Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Even better... (Score 2) 82

except for the thousands of dollars in medical expenses and lost wages when you develop carpal tunnel syndrome.

You aren't likely to develop carpal tunnel syndrome unless you're already predisposed to the condition, which is usually predicted by having a more square wrist than a more rectangular one, in addition to other anatomical features in your hand, such as its relative height and width.

And if you are predisposed to it, then lots of actions (ranging from writing to beating the captain) can cause it when repeated often.

If you aren't predisposed to it however, then you aren't likely to ever get it no matter how much you write, type, or polish the pewter.

Comment Re:a BAD sports team will pay for GOOD players (Score 2, Insightful) 168

CEO compensation needs to be cut drastically

The same argument is often made about lawyers, programmers, and a number of other jobs that pay a lot. The thing is though, people ultimately get paid what somebody else thinks they're worth, usually in order to retain them as employees to prevent them from going elsewhere. As somebody who is getting paid a bit more than other people my same career field with the same amount of experience, I have to say that I wouldn't like to have other people gawking at my paycheck either. (And to be honest, getting in my current job wasn't easy; the screening process was one of those panel interviews where I got grilled on my technical knowledge by 5 people, and I had to do it twice.)

That said, in the case of these particular CEOs, it wouldn't be surprising to me if the companies were already sinking and they're hoping that some AAA talent can turn them around. Sometimes said talent does exactly that. Case in point, look at John Legere; the guy makes about $23 million a year, making him the 45th highest paying CEO. Considering that T-Mobile was on its 11th consecutive quarter of subscriber losses before he arrived, and is now by far the fastest growing carrier and the only carrier to see positive postpaid customer growth for 9 consecutive quarters, I think the guy has earned every penny of that. (Especially the way he became both CEO and spokesperson, a somewhat rare thing, you can't argue with his results.) In spite of that, T-Mobile would still land on the list of one of those lower performing companies. Why? Because it's going to take some time for those subscriber gains to pay off. Nonetheless, he has put the company into a really good position for long-term earnings.

Comment Re: Waste of time (Score 4, Interesting) 130

A lot of people misinterpret what that was for. It wasn't "fearmongering" in any sense. Such a system was already in place for decades, only in a different form. I was in the Army at the time of 9/11, and that day we went to threatcon delta. All it was for was to signal all government personnel to assume a different security posture, as per protocol.

The public version just came off to me as being the same thing, only if any civilian entities (i.e power plants, etc) wanted to safeguard themselves based on recent events, they could reliably follow that.

It occurs to me that this is a similar system, only for cybersecurity. If people get all panicky over it, that's their problem, and it's not intended to make people afraid of anything.

Comment Re: TFA is not terribly clear... (Score 5, Insightful) 229

I don't think it makes a difference. It's well known that in IT security, the authentication factors are who you are, what you have, and what you know. The Constitution only protects the what you know factor. The who you are factor, which is almost entirely biometric, has almost zero protection. Why? Because all three branches of the government can compel you to identify who you are, and there is nothing in either the Constitution or any written laws saying otherwise.

Comment Re:Read some Engels (Score 1) 506

Some of the natives have really lifted themselves up, even with the communal ownership thing. Take the Osoyoos band. To quote from their web site, http://oibdc.ca/

Both of your examples rely on a mix of capitalism and outside investment to improve their lifestyle. You aren't making a good case here at all. Also, read this:


Russia and the Soviet Union. It's hard to claim that a country that went from wealth being considered how many serfs you owned to a space fairing nation in 50 years, while winning WWII through the sacrifice of millions of lives, and suffering under Stalin, didn't increase their GDP.

Because they didn't. All of that mainly came about as a result of the old fashioned way of doing things prior to the industrial revolution: Conquest. I've spoken to people who lived in Warsaw pact nations before the fall of the Iron Curtain who have said that the Russians were essentially dirt poor and got most of what they had by plundering it from their satellite states, primarily relying upon them for sustenance. This includes rocket technology used in the space race, by the way. (The US did a similar thing with Werner Von Braun et al, but not until after they saw the long-term strategic need for it.) This is why Russia also maintained a strong expansionist policy well after the age of imperialism as a means of economic growth had ended. (And capitalism is the reason that age ended; notice the non-capitalist states were still relying upon it.)

And by the way, not one person I spoke to who lived in that has ever said that they liked it. One of them (my current coworker) tells me that the only reason it took so long for communism to end was because the leadership loves having power and doesn't want to let it go. A couple I met from Romania said the same thing, and they described how it ended in violence because the dictator essentially had people loyal to him (nobody even knew who they were other than just some random guys with guns) just randomly fire upon people in the street who had even the slightest appearance of favoring an end to communism.

