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:Damn... (Score 1) 5

Uh, they didn't screw up with IT and accidentally expose an unsecured file server. They purposely ripped and served up DVD screeners in direct violation of their agreements. Not some automatic shrink-wrap agreement or TOS but and actual specific, legal contract signed by both parties. I have no problem with companies enforcing their contractual agreements with each other.

Of course, I didn't RTFS. Were the culprits just some innovative—er, I mean opportunistic—employees, or was there a larger internal conspiracy?

Comment Another Explosive Revelation! (Score 1) 343

The story says that Mark Zuckerberg was looking to "get in on the action a bit, and perhaps curry favor with Podesta and the Clinton camp in shaping public policy." Let's check the email they quoted.

Mark is meeting with people to learn more about next steps for his philanthropy and social action and it’s hard to imagine someone better placed or more experienced than you to help him

He’s begun to think about whether/how he might want to shape advocacy efforts to support his philanthropic priorities and is particularly interested in meeting people who could help him understand how to move the needle on the specific public policy issues he cares most about. He wants to meet folks who can inform his understanding about effective political operations to advance public policy goals on social oriented objectives (like immigration, education or basic scientific research).

Mark wants help learning how to make his philanthropic efforts more effective? What a monster! How long will we allow these billionaires to spend their fortunes trying to improve education and support scientific research? It sounds like he wants to become a more useful citizen by reaching out to people in his professional and social network—and we can't have any of that!

Comment Re:It's not the FWD that are the real problem (Score 1) 123

And based on the preorders they have investors lining up to loan them money. It's like the US national debt, it's only a problem if you don't expect to be able to repay it or if nobody wants to lend you money at reasonable terms. Tesla is not going to fold due to lack of funding sources, they might be less profitable in the medium horizon because they're paying off loans (but really, corporate rates, even for a company with their run rate, are at historic lows right now so it's not THAT much of a drag on future earnings), but they've got access to plenty of capital.

Comment Re:IT and CS need to be split up (Score 1) 506

No, your idea leads to people who think doing full table joins between two 100M+ row tables on different servers to get a handful of results is a good idea. While there is a use for business analysts (people who translate business requirements into specs) the idea that you can be ignorant of CS principals and code is just wrong IMHO and IME. I'm a failed CS grad so I fully realize that not everyone is cut out for CS but I also realize that there IS a need for the coders out there, I know just enough to be dangerous and my code is usually only used for administrative tasks on at most hundreds of objects so my lack of efficiency generally only inconveniences me, when I've had to help diagnose the 'slow' database server that was brought to a crawl due to amateur code it irks me.

Comment Re:Come on... (Score 1) 236

This is not an Apple problem, it's an industry and maybe even a societal problem. I don't even think it's possible to get a good job, get an A+ rating for every performance review ever, and expect to stay at that job for 5+ years. After 10 years, you are too expensive to keep around.

Lol, just left one job after 10 years, not because I was too expensive but because the new company had more resources to spend and could offer me significantly more. The average seniority at the new company for IT workers is 17 years and not a month goes by that our Office of ~700 people doesn't have an announcement for someone celebrating their 25 or 30 year anniversary. You just need to develop valuable skills, expertise, and a proven track record and there WILL be someone willing to hire you. Any time I've gone looking for top tier talent for a specific area of expertise the number of qualified respondents has been very low because the majority of people with the applicable skills are generally already gainfully employed, the unemployment rate for the last few IT focused surveys I've seen results from were under 3% which is an incredibly tight market. If you're IT, not entry level, and having trouble finding employment it's either something with your local market (and you're not willing to relocate) or you've done something very wrong with your career.

Comment Re:Brexit (Score 1) 377

Oh, /. How many marriages have you broken up due to your limited reply depth and how it makes it look like everyone is replying to everyone? :p

s.petry: The illegality of taking that money held in escrow for our own purposes is exactly what I was replying to you about. You can argue that we should have continued holding that money to force Iran to . . . what? Release hostages? No need, they already agreed to release them. Stop enriching uranium? They did that a few years back with the help of Stuxnet. Publicize their secret nuclear enrichment site? Too bad, they already did that too. Agree not to further their nuclear program? Yes, you win!

Now certainly, Clinton's continued agreement with the hardline hawk establishment that Iran was "weeks away" from a viable nuclear program have been debunked by everyone who knows two shits about the matter. But Trump continues to push that assessment to this day and even touts war with Iran as "Meh, no biggie."* He also says that everyone should have nukes, and we should all use them. Either he's trying to play Nixon's "madman" persona poorly, or he's a complete tool.

Bing Tsher E: My CoD comment was directed at your nonsense. Move along.

* Not an actual word-for-word quote. He probably used the phrase "grab her pussy" somewhere in there.

Comment Re:Good for him (Score 1) 255

Awesome! I'm so glad I asked for clarification rather than assume I knew what you meant. tl;dr I think we're 99% on the same page here. But I'd be remiss if I let one of the few good /. threads peter out due to agreement. :)

I thought the example I gave of the busted taillight - which could ordinarily get you a fix-it ticket but not jail time on its own - was pretty fair but I might not have fleshed it out.

