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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Not a single time traveler? (Score 2, Insightful) 1254

People who want to assassinate trump are absolutely out of their minds on many different levels. If he dies, we get Pence. Anyone who ever objected to Trump about anything at all should be very, very afraid of Pence.

Let the clown reign, he was lawfully elected, whether we like it or not. At least with him he might throw a temper tantrum in your favor.

Comment Re:Jumped the shark a long while ago (Score 1) 147

My understanding is that this will be based on the Pre-reboot reality. We will certainly be seeing (mostly) new characters so it should feel a little more "Star Trek" than the movies.

It is going to be set shortly after the TOS era though, and this does still have its problems. There's a lot of established continuity that we're tied into; and Star Trek fans will remember every single throwaway line about Sarek, when we are meant to have encountered each race and so on.

Submission + - It Takes a Village to Produce Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook Page

theodp writes: Q. How many Facebook employees does it take to produce Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook page? A. More than a dozen! CNET's Ian Sherr offers his take on the news that Facebook has a team that handles Mark Zuckerberg's page: "Ever notice the photos, videos and posts on the profile page for Facebook's CEO are a lot nicer looking or better written than yours? Don't feel bad. Mark Zuckerberg has a team of people who are increasingly managing his public persona, according to a Wednesday report from Bloomberg Businessweek. Not only do they help write speeches and posts, but they also take photographs of his family and his travels, interspersing them with infographics about the company's user growth and sales. There're even people who delete harassing comments and spam for him. A Facebook spokeswoman said the company's service is an easy way for executives to connect with people." Wonder how many people it took to help craft the latest post, in which Zuck fired back at "some misleading stories going around" about "some land" he purchased in Hawaii (which another Zuck post noted also serves as a petting zoo of sorts for his daughter).

Comment Re:Um, duh? (Score 1) 304

The high posted rates serve one purpose - to shift some expenses toward the really rich people that attend

I'm aware of this, but you see the dilemma it creates. It creates a very strong "What's in your wallet" mentality, where the most important criteria for a child's acceptance at these places is how much their parents are willing to pay or have saved up vs. what the school thinks their parents should be able to pay or should have saved. Suffice it to say that most people in the world, even those that might have saved up sufficient money, would consider this amount of money to be mind bogglingly large, and it will directly affect when we can retire and possibly affect siblings options. We're in a strange position of trying to show that our wallet is not empty, but not full and figure out how much to volunteer that will get the kid accepted without going over. It's like the price is right.

Now, to the value. A middle class parent will want to focus on options that significantly improve the marketability of their children's skill-set, no other factors come in to play (no one particularly values a liberal education or spending money on anything without an ROI). Couple that with Ivy League schools general dis-utility in most professions, yes, as a parent I would actively discourage my child from applying or even thinking about it, from a young age. I need my kids to get the education they need to get a good job, that pays well more than the median. No other factors are involved here from my stand-point.

Exceptions: certain ivy league law and business schools, or, if I utterly fail at parenting, a child who wants to pursue some liberal arts field (that's not a fine art) and has an excellent academic record I may agree to fund, under very strong conditions. Basically if you cannot place in the top 10% of your class, every year, I'm cutting you off until you find a cheaper school and pick up a utility degree that will at least let you get a job that doesn't involve hamburgers or coffee.

So with all that said, I can understand why they don't see applications for a lot of people outside the 1%. While I haven't seen anyone put their thoughts into this topic into a serious condensed form, this is the prevailing attitude I think. We're just not seeing why we should pay so much money for so little practical return, and we're not wealthy enough to remotely consider the impractical return.

Comment Re:Um, duh? (Score 1) 304

but isn't really going to get you very far in an admissions pool at Harvard,

Ok, but STEM people shouldn't want to go there. Or actually any of the Ivy leagues mentioned. If you want tech, the big recruited schools are MIT, UCIC, GA Tech, etc.

  or Stanford.

Except maybe this one, although it's questionable.

d perhaps one of the big problems qualified students from "poor" families have getting admitted to "elite" schools is that even if they are qualified, they don't actually apply

As a father planning for his children's education, many years hence. I go to these schools websites and look at their tuition. It is beyond all reason for all but the very wealthiest. My house doesn't cost that much. And I have two children. So yes, unless their academics are far beyond the pale and their SAT scores are maxed out, I'd discourage them from applying.

I'm aware that there's some sort of pirates code with those tuitions, but honestly it's just not worth it at half the price unless you really want to be in academia or research (or perhaps Law), and even then only in relatively trivial liberal arts fields.

as it sets a lower internal "baseline" for themselves to judge their future success

Hence we discourage our children from even considering these schools by labelling them as schools for rich kids whose daddy's can buy their way in. Which, in my personal experience of 3 people, describes 2 of them really well (in fact they were dumb as stumps but daddy paid for people to cheat for them). Of course this does reinforce the effect. The good news is eventually these schools fall out of grace, hence my comment at the top, most of the Ivy League schools are fully worthless except for fields in which reputation matters more than skill (hence STEM oriented people can successfully bypass this hurdle). I'm not sure I'd want my kids to attend any of those schools, they're highly impractical for working class people who will need ROI on their college investment.

