Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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 This is a fixed result. (Score 1) 216

I've been in IT for over twenty years. I have never, ever, felt there was a general consensus in favor of the aptitude, creativity, productivity, quality of workmanship from H1-B workers, F1 Visa interns, or in general 'Indian or Chinese' workers. For the SJWs, there are some really good ones, nothing is 100%. But, there's not that many to warrunt a perceivable pattern of excellence. If they were so good, or even as good as Americans, then why don't they create their own globally influential Apple/Microsoft or IBM? They seem only good enough to do what they're told, what buttons to press at the factories, to complete complex actions without a cognitive understanding of why.

Every individual I had met who had "outsourced" software development, only did so becuase they didn't have enough money for the real programmers; like people who buy fake Rolexes, they do so for the necessity of image while attending high-brow meetings, yet can't actually fit the bill. The moment they became somewhat successful, the first to go was the outsourced contracts; but it is an uphill battle, it's difficult to become successful with sub-par production quality. Then if the company becomes public and has to start answering to shareholders, they return back to the sub-par quality of H1-Bs for the sake of reduced labor costs, because competent programmers, architects and designers are expensive. This is practical, becuase they don't need the expertise to build the infrastracture and their development cycle shifts into more of a maintenance mode; with small feature additions/enhancements being more manageable given all the rest of it.

So, I have never met a true-blue American IT professional, face-to-face, proclaim admiration of foreign IT workers coming into the American workplace. Maybe, an "American"-in-double-quotes, a foreign national who became naturalized who strives for more of his own people in the workplace might have signed this petition, but not a real American. And, certainly not the one forced to train the foreigner to be laid off afterwards; such as has happened at Disney, which is why I refuse to purchase any more Disney products/theme park tickets/even Pixar films.

Becuase of this, I seriously doubt that 100,000 American IT professionals signed this petition.

Comment What makes me happy. (Score 1) 399

Years ago, I spent a ton of cash for essentially a Alienware OEM laptop that came pre-installed with a version of RedHat. It was from NextComputing who at the time offered portable UNIX solutions like the SPARCbook et al. Being niche market, it was pretty expensive but since it came per-installed with Linux I was on board.

The pre-installed version of linux only really served the purpose (as it would have even if it were Windows) of making sure everything "worked"; because after I felt satisfied with the hardware aspects of the machine, I installed Gentoo. I basically paid a lot of money to increment a number for one businessman to show another businessman; but it's the principle of what that number stands for right?

I really no longer care if the market has "numbers" indicating demand for Linux. Apparently Microsoft simply manoeuvres itself to where they get credit for each unit any ways diminishing the value of any alternative market evidence.

So the only thing I want is for manufacturers to give me the the option, with price reduction to reflect the fact, to purchase the machine without an Operating System. Currently anyone with a business account with Dell can do just this, my company does this all the time for any server, desktop or laptop we buy from Dell and all of our machines are Dell. However, I'm not a business and I want to be able to purchase from their consumer line with the same privilege.

Comment Wow, they did it! (Score 1) 245

I have a lot of "smut" like domains. I would say, I own about 50 non-variant domain names; non-variant and count as one. Maybe a solid 35 of those are no doubt fine domains for a smut site. All for personal use, because I'm a geek and feel I ought to own my own domains, I do not make money from them or anything, I don't even check the mail going to many of them so even if someone wanted to buy one for millions I never saw the offer, nor do I want to see such an offer honestly. To me, if you sit on a domain just to sell it that's questionable... but to sit on a cool domain to connect to IRC with or have an interesting email address, to me that's not a bad thing.

