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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Contempt of the court... (Score 1) 517

I think it depends on your psychology. Some people just can't deal with being confined like that. I was in a holding cell for only 12-15 hours and it was one of the worst things that has ever happened to me. I used to keep birds in cages sometimes, but now I would NEVER do that. Never. I really consider locking someone in a cage or bare room to be a form of torture. It certainly was for me. I paced/limped back and forth in my cell for pretty much the entire time I was there. I could only stop moving briefly. And that was on a badly injured leg and with broken ribs and a bloody battered face. The psychological effect of being confined was actually more powerful than all of my injuries were and my injuries were pretty bad.

Comment Re:Scary stuff (Score 1) 279

propose a solution that doesn't bounce us into the dark ages please.

For first world countries? How about copying France? Gradual changeover to nuclear power generation + electrified highways and cheaper more practical electric vehiicles. The only problem is that currently this is a rich person solution and only first world countries can do it. Maybe if nuclear becomes more ubiquitous it will get cheaper but currently nuclear generated electricity is kind of expensive. The real real problem is it's hard to imagine a lot of poor/primitive countries getting up to speed in the next century or two.

Comment Re:Snow storm? (Score 1) 279

In 1972 you would have been taught that the Looming-Ice-Age warnings were loony

Is this coming from your own memory? At what grade/level were you taught about climate change stuff? I remember all the ice age stuff being in the popular press in the late 70s but was too young to have been 'taught' anything on the subject. I wasn't aware that it was considered loony. Unproven or speculative maybe, but not loony.

All I can vouch for is that at the end of the 80s and start of the 90s the current paradigm of anthropogenic warming + armageddon wasn't yet being universally taught at university level as if it were a slamdunk: just one possible theory in need of more data. I would imagine that textbooks have changed since then. The Truth has moved on I guess.

Comment Re:Key point is to make them unlearn how they prog (Score 1) 347

Why would anyone want to be a professional programmer if that is what it is all about? It doesn't sound particularly fun or challenging. It sounds like more like something out of 1984 or Brazil. I like to code because it is fun to build a machine--a sort of intricate wind up toy--that you actually get to run eventually. What you describe sounds more like being a slave. I guess I can see why they have to pay so much or go to India. That's not how I would want to live my life. Do these 'professional' programmers have high rates of suicide?

Comment Re:Slashdot is for retards (Score 1) 347

More like trying to make a monkey walk like a human. Education is overrated. There are lots of dummies who get degrees, especially bachelors degrees. Find an intelligent person and they can learn whatever they need in a matter of days or weeks. Writing good code isn't really that hard. It's just machine building--an exercise in simple logic. Be smart enough to recognize other smart people to hire. Unfortunately this requires that you are intelligent yourself. Intelligence and a willingness to work hard are all you need. Then pay them fairly so they stick around. I don't think money is typically the problem though. The problem is usually that the person doing the hiring is stupid themselves and hires the worst candidates based on traditional metrics like charisma and paper certifications.

Comment Re:Economy as a whole...but who benefits? (Score 1) 295

When they are talking about the economy 'as a whole' they may be referring to the world economy and indeed free trade is good for that. However if what you are worried about is your own piece of the pie as a highly privileged elite who benefits greatly from artificial borders and the resulting income inequality then that is not necessarily a good thing for you personally.

Maybe someone who will be happy to work for $1/hour can do your job as well as you can. Would that be good for the world economy? How could it not be? But it won't help you specifically if you want to live a good life. I think there is clearly at least some zero sum game aspect to the current world economy. What is good for Indian and Chinese people is not necessarily good for North Americans and Western Europeans and in fact may often be very bad indeed. But for the planetary economy and overall human progress it's great.

Eventually the people accepting the $1/hour wages will demand a raise and the market will stabilize at a higher level, but that level will probably be a lot lower than it is now. Probably the current mega-corporation wage-slave-worker-drone model is partly to blame for all this. It's really not a very good model for the majority of humans. Corporations have way too much power compared to individuals and behave like sociopaths.

Nevertheless I'd be interested to see what would really happen in a world entirely without borders where everyone was allowed to physically live and work anywhere they wanted. It would be an interesting experiment. I'm not sure such a world would really be that different though because most poor people don't have the money for airline tickets or other international moving expenses and don't have good enough educations to really compete with people educated in first world countries. Although presumably some of the HR drones may not be able to distinguish between well educated and badly educated applicants. And it's not like the whole world would suddenly get better at speaking English.

Comment Re:I think I know their answer (Score 1) 295

At which point they stop sending money back to their home country, and start spending it here in the U.S.

Well...not exactly. I mean why should they stop sending money home just because they have some new piece of paper that says they are American citizens? Although it depends on the culture to some extent and how poor their families back home are, probably they will still send money home. I suppose you could try to stop them from doing that by making such money transfers illegal, but immigrants from poor countries are usually going to send at least some money home to their poor relatives if they can. That's just part of being an immigrant country. Again...unless you want to try to specifically stop them from doing that.