It wasn't so much that as I suspect that you, as I, don't feel this is a good use of law enforcement. If someone is behaving in a dangerous manner or committing something more serious than an infraction, I'm okay with police stopping them and escalating if there is a good reason. Conversely, if they aren't, leave them alone.

This gets into unequal enforcement, stop-and-frisk, expanding infraction laws that give police an excuse to pull "everyone" over... But as we have both seen, this tends to be enforced on certain minorities more than the populace as a whole. Again, not this exact topic (percentage of incarcerated due to drugs alone), but a pressing next question once you look at who eventually gets incarcerated.

I wanted to give you the opportunity to choose a different example to see if you felt using small infractions like that was justified, but it seems we're in agreement. That still leaves the question of whether or not "a large percentage of inmates" would be released under decriminalization of cannabis or even other drugs. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers for pot alone, but the numbers above seem to answer the question w.r.t. drugs as a whole. Not the subject of this thread, but to me, the entire landscape of drug prohibition—and the vast destruction it has brought with it—is the more interesting and meaty discussion topic. :)

I have mixed feelings about street dealers. . . . [explanation of the problems they introduce] . . . Which is generally a good call for legalization, although the recreational drug industry being what it is right now I don't see it going away just because we would end up with Philip-Morris brand pot and Anheuser-Busch brand heroin.

You must ask yourself how many people have died from an overdose or drug interaction due to incorrect packaging of beer, wine and spirits combined. The answer, in my view, is the only evidence needed to argue for decriminalization and legalization of nearly every* drug—from pot to heroine. Why are people dying from bath salts? Pot is illegal and they are not. Why do we have a heroine epidemic? People are getting cut off from their legal source of Oxy.

My point is that street dealers would almost entirely disappear with regulation. I have a very small investment with a cannabis edibles company in California (I have a dog in this race, but the race is essentially won), and the amount of testing that we put into every step of the process is considerable. Each plant is randomly tested. Each batch of combined plants is again randomly tested. Each batch of oil is randomly tested. All of our confections are randomly tested. Anywhere along the way, you can pick up any product, scan its label, and track every single seed that went into it. Hell, I'd bet you can't even do that with wine and grapes. Of course, wine has been around for much less time than cannabis use.

* I view drug use on par with extreme sports. You might injure yourself severely or even die while engaging in either activity, and people will engage in both regardless of the law. Given that, why is there so much research into safety equipment and better regulations for extreme sports? The law. If reasonable people are going to engage in both activities, isn't it society's responsibility to work to make both as safe as possible and minimize the drag on society's productiveness? Prohibition has clearly devastated productivity for a large portion of society and fails the test immediately.

That it hasn't even slightly stemmed the damage from drug misuse and costs us billions of dollars annually makes this issue so one-sided for me. It's like asking, "Should we start paying women on par with men?" Is there any defensible no answer?

Okay, I rambled on quite a bit there. Blame it on the beer! Thanks for reminding me why I keep checking in to /. :)

Comment Re:Good for him (Score 1) 255

I will start by pointing out that the category BOP is using there is simply "drug offenses". Yeah, this includes some people who were ultimately charged only with having pot on them. However this also includes people who were dealing heroin, crack, etc. In other words it isn't a very reasonable picture of how many people are in jail for pot offenses.

That's true. More of my interest in the subject is in decriminalizing all drugs and focusing the money saved into harm reduction and education. Others have done deeper research to separate cannabis from other drugs if you're interested. The history of drug prohibition is fascinating and more than a bit sickening. It's time to end it for countless reasons.

My argument is that the overwhelming majority of people arrested for pot-related offenses were caught doing something else illegal. If you are driving with a busted taillight (which is a citable offense in every state I have lived in) and the cop found reason to search your vehicle and found pot, the charge would be for possession.

I don't see how that follows. If nearly half of all federal prisoners were convicted solely for drug offenses, how can the overwhelming majority of drug offenders be convicted of other crimes? That would require every single prisoner to be a drug offender. Or are you saying they were caught doing something illegal, but those charges weren't pursued once drugs were discovered? That seems unlikely.

I may just be missing your point. Please explain if I am.

Very few people are arrested only because there was reason to suspect they had pot on them.

Possibly, but I would bet a lot of people got locked up for possession during stop-and-frisk where it was pretty clear the "reason to suspect" was often having dark skin. I wouldn't be surprised if it was used to crack down on street dealers as well.

Comment Re:Brexit (Score 1) 377

In the US for example, the 1.2 Billion dollars handed to Iran for hostages could have been used for roads and money been recirculated by the public.

This is incorrect for several reasons.

  • The money wasn't for the hostages. The hostages were released in exchange for the U.S. giving clemency to several Iranians convicted of dodging the sanctions.
  • The $400 million was money the U.S. had already accepted from Iran in exchange for weapons the U.S. then refused to send.
  • The $1.2 billion was interest on that money. The original money was held and the interest accrued in an account specifically for this purpose and did not belong to the U.S. government or its citizens.

Now, if you're going to argue that the U.S. should not follow the rule of law, I'll save you some time and bow out of this conversation. Either way, you should do some more research on this. The U.S. has done some severely shitty things throughout its history, but repaying money owed for goods never delivered isn't one of them.

Slashdot Top Deals

Earth is a beta site.