Years ago, when this whole .xxx thing came out, I was actually thinking of making a few of my domains into full-blown sites. So, I purchased the .xxx variants of some of my 'smut' domains and sat on them for a while. This was at a time when Firefox and IE needed a special plugin to visit these strange TLDs remember? Anyways, after a while and being charged an arm and a leg for them... I let them expire. Why would porn companies use .xxx? I bet Playboy will continue to hold, update and consider as a corporate/business portal, to be their primary domain; even if they do in fact put all "content" on a domain. This would go for all "adult" related sites, including perhaps companies such as F Street, DejaVu and others. Will Victoria Secrets be forced onto a .xxx domain? I doubt it. One problem is the fact that "xxx" means something totally different than just "porn". "xxx" has the connotation of degrading things, less tasteful depictions of "porn". I'll agree, Playboy and Penthouse is "porn", but Hustler or some weird Japanese fecal fetish magazine is "xxx". It's always been this way, and I fail to foresee it ever changing any time soon.

They will ALL have the .com and the .xxx domains in the end. As for those who find .xxx easy to "filter"... you'll still have all the old filter lists all the same because will still be erotic enough, suggestive enough, obvious enough that it will still be "porn". Only the most extreme smut sites will brag and find it sufficient for only a .xxx domain name such as, or Everyone else, they will still have the .com versions of their domains.

Case in point? Are they going to make it a requirement that any content depicting nakedness, by law, must be on a .xxx domain? What if I connect directly to IP address as using scp, ftp or what not? Will it have to reverse to a .xxx host name? This is ridiculous if you ask me... but I think most of all the TLDs are ridiculous. .com, .net, .org, .mil, .smil, .edu... whatever.

Comment Re:Go FBI! (Score 1) 353

But they are criminals, and therefore I for one am glad that the FBI has had some little success in tracking them down

You can not be serious Haeleth. By that rationale, any time a tyrant needs to gain your approval he only needs to make any opposing
act a criminal offense and you'll be certain to point out that "but they are criminals!".

You sir, need to read up on some philosophy, particularly Thoreau's Civil Disobedience. Regardless of government, that essay
applies to all authority as far as I'm concerned. To hell with you if you wish to ignore these hackers' obligation to resist and defy
while labeling them as crooks. For this, your post ought to be modded down. I'd have a good mind to pitch in on their effort, I'm
already rather adamant about our position as I have refused to update my PS3; I could care less about a trash proprietary blueray
feature ('new' bluerays don't work because I haven't updated my PS3), I could care less about their Sony Playstation Network. My
PS3 still has the Alternative OS feature; and Sony can suck my dick, it's my property not theirs they forfeited ALL rights to it the
moment they said my 400 dollars was fair trade at BestBuy. I don't give a flying rats ass what "laws" may disagree, I refuse to
acknowledge the authority of any person in defiance of my position and I'll break any damn law to preserve what I know
is right.

To hell with people like you. To hell with your rationale supporting Sony. To hell with your damn post.

Comment This smells of propoganda. (Score 3, Informative) 174

Iran has scientists and engineers. They can build nuclear power plants, and other advanced technologies. The US would have you believe they are trying to build a nuclear bomb. Iran engineers and manufactures their own long range missiles, so they have the proverbial "rocket scientists" and apparently "competent" ones too.

What's the point of all this?

If you think, Iran, or any other country is unable to design and make their own "UAV", you have GOT to be drinking some serious kool-aid. They aren't stupid and they aren't dumb. Whoever from Iran reporting this story probably isn't allowed access to real photos, so they grab something from their little scrapbook and publish the story. Here in the US, we are so stupid to think that Iran scientists and government have nothing better to do than sit around a table and come up with stories to tell the world; for no purpose or goal at all?

Stop acting retarded people. You want stupid stuff printed in American stories, look at Popular Mechanics. "Oh, but those are artists renditions..." what's the difference!?

Comment Advertising? (Score 1) 255

I refuse to believe, that "advertising" pays for all of "this" *points around the room, at the skyline, at my car, street, schools and a history book*.

Why does Wikipedia need 16 MILLION United States Dollars? I have a server up and running, it doesn't cost 16 million dollars. Ok, so it's not the fastest server, so an expensive internet connection. Expensive hardware yadda yadda yadda. I know it's not "cheap" by personal standards, but 16 million dollars is a helluva lot of money. Why does a "free" site need 16 million dollars?

