't care about all your "paranoid theories", and "just want the damned thing to work!"

The same people who give their email address to every popup ad that asks for it and then bitch to IT about all the spam they get. And then bitch about all the still-spam-but-of-interest-to-them they stop getting when you turn up the filters on their account. And then bitch about having to remember yet another password when you give them access to manage their own spam filter settings and can't you just be a dear and go in every morning and manually delete the spam they don't want but let the spam they do want through?

Comment Re:The Nine Traits (Score 1) 142

They hated it because it laid the blame squarely where it belonged, at the foot of a very difficult problem to resolve, unless you made automatic local replicas of LDAP subtrees.

A shortsighted and arbitrary kernel limitation does not really count as the fault of the downstream devs who get to suffer for it. As you point out, your "solution" actively encouraged your devs to make a completely wasteful userspace cache of something the kernel should just provide transparently; since you already know this solution, and apparently had access to the kernel code - Why didn''t you either fix the limitation, or if not possible, just build the damned cache yourself and serve high-latency requests from it, rather than getting into a blame-game with people who (reasonably) just expect LDAP to work as advertised?

Yeah, this spackles over a herd of issues that should actually be resolved

No one except the network admin gives the least damn about "why" it happens. They want email (or more accurately, they want MSN and Fox Sports) back up, and they want it back up NOW. Telling the CIO that you knew about an instant likely "fix" but chose to leave the company crippled for half an hour will generally get you escorted to your car.

Overall, I agree, TFA reads like "we rock because..." self-congratulatory masturbation. But some of your responses (except the last one, interestingly) make it sound like you work for a company with a near-infinite IT budget and a sane CIO. Those count as an extreme rarity in the real world, never forget that.

Comment Re:The Ethical Implications are Staggering (Score 4, Interesting) 230

I'm not a geneticists.

Of all the adults out there with Downs Syndrome, how many of them go on to get married and have children? Of those that have children, what is the likelihood of this abnormality being passed down the family tree? I'm not disputing their choice to procreate. I am however concerned that suppressing the extra chromosome will lead to healthy adults (which is very good), but also have normal procreating life and thus pass it down to the next generation (which is bad). Do we to to encourage adding severe genetic abnormalities to future generations if all were doing is suppressing them rather then removing/correcting said genes? For the sake of the human race, this requires serious consideration.

Comment Re:In otherwords (Score 2) 258

These sound like valid concerns, If it's not in writing, it's not going to happen - any city that's worked with a developer knows that the developer will promise the world "Oh yes, we'll build a park on every street corner and a paved jogging/biking trail around the perimeter of the development, trust us", but when funds run short, the development ends up with a patch of dirt called a "park", and fifty feet of paved trail that goes nowhere.

While true, take a look at the rest of Florida - You want suburban sprawl? They wrote the friggin' book on it. Mile after mile of endless (and currently massively underpopulated) yuppy/retiree housing developments stretching from one coast to the other.

Whether or not Destiny fell short of its goal, I don't see how it could have done any worse than the default situation there. And given the stated intent of that community, even if the developers "glossed over" a few points, their target audience might have enough motivation to fill in some of those gaps.

Of course, that all assumes the whole project doesn't include the standard "the HOA considers solar panels ugly, and demands you water your exactly-2in-grass even in a drought" clause in every deed. It amazes me people still fall for those things. Funny, really, how many people who want to control what their neighbors do, don't realize that it works both ways.

Comment No such thing (Score 2, Insightful) 237

Welcome to the club. Now get back in line. :p

Seriously though, I think, with the exception of the "Alex P. Keatons" among us, virtually all programmers would rather work doing some sort of pure research for the betterment of humanity, than helping some sycophantic management team please the board/stockholders for yet another quarter.

Reality of the situation, though, you (and I, and all of us) have chosen the very same thing you claim has disillusioned you. You have chosen to want a paycheck. Make no mistake, for every one software engineering job position you see posted, you can find a hundred good causes that need volunteer coders. Except, good luck getting a steady paycheck if you go that route - Short of actually becoming a professor, you very much need to treat it as an act of charity.

Which leaves you to ask yourself: Can you really afford to live without a paycheck? If you can't answer "yes" without hesitation, hey, they don't call it "work" because we go there to have eight hours of fun every day.

As a compromise solution many of us have taken, do your good deeds on the side. Get that paycheck, and put 10-20 hours a week into a FOSS project, or helping the local foodbank set up a useable LAN from their pile of 15 year old mostly-DOA donated junk, or if you still have a few "in"s at your university, ask a few of your favorite non-CS professors if they have any projects that could use your skills (almost all of them do). But make a living first and foremost.

Slashdot Top Deals

You do not have mail.