Of course I would like my children to be able to get in to MIT, and it has the same hurdles with cost and has the same very, very low acceptance rate.

Comment Re: Games though? (Score 1) 132

No. I realise I'm using the jargon inaccurately, but the point is that the applications programmers will rarely use the Vulkan API as the programming interface. They'll use higher level libraries. The benefit of Vulkan is that the high level libraries can access the hardware without needing any specific details about the hardware. In other words, it abstracts the hardware.

Comment Re: Games though? (Score 1) 132

Like it or not OpenGL is on its deathbed, it will still be supported going forward but Khronos has made it quite clear that Vulkan is the future.

No, it really isn't. Vulkan is a hardware abstraction layer more than an API. Really good for getting down and dirty with the hardware, but way too low level for actual practical use.

Comment Re:Assange lacks integrity. (Score 1) 540

Obama could have signed a Pardon to reduce the 35 sentence to 34 years

I think most people would agree though, that that wouldn't really be in the spirit of the offer, and a tweet is not legally binding. Still, Obama certainly did offer clemency here.

But nobody expected him to actually stick by his word. He's a self aggrandising narcissist. The only people who still trust him at this stage are the sort of conspiracy nuts who think the WTC never even existed.

Comment Re:liar (Score 4, Interesting) 540

Wired claims that Assange revealed his endgame some years ago.

Want to Know Julian Assange’s Endgame? He Told You a Decade Ago

Essentially, he believes that even though our system of government is based on an adversarial relationship between political parties, between defense lawyers and prosecutors; between plaintiffs and respondents, among candidacies of opposing viewpoints, participants (or in his parlance, co-conspirators), should not be allowed the privilege of discussing and formulating strategy out of earshot.

Comment Re:End of the glaciation was ten thousand years ag (Score 1) 261

1) The Earth is usually a lot hotter than it is right now. We are climbing out of an ice age.

We "climbed out of an ice age" (that is, came out of the glaciation) ten thousand years ago.

You didn't look at the graphs in the referenced article, did you?

By those graphs we STARTED climbing out of an ice age back then but we still have a long way to go. So they support the poster's claim, not yours.

Comment Re:EVEN TILLERSON says it's real. (Score 2) 261

The issue is settled, mankind's massive emissions affect mankind's environment, Earth.

a: If it's "settled", it's not science.

The only question now is what the fuck are we going to do about it, and who can we trust not to line their pocket on both sides of that line?

"Only" question? There are a HELL of a lot of steps between "mankind's activity affects the planet's temperature" and "It's a disaster that must immediately be fixed by crippling the economy and instituting totalitarian control on human activity by governments".

Comment Re:Wait - we still have an antitrust agency? (Score 1) 60

Wait - we still have an antitrust agency? I haven't heard much from it during the past few decades.

The entire FTC's budget for 2016 was only about $307 million. They only asked for $342 million for 2017.

If they're going to be given more responsibility and actually exercise it effectively (which involves bringing, and winning or settling, suits against multibillion dollar conglomerates) I expect they'll need some more.

Comment Re:Soon, the FTC will only handle spectrum licensi (Score 1) 60

That wasn't what the media reports said. What it said was that he wants to limit the FCC to spectrum control, and move the other functions to the FTC.

I've been advocating that for years - at least for the "Network Neutrality" issue.

The problems that network neutrality is trying to address are mainly anticompetitive behavior and consumer fraud, where ISPs selectively degrade service either to extort additional fees or limit users who make heavy use of their contracted bandwidth (consumer fraud - giving less than what was advertised or what "internet service" commonly means) or give a competitive advantage to their own "value added" or "content provision" services, those of other divisions of a media conglomerate, or of partners, (anticompetitive "tying", vertical integration, and cartel formation).

As the major federal-level consumer protection agency, charged with enforcing consumer fraud and antitrust law, the FTC is well qualified to handle this sort of thing. It also has a track record of doing so. Their antitrust actions, for instance, include the historic breakups of Standard Oil and AT&T, the opening of IBM's eased mainframe computers to peripheral built by other manufacturers, and the Windows Browser tie-in suit decision against Microsoft.

Among the things you might see from a move of such regulation from FCC to FTC might be media conglomerates forced to divest themselves of ISPs, ISPs forbidden to sell preferential fast-lane service, and bans on cuting off or degrading the service of heavy users.

After the way he was treated by the mainstream media - owned by these same conglomerates - I'd expect Trump's administration to be more than happy to penalize them by breaking up these conglomerates.
  - We get more network neutrality - by separating the ISPs from the media conglomerates that incentivize NON-neutrality.
  - The Trump administration gets to spank the media conglomerates that were completely in bed with the Democrats during the election - in the name (and actuality!) of consumer protection.

Win-win B-)

Slashdot Top Deals

If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't.