Any how, advertisers can go to hell. I don't care how, when, where or what advertisers say. I don't want, a single advertisement, anywhere, ever while I peruse Wikipedia. NEVER EVER! Of course, unless, in the special event, perhaps by accident, that a banner advertising Coca-Cola is caught in the background of a photo of some Athlete, or perhaps I'm on the wiki-page for "advertisement" and it's showing me a picture of an actual example of quick lies, half truths etc. Or perhaps the article points to histories, such as cocaine usage in consumer products in the past and present, showing advertisements of various periods of history of coca-based products.

But, a real, intentional advertisement? Never. Why does Wikipedia need 16 million dollars for what essentially means a nice internet connection and some stable hardware? Why if they succumb to "advertisement" revenue that they'll all of a sudden be free and clear of financial woes? They are a free site! Who the hell is paying that much money for Advertisement? Why are companies allowed to Advertise, why are they compelled to spend so much money on advertisement to begin with? Apparently, so much money is dumped into Advertisement, that it can "fund" the world. If only, a company took that money and dumped into their Research & Development department, or their Quality Assurance department. If only...

Comment Re:ACTA again (Score 1) 176

Mod this parent up!

I visited a small town on the east coast. It used to be a prosperous steel production town. Very poor now, the mines are closed, everything has gone to flip. This I do not believe was because of consumer pressure, I believe the shipping of steel production overseas happened long before Wal-Marts relative status.

But the parent here is correct. Fools who shop at Wal-Mart. I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart. My wife sometimes wants to go to Wal-Mart because she thinks things there are "cheap". Wal-Mart is one of the largest employers in the United States... how sad. But it's the way the ball bounces. People think "capitalism" is good. People think the goal of "capitalism" is bigger better faster cheaper. People think that they are saving a dollar at Wal-Mart, not realizing due to Double Irish tax fraud, that the dollar they spent at Wal-Mart will never reenter the US again, but be spent overseas somewhere. The media tries to mitigate these horrors by trying to stress the Double Irish tax scheme is for "tax deferment", they only pay taxes when they try to bring the money into the US but that money is NEVER brought back into the United States and stays in overseas financial institutions. This pulls some international corporations tax on international sales down to the single digits! The only tax they spend, is what they make off the American public... it turns out, your dollar really isn't that valuable or relevant compared to global profit margins. American consumerism, is junk investment.

You might hate this, but it's true. What does America create? Seriously... you think Apple created that iPhone? How much of that iPhone do you think was "designed" by American born, citizens working in Cupertino or any Apple owned facility in the United States? Who made your Intel processor; from my understanding, a fair amount of the designing is done in Isreal while a great deal of fabrication is done in Russian plants. How many American workers are hired by Microsoft, how many in the US on Microsoft's payroll are from India? Are you really proud that maybe 1,000 Microsoft executives and upper management who are the highest paid, might be "American"? What of the 88,000 others collecting a pay check?

It might be interesting, next time you are at a store... look at that dollar (or more accurately your debit card before you swipe it). What does it mean? Where did that number come from, where is that number going. What does it really mean.... that number? You don't know, neither does the guy next to you. All you care about, is getting that Dr. Pepper and you have a larger number in a "bank" than the number posted on the "price tag", so that means, algebraically that you can buy it. So you swipe your card... and off you go.

Comment I disagree. (Score 1) 1348

First, the PCWorld column states that Linux is dead because of a lack of content.

While I'll agree, desktop usage doesn't seem as wide spread as I would like it, a lack of content is NOT the reason for this problem.

I've NEVER seen a platform so rich in content. There is no computer system or operating system that has more applications than a FOSS system (aside from perhaps a Mac OS X box which cators to both Blender and the commercial Maya... as an example).

Secondly, a default install of any FOSS box would give the user far more content than a default install of Windows. The reason why Linux isn't taking the desktop by storm is simply because of one problem and only one problem.

Microsoft Office and the lack of 100% compatible alternatives.

This is the PRIME reason companies and individuals hold on to a Windows platform. It's the ONLY reason ONE of the FIVE machines on my company desk is Windows; the rest are Gentoo Linux boxes. Watch a DVD on Linux? I've been doing that for over a decade, what the hell is Mr. Strohmeye's problem?