Sadly socialist revolutions, while easy to sell to a poor population, usually end up with corrupt leadership that fuck it right up.

Because communism just flat out doesn't work without central leadership. It just doesn't. Look at the Icarians as a case study. They had no legal requirement to follow their leaders who were democratically elected, but even then the GDP slowly tanked until the leadership had no choice but to take a harder line stance to make the workers productive, and eventually people just got sick of it and left, so the whole thing fell apart. The Icarians, by the way, had an entire town already built just handed to them (Nauvoo, Illinois, which was built by Mormons who were essentially forced to leave because the state government hated their religious views.) Even Karl Marx knew (and stated such) that dictatorship is required for a conversion.

Comment Re:Read some Engels (Score 1) 506

Regardless, the model here relies on communal ownership of property. It's fine to do a mathematical proof and say that "X system is better", but something that never changes is that communal ownership of property ends up in disrepair, assuming it even gets built to begin with.

If you want examples of this, look at how former capitalist regions ended up after the takeover of the Iron Curtain. Urban decay doesn't even begin to describe it. And then look what happened to it after the fall of the Iron Curtain -- night and day difference. Another example that persists to this day is Indian reservation in the US. Nobody can actually own any property there, not even the natives. This is why it's so common to see trailers and no land improvement whatsoever. Think about it: Why would you invest time, money, and other resources to improve the property you live on if somebody can just move you out of it at the drop of a hat?

Likewise, they talk as if communism would increase the GDP, but we've only ever seen the opposite happen. As soon as you have a communist revolution (which always ends up being violent, by the way, contrast to conversions away from communism more often being peaceful than not, which alone should tell you a lot about it) you start with a GDP no worse or better than capitalism, but soon people stop giving a shit about putting work and effort into something that, at the end of the day, gives them nothing to show for it, and your GDP turns to shit. It has happened with every commune that ever existed, from the Icarians (read about them if you haven't, and how the commune ended is very telling) to the Russians. In the end, the only people who benefit and have something to show for it are the political leadership.

In fact that reminds me of this one episode of Ren and Stimpy:


In communism, the people are expected to be like how Stimpy ended up, striving for nothing more than the happiness of their fellow man at their own expense. And you know what? Fuck that. I don't care what the mathematical proof says, I'm not doing that shit.

Comment Re: Wow... (Score 4, Informative) 219

I don't think that's the driver's fault. The pedestrian essentially darted out into traffic, not giving enough time for a human driver to react. However the autopilot, which presumably has a quicker response time, was able to react without driver intervention.

Now, had the pedestrian gone through a crosswalk and had there been roadsigns to notify the driver as such, but the driver was relying on autopilot and the pedestrian got hit? Driver's fault.

And yes, you can have it both ways here. Why? Because it is made pretty clear that autopilot is more of a convenience and in the right circumstances it can correct driver error (including errors made by other drivers and pedestrians,) but at the same time it is not intended to be a replacement for an actual driver, nor is it ever advertised as such. This means that ultimately you, the driver, are responsible for correcting the autopilot, but the autopilot is not responsible for correcting you.

Comment Re:No Thanks (Score 1) 80

"Christians" is not some homogeneous and monolithic entity

No shit. I never claimed otherwise.

And being prejudiced against something in and of itself is not bad, providing the prejudice is based on some sort of sound reasoning. For instance, I'm completely prejudiced against racists, but that hardly makes me a bigot.

I think you just did a really good job of demonstrating your own poor judgement. You've never lived their life, so you don't know why they might have a particular point of view. For example, think of a woman who has been repeatedly raped and now hates men; you aren't going to change this woman's mind by prejudging her.

As for myself, I'll have a beer with a black guy, a redneck, a kkk member, a black panther party member...so long as they're not being hostile to me, it doesn't matter. The left, and especially people like you, have completely failed to learn from Martin Luther King Jr, which is your problem, not mine.

Comment Re:No Thanks (Score 1) 80

Go back and review the comments regarding Brandon Eich, Cliven Bundy, that guy who owned the LA Lakers, that Duck Dynasty guy, and probably half of Steve King's remarks. You can even see it in the discussions here on Slashdot. If you've never observed that tendency, I can only say you may need to pay a bit more attention.

These are really dumb examples because none of them have been particularly set back by those comments, except for the Lakers guy who was set up by a jilted wife/girlfriend/whatever to say those things. If you just listen to the conversation, it's obvious the woman he was talking to was deliberately baiting him into saying those things, and it was very likely taken out of context as well.

Either way, he hasn't come forth demanding his right to be able to say those things without civil consequence, and neither has anybody else.

Sorry but you're retarded, and so is the rest of your needlessly lengthy post.

Slashdot Top Deals

...when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. - Fred Brooks, Jr.