Comment Re:I think I know their answer (Score 1) 295

A PhD from *any* university is available for a price. Unless someone checks and I think most companies don't bother especially for foreign universities it's just a piece of paper and that can be forged. In India the real version of that piece of paper may be worth something especially from say IIT, but in many third world countries even a real university degree can mean very little.

In the country where I am currently living a so called 'IT' degree includes very little exposure to what is taught in US and other first world universities on the subject. Javascript is considered advanced programming and not much else core material is covered in 4 years. I kid you not. Go check out some of the curriculums yourself. Educationally it is most definitely *not* a level playing field. A 3-4 year degree in "Computer Science" or "IT" may not be at all comparable. In India or China things may be a lot more rigorous, but in many other countries that is simply not the case. This idea that 'a degree is a degree' is just silly.

Comment Re:Reactionaries (Score 1) 295

It is a lot like blackmail to try to force the US to give visa waivers to poor countries like Romania, Bulgaria, and The Ukraine with so many English students who would love to permanently 'visit' the US for higher wages now that the UK is no longer an option. Although to be fair I don't really see it as a problem because immigration can still basically default deny entry to anyone from a poor country just like they always do. It's basically impossible to enter the country as a tourist from many poor countries.

I mean c'mon how many Romanians really want to visit the US to see 'our beautiful country'. Romanian girls are hot though. So I say we should let all the pretty girls in in as long as their boyfriends and husbands are denied entry. The US is hardly the only country that does this to citizens of poor countries. It's a common policy all over the world. It's not hard to see the logic. Regardless of what they say maybe 7 out of 10 probably won't leave once they arrive. Or at least not until they've made a lot of money working illegally.

Comment Re:No surprise... (Score -1, Flamebait) 224

Every company does this

If by 'everybody' you mean sociopathic and evil corporations then yes you are correct. Corporations should be abolished. Their behavior is indistinguishable from the worst sorts of human beings.

Price gouging is not necessary and what's to stop consumers from voting for laws that make it illegal? After all if there are no rules then why should the public not follow the same logic that the corporations do and follow their own self-interest? If their is no fairness and only self-interest and it is every man for himself then fuck the corporations. Am i right?

If they have shown that they cannot and will not behave in an honorable manner then why shouldn't society force them to do so? If they themselves do not believe in any sort of principle other than self-interest they certainly cannot complain about it when the rest of us do the same. How about a law making any profit margin greater than 5% illegal and punishable by prison time?

Comment wtf does it mean to turn off admin rights (Score 1) 238

Is there like a switch? An "Admin Rights" checkbox somewhere? Maybe not a bad idea but I haven't seen anything like that. Did I just miss it? I'm still using Windows 7 so maybe this switch is a new feature in Windows 10. If the author meant that a user should run as Standard (unprivileged) User and not as an Administrator then maybe he should have said that. It is not as simple as just turning something on or off. If you are running as an Administrator you would probably want to actually create a new standard user account and start using that and that may require reinstalling some of your applications.

I'm guessing the guy who wrote that article doesn't use Windows and so does not realize that it just doesn't work that way. One of the greatest advantages of Windows 7 over XP was the relative ease of running as non-admin and a lot of software had to be changed to allow for the possibility that a user might be running it without full admin rights. I'm sure there is still some older software (games for instance) that require full admin privileges to run, but you can just switch to an admin account to run those.

Unfortunately for me the VPN that I use has software that appears to run only from a full admin account. "Run As Admin" doesn't even work with it. So there is still some (bad) software out there that expects full admin rights unfortunately.

I guess it shouldn't need to be pointed out that Microsoft is one of the worst software companies out there and pretty much everything they do is wrong/stupid. Their attempt at getting Windows to work hassle free as a standard user was not a complete success. That people running as Admin is still a problem just highlights this.

Comment Re:No you dont (Score 2) 180

Where does the constitution specifically call out a right to breathe or to eat? The constitution is not a list of human rights. It's a list of things the government is allowed to do. If it isn't in the constitution it is the government and not the citizen that is prevented from acting.

In this case a police officer is the government. If the constitution does not specifically allow the police to confiscate cameras and harass citizens using them then they are not allowed to do so. But that is just theory. In practice they will often just beat you bloody, toss you in jail, and throw some false charges at you (cover charges). Or if you get particularly unlucky and the cop is having a bad day he might just shoot you or choke you to death or both.

American police are usually themselves dangerous criminals and fucking with them in any way is indistinguishable from doing the same to an armed and pissed off gang member except that the gang member knows he could end up going to jail if he kills you. The cop knows he will at worst get a short paid vacation. The police are basically a gang themselves but one that is immune to all prosecution.

Slashdot Top Deals

Blessed be those who initiate lively discussions with the hopelessly mute, for they shall be known as Dentists.

Working...