Lack of desktop adoption yes, lack of content Robert Strohmeye doesn't know what he's talking about.

Comment Why I won't buy one. (Score 1) 535

1) All the 3D technologies to date, work by tricking the brain. But the brain is still smarter than the technologies which is why a lot of people get headaches and other side effects trying to participate with the 3D stuff; I barely got through Avatar, and I watched maybe 10% of it without the glasses on. While there were some interesting 3D FX in Avatar (usually only the scenes of fluffies floating about), a more pleasurable experience would have been to watch the movie in 2D instead.

2) All the 3D technologies to date require additional hardware. Which the capitalists will attempt to capitalize one. It's my feeling that should I purchase a "3D" Television set, that is should come free with the same number of additional components to use the TV as the size of the average house hold population plus 2 more for visiting friends. So each family may be a mean sum of 3 people, so five "glasses" should be for free for each TV. And, the glasses shouldn't cost very much at all. Currently, they are around 150USD to 200USD; and not even stylish. For that kind of cash, it better be DG or some designer glasses with sapphire lenses. Only one pair is given for some televisions; boy if that isn't an insult! We don't have wives, girlfriends, friends or neighbors? What morons are deciding these things?

3) All the 3D technologies are ridiculously pricey, and with the above caveats out right stupid. While the idea is really cool, and the notion of such display systems gaining new R&D is appreciable. The capitalists running the show to the consumers are obviously out of touch with reality. There's no way I'm going to limit my viewing experience with a headache every 30 minutes; and pay dearly for the Television and pay dearly again for glasses. I can't even watch a full length movie with this stuff, I've tried varied 3D techniques none of them are comfortable and sustainable. On "movie nights" I can spend many hours watching movie after movie.

4) The industry put me off with the way they are wording things. "Consumers aren't cooperating" or "Consumers aren't doing their part". First off, it's not my responsibility or obligation to purchase your damn crap, get that through your skull or I'll write it on a bullet and help you get that message inside your head. If you make something worth buying, then I'll consider but just because you want more money for your own pleasure you have to earn it (just like you tell me). It's not that I'm not cooperating, it's you aren't doing your part in providing quality products or products worth buying, or if you think you are then you aren't putting reasonable price tags on those products. It's not the consumers responsibility to randomly purchase crap. I know you like impulse buying but be careful thinking that since some do that should be precedent; you just enjoy the morons who do buy Juicy Fruit gum at the checkout stand and you better respect those of us who don't. Don't tell me I'm not doing my part. You aren't doing yours!

Comment Re: Revenge Of The Nerds (Score 1) 761

Most likely, instantly.

By the time they put a tracking device on you, what they are looking for is anything out of the norm. They already know you go to work at 7am, they know you always take the freeway, they know all the restaurants you go to for lunch. They know on Thursdays you stop by the school to pick up your kid, they know on Fridays you have off and go to the beach.

The one Friday the GPS reports you 50 miles into the middle of nowhere... ding.

So, if you put it on the taxi, by the time that taxi makes two or three rights... the FBI is already on them and see that you have dislodged the device. There might be obstruction to justice charges if it seems intentional... so anything than a signal emitting from the trash can, and you might find yourself in real trouble I suspect.

Comment Re:Wow, just... wow (Score 1) 475

Some lawyers make a lot of money; many lawyers are not rich. In fact most of them become "ambulance chasers" for this reason. On average, lawyers make between 50-100K

I find this difficult to believe. I'll have to call this one out. Some might not make much, but on average that doesn't seem right at all. The economics nor stereotypes simply doesn't equate with this assertion. I have yet to meet an ethical lawyer, but that doesn't mean much technically. However, the idea that their schooling is so expensive compared to other professions and the stringent requirements all point to a person who shall honestly be in the interest of "justice" to undergo such burden for an average pay of 50-100K. We all know, this certainly does not fit the bill with what we see hit the news and court rooms with personal greed and exploitation seemingly being the only motive for a lawyer.

