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


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 Re:The actual real problem with Mars... (Score 1) 102

Yes. The problem is that we keep launching one-offs and patting ourselves on the back for our successes. Then we move on to the next one-off.

I think the rovers are great projects and great science, but unless they turn into something repeatable, their actual value is limited. They need the ability to push forward to repeatable and frequent flights where we incrementally test the bounds.

The government can be really good at it, but only if the stars align and they're fighting a Cold War. Otherwise, it gets defunded for the usual mix of armaments and bread and circuses.

Comment Not the target demographic? (Score 1) 220

I'm well outside the 18 to 24 demographic myself, so I may not be best placed to comment on this, but I'm not really sure how many of today's big movie releases are really targeted at that demographic.

Increasingly releases seem to be split into three categories:

1) Very Important Movies About Very Important Things (TM), also known as Oscar-bait, which is usually targeted at the middle-aged-and-older demographic.

2) Millennial/Gen-X nostalgia-fests based on comic-book franchises or reboots of old movies and the like which were big for people born in the '70s and '80s, but probably don't have much resonance for people born after around 1990 or so.

3) Kids' films, for which the actual spending-demographic is usually the parents in their 30s, 40s and 50s who are actually footing the bill.

That makes commercial sense, because those demographics are where the spending power lies. A visit to the cinema these days can be a fairly pricey affair, so I suspect the 18-24 demographic might just not be seen as worth chasing.

Comment Re: It is just a decent thing to do (Score 1) 40

Don't want fraudulent items, make them in your own country.

You're either a (lame) troll, or utterly clueless about how quickly knock-offs are created based on nothing more than things like product photos on the designer's web site. All a knock-off company has to do is place an order for an item (and return it, later - free access!) in order to inspect it closely enough to make a sellable ripoff version. No, not every knock off (or even most of them) is made by scam artists at the factory making the original, and brand owners are increasingly able to police that since that practice became more prevalent over the last few years.

Comment Re:w00t - the K6 bug all over again! (Score 2) 112

AMD's issue here isn't necessarily that they have more of these problems or that the problems are more serious. It's that they have a reputation for having more of these problems and for them being more serious when they happen.

A lot of people, self included to a degree (though I do try to counter it) have picked up trust issues around AMD products over the years. In many cases, including mine, that may well be because we tried running AMD CPUs which just run a bit hotter than the Intel equivalents with cooling that would have been acceptable (but no more) in an Intel system, and ran into stability/longevity problems as a result. So it's more of a user-error than something innate in AMD's hardware. But the reputation is there and it's very easily reinforced by stories like this, even if it's a bit unfair.

Comment Re:bloviated shit gibbon (Score 1, Informative) 529

while cutting Meals on Wheels

This is Fake News, which you know. So, the question is, why are you lying about it? It's something that's so easily debunked that you have to know anyone well-informed will know you're lying - so why do it? Which low-information audience are you taking to, and what do you think you're going to persuade them to do as they take onboard the false narrative you're trying to sell? Really - I'm curious. What's your purpose?

Comment Re:The guy who cleared clinton ? (Score 2, Informative) 529

Whatever was the problem with Clinton was surely of much lesser magnitude than Trump's people having secret dealing with foreign state entities.

What? So, Hillary Clinton and her husband personally rake in millions of dollars selling access to foreign dictators, and she conducts all of her correspondence on a server in her house in order to avoid FOIA scrutiny of her conduct in such matters, and then fails to turn over her records as she left office (as required by law), and the foot-drags for years and even destroys records while under subpoena ... all while continuing to soak up cash from overseas businesses and governments in anticipation of getting the presidential crown to which she felt entitled ... and you're saying that's not as bad as some imaginary conduct by someone associated with the Trump campaign having done something that Obama's own DNI and other officials have said they've seen absolutely no evidence to suspect happened.

Comment Re:Comey? (Score 3, Informative) 529

Why are you lying? Isn't it sort of silly when the fact your lying is so easily established through publicly available records and actual video recordings of people like Comey explaining things to us?

In the week before the election, he notified congress that a separate criminal investigation DID turn up new evidence related to the investigation of Clinton's mishandling of classified information. Why was it new evidence? Because Clinton and her aides (who had been granted immunity) said they had already turned over every scrap of data or device containing any record of the emails that Clinton handled from the internet-connected server she ran out of her house. This wan't true, of course. They had NOT turned over all of that data, or the devices on which it was stored. Because Clinton's closest aide had hundreds of thousands of such records on a laptop in her home - something that didn't come to light until the investigation into her husband's criminal activity exposed that fact. The FBI told congress about this, because congress was in the middle of investigations that relied on the FBI providing them with all such information, and the FBI - which had taken Clinton at her word that all such material had been turned over - suddenly found themselves with hundreds of thousand of new records to sort through, some of which might indeed cover some of the material that Clinto had destroyed while under subpoena. You don't think that matters? Or more to the point, you so wish it weren't the case that you're willing to try to lie it away from having happened?

