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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Google has a problem. (Score 3, Insightful) 226

Google exists primarily as a playground for two (actually much, much more, now) geeks. They want to do things like build driverless cars and have robot cats and sharks with frickin' laser beams.

Unfortunately, Google accidentally became too successful, and would have needed to start filing SEC disclosures even if they hadn't gone public. So hey, free money.

Now, Google has a problem, not unlike that of John Rigas or Dennis Kozlowski (minus the criminal aspect of it, of course) - Brin and Page both see Google as their private playground, but have to pretend they give the least damn about their shareholders... Thus, the whole reason they brought on Eric Schmidt early on, to do all that boring BS business-stuff while they play with online weather balloons.

But make no mistake, evil or no, Google exists as a high-tech playground, not a serious business. The fact that they make oodles of money should serve as a role-model to other companies who haven't come to grips with the fact that "knowledge" workers do their best when not forced to sit in a 6x6 box for exactly eight hours a day using only "approved" apps and hardware.

Comment Re:Wow, just wow. (Score 1) 406

To a certain degree, the downside is that this can lead to a big old circlejerk (also-known-as groupthink - also-known-as, colloquially from the pleasant times of 1930's-40's Germany; zeitgeist).

But by-and-large, I have been on slashdot from before the moderation system. I remember the debates. I didn't agree with the reasons for moderation. But after CmdrTaco made those changes, things did get better, and I really do agree that peer moderation, though not perfect, is the best way to deal with fanbois and trolls. (and ESPECIALLY astroturfing - which has been a HUGE problem, here on slashdot, historically).

Comment Re:Point is to expand group (Score 1) 128

Women already in Engineering are ... wait for it ... the kind of woman that would be interested in Engineering.

They are only one kind. You are excluding people you THINK would not be interested out of hand; why?

There are programmers who like good clothes. Why can't the same be true of women? Here's an amazing thought; perhaps a person can have multiple interests!

Comment And that is why we have no women in engineering (Score 1) 128

The point is, women who are highly interested in being fashion consumers are unlikely, IMO, to be interested in getting involved in the nitty-gritty details of technology

But my point is this line of thinking is at best barbaric, and totally wrong! It's exactly that kind of thinking that is keeping so many women out of engineering because everyone is constantly saying "oh you are interested in X, therefore you cannot possibly be a good programmer of electrical engineer".

I know good male programmers who have good fashion sense and also like good clothes. So why the hell should that not the be the case for some women too?

For whatever reason women are simply less inclined to even try STEM areas of work. So lets not go around building fucking walls to keep even more out than naturally already discard the thought out of hand even though they would enjoy it.

Again, you CANNOT get the size of a group to increase be being highly selective and exclusionary!

If you want to make STEM careers attractive to a larger set of the population, the answer is simple: increase the pay

WHAT THE FUCK. The pay (and job stability) is *already* extremely compelling and just about any STEM field. That's OBVIOUSLY not any kind of solution.

But now people on Slashdot, for some odd reason, want to bring more uninterested people into this career field?

NO you idiot. We want to bring people into STEM that have a natural love of it (and those are the only people that would stay anyway, you cannot force anyone into STEM which is why programs to herd women into STEM en-masse are stupid). But utter morons like yourself are driving them off before they can find out they do in fact like STEM sorts of work, and that means many females are in fact doing something they like far less than they would like working in STEM related fields.

Finally, if this is such a great idea, why don't we use a variation of it to bring more men into STEM careers?

We do, there are tons of things everywhere that make STEM seem interesting to boys. In fact that is a problem in itself though, in that there probably are a significant number of men that also would be happy in STEM that do not pursue it.

Comment sure (Score 1) 467

It would be so very difficult for someone to write a little program that, when stripping the DRM, randomized a couple of pieces of punctuation to break the hash that the vendor is storing along with the sales record of the individual book.

In which case they just resort to diff, to remove your hacks and restore the hash.

Comment Re:Sprint people are good, service is awful here (Score 1) 131

Ah. I assumed you were the person I'd originally replied to. My "cities are hard" comment was talking about the original poster's voice call service dropouts, not the data service performance problems. Data performance problems are usually just caused by inadequate backhaul bandwidth.... :-)

Comment Re:Software foundations (Score 1) 243

Consider if the FSF merges with a different organization with a different charter; like the often more corporate-friendly Open Source Initiative.

I don't see how a merger between FSF and OSI would pose a problem. The Open Source Definition published by Open Source Initiative is worded nearly identically to the Debian Free Software Guidelines on which it was based, and each of the OSD's conditions maps to one of the FSF's four freedoms.

Would be nice if such a guarantee could be written into the license itself.

I agree. But given how some countries appear not to recognize a dedication of a work to the public domain as irrevocable, charters are the best we have.

Comment Re:Software foundations (Score 1) 243

That's called donating copyright in a program to a not-for-profit foundation that has the free software paradigm written into its charter.

That's still weak.

A non-profit's charter can evolve. Consider if the FSF merges with a different organization with a different charter; like the often more corporate-friendly Open Source Initiative.

Would be nice if such a guarantee could be written into the license itself.

Slashdot Top Deals

They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl Sagan

Working...