As for free representation, you can get free legal advice depending on where you live. If you are charged with a crime, you have the right to free counsel.

"Advice" is not precedent. "Advice" is ineffective. "Advice" is nothing more than words without action. "Advice" is advice, nothing more. And when you are served, anything some random lawyer said really has no weight given your situation; very similar to joining the military, at point of no return you are often told that anything the Recruiter told you is probably a lie or otherwise unbinding.

I'm aware that free legal counsel is available and constitutionally guaranteed (US LAW) in criminal law.

But what about civil matters? What if I write a program and some company decides to send lawyers after me... asking for some settlement and to cease and desist, what then? This is the part of the system that is severely broke. Why should I only be guaranteed legal counsel in the event I'm a criminal? Why can't I be given counsel as the victim, or even if I wasn't a "victim" as the "dove".

Legal system should be equally accessible to all. If a Company is allowed to sue me for whatever reason, then I should be able to defend myself with whatever comparable resources they can bring to the table. In fact, I say such cases should be barred from settlement, and the company or the excessively wealthy one must manage total costs of his and the defendants legal counsel, through out the duration; and compensation for out of work time for the defendant regardless of verdict.

What does this mean?

I was pointing out other professions that require enormous expense that the public benefits from for far less out of pocket experience. I pay taxes, modest at that and it seems to be able to pay for the billions and billions poured into building roads, bridges and skyscrapers, nuclear facilities and power generation plants, water sanitation plants, sewage facilities and the rest of it all. My point was you can't argue that the poor Lawyer has so much to pay out of pocket, because so many other professions also pay dearly and those who benefit from their effort never have to see first hand the exorbitant costs. To see my cardiologist for about an hour, 20 dollars out of pocket. To walk into any lawyers office and say hello, a 500 dollar retainer fee. Both are highly subject to what they say, literally. The Cardiologist in SoCal is probably paid much more than the average lawyer. I pay medical insurance, so if my Cardiologist actually has to get bloody, I'm ok. If my lawyer has to file a paper and walk into a court room...

I think you see my point.

You could look at and say that the lawyer got too much of a settlement or you could look at it and say the individual would have gotten nothing without a lawyer.

This is what infuriates people. This is not a choice. This isn't a game of "in order for you to see justice, I shall be able to rape you before hand". This is a precise analogy, and one of the reasons certain groups of people throughout history have been slaughtered; and they will be again and again.

This isn't a game of exploitation, it's supposed to solve disputes.

Comment Re:Wow, just... wow (Score 2, Insightful) 475

Is 2/3 a high amount? Yes. But do you know exactly what was in that bill? Most likely the lawyers had to answer every motion, address every detail that the school district would throw at them in order to even get the suit to proceed. Being the school district, the lawyers would probably have to fight motions to dismiss as the school would argue that they can't be sued as part of state. Then even if they could be sued, everything fell under protected state behaviors, etc. That's a lot of time on a lawyer's part and time = money. Even a case that is settled like this takes up boxes and boxes of so called "paperwork."

I understand what you're saying, doesn't make it right. I don't care what's in that bill or how many boxes of paperwork goes into a case, 425,000 USD for a settlement is ridiculous at any level. For 425,000 dollars, that better be a Supreme Court ruling... unfortunately, such a ruling would total millions I imagine.

I'm aware of post education certification and continued education for Lawyers, Doctors et al. Lawyers seem to make more than mechanical engineers, construction engineers, architects and a fair share of medical professions. In spite of all of this, and the jokes about modern health care, still poor people have access to a doctor. As opposed to the legal system, there is no access for poor people we know this, otherwise the RIAA and their John Doe lawsuits wouldn't be so successful at extortion. You can not afford a court battle, there is no protection for you. There is no legal equivalent of Medicare, there is no legal equivalent of Free Health Clinics, there is no legal equivalent of the fact your state taxes pays for the construction engineers that build the roads and water systems. There's no legal equivalent of you consulting an accountant to start a business.

I don't care how expensive their school is. I don't care how expensive their paralegals are. I don't care about their bills, they are lawyers so they should be able to drag the costs down themselves by suing those who overcharge them... I don't know.