And never told anyone they were investigating Trump.

Gee, I wonder why? Maybe it's because they WEREN'T "investigating Trump" at the time, and still aren't. They're investigating the manner and degree to which the Russians tried to influence public opinion during the election, and owing to political pressure, are including in that investigation whether or not individuals "associated with the campaign" had anything to do with such activity. They've also said, more than once, that they've seen no evidence at all that indicated any such thing. So what is it exactly that you're thinking they were supposed to disclose? They have nothing to show because they haven't seen anything - unlike in the Clinton case, where they had abundant evidence of her repeatedly lying, destroying evidence, and more. They pointed out that they weren't going to be able to get the Obama administration to prosecute the case, though they did say that if had been anyone else (besides Clinton) things would have been handled differently. I know, you're really trying to wish all of that away.

Comment Fake News Headline (Score 1, Informative) 529

What the FBI says they're investigating is Russian attempts to interfere with the election. This includes investigating whether or not anyone associated with the Trump campaign did or did not have any involvement with such Russian efforts. And Comey has repeatedly gone to great lengths to point out that he can't talk about which individual people are or aren't reviewed as part of that investigation into Russia's actions. At no point have they said what the OP's headline implies - that they're "investigating the Trump campaign."

The hearing, on the other hand, HAS spent a lot more time examining the circumstances under which someone working on the Obama administration's watch committed the serious federal felony of publicly disclosing the details of surveillance that swept up the conversations of a US citizen - identification of which should have remained "masked," and which could only have been unmasked by high-level officials within the Obama administration. The FBI says they are vigorously pursuing who committed that felony.

Comment Re:Ridiculous Extrapolation (Score 2) 374

I suspect administration is the biggest factor here, at least assuming trends in the US have been anything like those here in the UK.

I still get the quarterly newsletter from my old college (usually accompanied by requests for donations of varying subtlety). What's been clear looking at these over the years is just how sharply the size of the administration function has increased since I was there. I did a quick and dirty estimate around 12 months ago, provoked by a particularly aggressive thrust of the begging bowl (I do actually make an annual donation, but never for as much as they want) and estimated that the administrative headcount had (at least) tripled in around 20 years.

I'd be prepared to bet that many of those administrators are paid as well as, if not better than, the lower and mid-ranking faculty. There were a lot of job titles that included the word "director", usually accompanied by a bunch of nebulous words that told you little about what the person actually did.

Luxury student accommodation probably pays for itself. Certainly, at my old college, the luxury accommodation they built is rented at premium rates to overseas students (typically Chinese or Middle Eastern) whose families can afford it and don't like the idea of their offspring roughing it.

Comment Re:It's not ambiguous at all (Score 1) 331

Yes, it's called contract law. If the employer or the employee don't do what was agreed to, the courts are there to provide backup muscle for the consequences of breaching that contract. That's different than a law that says those two parties shouldn't be allowed agree on what it means to be a truck driver serving the particular needs of that employer under terms that the driver is ready to agree to and take money for.

Comment Re:It's not ambiguous at all (Score 1) 331

No, you should get whatever you and the person paying agree should be the compensation - in the form, and on the schedule and terms that you both agree to. It doesn't need to get any more complicated than that. If the contract spells out overtime and and the employee can show breech of that contract, then it's lawyer time. If the contract makes it clear that people like employees doing long-haul trucking aren't paid overtime, then it really should be that simple. If you don't take that into account (as a driver, looking for a job) and negotiate a salary that you feel compensates you for the fact that job is a roller-coaster of no-work-days and long-ass-days, then that's on you.

Comment Re:It's not ambiguous at all (Score 1) 331

The legislature probably didn't think a reasonable person would be confused about the fact that prepping shipments and actually handling distribution are two separate things, so they didn't get too worried about the punctuation (though they should have, because some lawyer is looking for a way to make a bunch of cash off of the difference in the punctuation, never mind the obvious intent).

Comment Re:It's not ambiguous at all (Score 1) 331

So if shipping is part of distribution (we'll call them collectively shipubution for clarity), what would packing for shipubution be? That's correct, a specific step that is not being included in shipubution. So the packing is exempt, the shipubution is not.

What? The entire sentence is providing a list of the activities that are exempt. The don't list the activity of distributing the products as an exemption from the exemptions. Are you even listening to yourself?

Slashdot Top Deals

Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty. -- Plato