Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
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 Tough Choices.. (Score 1) 239

In a capitalist system, you can't really make laws telling companies to not reduce their wage bill as much as they (legally) can. If they can't bring people here, they're going to send the job there. Just like America will never be a manufacturing economy again, it looks like it is not going to remain a 'basic software' economy either.

The world is changing and if the US wants other countries to open up their markets, the US will have to open up their own labor market. The US used to be able to bully others into asymmetrical trade agreements, but that is going to get tougher and tougher as more and more countries lift themselves out of poverty.

I remember when Japanese and Korean cars were called "junk" and now they make the best cars. It's not going to take long for the Indians to get good.

Comment Re:Uber drivers also earn a living wage. (Score 1) 123

Well there is an inherent guarantee about being on a payroll vs being possibly equally compensated if you happen to be the bloke that spoke with SuperKendall.

So, if you're not one of the drivers that hangs out with SuperKendall, you might be making close to minimum wage.

Comment Re:Immigration policy is not hate speech (Score 2) 1058

I wanted to point out that there is a diverse set of opinions. "Democrats" say X and "Republicans" say Y is a gross generalization. Also, you have to put everything in context. The GOP doesn't simply say illegal immigrants are bad so lets have a scholarly debate. They make vile disgusting political ads specifically designed to rile up people with their propaganda.

So, if you could spare us your sanctimonious bullshit about having a proper discourse it would be nice.

Comment Re:Slashdot double standard (Score 1) 177

No, it's valuable experience

Actually, it isn't. Software developers are not interchangeable cogs in a machine. Each project has unique considerations, unique requirements, unique properties all of which makes it pretty much impossible to apply broad generalizations. What stage is the project in? How tightly defined are the requirements? How experienced are the people managing it? Have they ever managed a remote team before? How flexible is the design? Does it even make sense to use this technology? etc etc etc. Its typically "MBA style thinking" to lump us engineers into one giant bucket of nerds - which ironically leads to _more_ outsourcing because all they see is a cost center.

The CTO eventually told them to fuck off, we hired 4 more developers inhouse, and got the entire project completed in 6 months alongside our other duties.

Then it sounds like you guys are incompetent at evaluating whether a company is capable of servicing your needs.

Comment Re:Slashdot double standard (Score 0) 177

This is backed up by evidence of companies that started on the outsourcing fad and had to pull things back to America to get the quality back up to what they wanted. Again it is not bashing the Indians, but the skill level of the specific subset of people getting into that line of work.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Comment Re:Why they said "maintaining maximum compatibilit (Score 1) 585

Wow, That is complete marketing bullshit. The only way it makes sense is if those were two separate sentences.

"This enables us to focus on deep integration between Windows and the silicon, while maintaining maximum reliability" -- No Win10, no shiny CPU for you.
"compatibility with previous generations of platform and silicon" -- non-shiny CPUs continue to work with Win10.

Comment Re:Just wanted to say "thank you" (Score 1) 110

I don't have an ISO because this is an upgraded system from Win8. I don't know what your point is, or if you even have one. But it doesn't take a genius to disprove the GP's absurd claims. If you understand basic OS architecture, you'd know that the hard limit on the number of threads is the size of the stack (approximately, because you have other associated bookkeeping data structuresm but they are usually very tiny) , which ultimately means you're limited by the physical memory, paged pool and virtual memory. So creating 100,000 or even 200,000 threads is not a big deal. Threads are the "basic unit" of work in the NT design. Now as far as the scheduler goes, threads have discrete priority levels, thread quantums, as well as numerous strategies like temporary bumps and downgrades in priority/quantum lengths (esp on desktop workloads) so that for e.g. the UI threads dont get starved. (The balance set manager prevents priority inversion) So not only can you schedule a large number of threads, you can do so without locking up the system. Obviously this is a simplistic explanation but it was part of the NT kernel's original design 20 years ago. The idea that NT can't schedule a measly 2000 threads is not really tenable (with the caveat that you have enough memory for the stacks). Since then there have obviously been lots of additions like NUMA support to schedule threads optimally per-processor, etc, etc, etc

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing makes a person more productive than the last minute.