The system needs to be fixed, there is no excuse for taking 425k from a 600k settlement. The financial aspects are ridiculous, the legal representation is ridiculous (where a large corporation can take an individual to court... what bullshit).

Comment It's nice, but not that nice. (Score 1) 434

I never saw an advertisement for Bentley, Rolls Royce or Lamborghini. Never saw a Porsche ad until most recently, and it's safe to say I was well aware of the Porsche 911 series long before 2002 Porsche SUV ads started showing up. Never saw an advertisement for Tiffany & Co. Never saw an advertisement for Waterford Crystal. Only until recently did I notice that Omega Watches was sponsoring some Olympic events... but I didn't have to wikipedia them I knew from experience they were fine watches as I had already purchased a few years before I watch the first swim race.

There's a lot to be said about the inherent exposure quality products inherit. The argument is most childish, 'how are you supposed to find out? you had to have seen an advertisement'. Wrong. Most of the highest quality products you know of, you never saw an advertisement for them. I never saw an advertisement for Alpine or Blapunkt radios, Onkyo stereo equipment. Never saw an advertisement for Black Hills Gold. Most advertisements are for products we already know from day to day use (the truth is the irony of the fact most of us do not have a Porsche, most of us haven't ever seen a Lamborghini in real life... the least needed advertisement also is the least utilized day to day).

I know about Mt Dew, I have drank tons of it. I don't want to see a Mt Dew commercial; I don't care if they have a new Code Purple drink, I'm sure I'll notice it just fine when I go to get another Mt Dew. I don't care about Mc Donalds, they can advertise swiss gold ingots for free with every purchase... all owners of a Mc Donalds restaurant should be thrown in jail for the obvious health hazards their food creates. I don't need to see another advertisement for Ford... if that damn company would actually make a decent vehicle they wouldn't need to try to convince me to buy it with flashy ads and carefully choreographed cinematics.

The only thing an advertisement/advertiser or salesman does is try to contradict your better judgment. When you see a fine product, you know it's fine. When you see a crappy product, you also know it's crappy. But you buy a lot more crappy stuff than good stuff, largely due to being convinced to shop at WalMart rather than the cost difference. How many shitty Timex, Swatch, Armitron and DKNY designer watches have been sold to each individual? 400 dollars for a crappy designer Coach watch at Macy's.... it's a Timex with those stupid C's on it. I don't care to be sold a crappy product. Fire the salesman and spread his pay amongst the craftsmen... the product will sell itself, fool.

So I don't give a shit about advertisement. I don't want to see it, ever. Nor should I have to pay not to see it. I want NO advertisements. None! Stuff all the advertisements into one channel, that way I can walk around my neighborhood and find the morons who might be watching it. (Ever notice you can always get what you want from people who watch infomercials? You can always convince these fools of anything, Young Earth Creationism? You name it. They are fools.)

Google. I want no advertisements. Not one bleep before, during or after the show. I don't give a damn how awesome the show is, I won't watch any of it if there's a commercial on the air. If I have to pay, one cent, I want no advertisements. If I buy cable service for TV channels... I paid already, why should I have to watch an advertisement, on any channel, that is only going to be additional pay? Why should I be tricked, conned, sold, convinced, fooled, persuaded to buy any damn thing?

Just so you know, it's also why I don't go to a lot of theme parks or sporting events. If I have to pay for a ticket to get inside, there better not be any advertisement when I get in there. If there are advertisement, then I want the cost of the ticket back as they are making money from the advertisements.
Personally I think should any service or product be sold, it should be illegal for it to contain or reference any other product, or otherwise reasonably be considered product placement or any means of "advertisement" therein. There used to be product placement laws, that's why old TV shows had funky unidentifable items in the show (beer cans with just a white square for a label etc.) This used to follow through with movies, but at some point in time, all of this crumbled and you have Pepsi and Dorittos on some high-school sit com. And you have commercials....

Slashdot Top Deals

I have a very small mind and must live with it. -- E. Dijkstra