Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Yes. (Score 3, Insightful) 346

As long as what they report on is true and unbiased, yes. I don't care if it's on the HRC campaign or the Trump campaign, as long as it is objectively true. I would rather the politicians were honest and transparent, and if it takes a foreign power to force it, I have a hard time complaining.

Leave the pontificating to the pundits. Journalists should merely report the truth.

And, no, I don't care for Hillary "embarrassing" herself. That may be truthful, but it's not any more germane to the discussion than Trump embarrassing himself (even though that gets reported on as well on a regular basis - we don't need Russian interference to see it). The juicy bits, such as it were, would be any case of unethical and/or illegal behaviour. I haven't really followed the leaks, so I don't know if there is any such bits in there. Ideally, all candidates would behave in perfectly ethical manners, but few do. I doubt HRC or Trump do, and that's what should be reported on.

The standard should be "truth" and not "where it comes from." We reserve that standard for the justice system where unethical police officers could get away with illegal behaviour to make a case without those limits.

Comment Re:So they're going to release Hillary news when? (Score 4, Insightful) 160

You don't think they could imagine more useful purposes to put that information?

Maybe they don't want Obama to know what they know. Maybe they want to wait for HRC to get into the White House (everyone knew she'd be running this year) to blackmail her. The Russians have absolutely zero interest in American justice being served, why would they release it at all?

Comment Re:If not now... (Score 1) 1023

And this was my point. If they had done this more surreptitiously, it likely wouldn't have been noticed as quickly. The fact it was planned out ahead and will happen automatically, barring a change in government to repeal it, gives businesses the business case to make these changes asap, with the lead-in time the law has given them. However, if they had simply increased the minimum wage by $.5-$1 per year for each of the next however many years it takes to get to $15/hr, businesses would not have the same business case for automation until it got to $12-$14/hr, and that would have spurred the automation technology to get over their last hurdles at that time, and then the roll-out, and, yes, minimum wage would have been $16-$18 before the automation would have been there.

Conversely, had the minimum wage been frozen instead for the next 10 years, automation would be even further out. I'm not saying this as an alternate solution, just pointing out that an inevitability such as automation is seriously moved up by announcing it as if with a bullhorn.

Much like getting warning that your employer is going to get rid of you by the end of the year - you don't wait for the pink slip before you start job searching in earnest, and a business knowing that its labour costs are going to increase by significant amounts over a relatively short period of time will start looking at alternatives at its earliest opportunity, once it knows where the costs will be and over what time frame.

Comment Re:If not now... (Score 0) 1023

Yup. This isn't really a valid argument against increasing the minimum wage.

At worst, it merely hastens the inevitable by a few years, but this is going to happen.

It's the (mythical) frog-in-boiling-water here. If you had bumped up the minimum wage slowly, the impetus wouldn't be there. Hell, they may not even notice until minimum wage got to $18/hr (ok, maybe before then). But when you increase the labour cost by 25-100%, all in one go, you shock the system so bad that they will naturally look to any and all means necessary to rein in their labour expenses. It becomes the squeaky wheel that's going to get a whole lot of grease. Avoid the labour costs from getting noticeably squeaky in short order, and it might have been more than a few years.

Further, this will result in a reverse shock when these robots are deployed - putting extra people out of jobs if they work, and possibly shutting down some less-profitable franchises if they don't work putting even more people out of work.

Would this happen naturally? Of course. But don't pretend the net social cost is zero to hasten it. It's still the equivalent of the broken-window fallacy.

Comment Re:How nice of Facebook to take time out of... (Score 4, Interesting) 485

I do not think being this fat is health or sexy but I a sure as hell there are people that do

False equivalence. You're treating two things, one subjective (what's sexy) and one objective (what's healthy) as if they were equivalent. They aren't.

This feminist group is doing likewise. Acceptance of unhealthy obesity is tantamount to abuse. It's statistical murder. Instead of encouraging people (let's face it here, they're focused on women, but the same applies to men as well) who are obese to, you know, do the work to get to an objectively healthy body weight and save their lives, they're encouraging these women to revel in their obesity and thereby shorten these women's lives. And that's pro-woman?

If you're into BBW, all the power to ya. But don't pretend like you're doing those women any long-term favours. You're participating in their deaths just as surely as if you stuffed the twinkie in their mouth yourself.

As to Facebook, they should really stay the fuck out of it. Allow groups who promote healthy body images to flourish. The proper response to negative speech like this group's is positive speech, not banning.

Comment Re:Then France will have no global business (Score 1) 259

Having worked with teams in other continents regularly for the last 10 years, I feel a need to correct this.

Time zone differences = delayed = impossible to conduct international business.

I work with most of my coworkers two timezones east of me, but some in India basically 12 hours ahead. I can go back and forth with my same-continent coworkers a hundred times in a day (think: instant messaging, or, heck, just get on the phone with them). But to get a hundred back-and-forth with the team in India has just taken something that could be done in a day and stretched it out over five months (5 months x ~20 round trips per month). Also known as 5-20 iterations (depending on iteration length). That's close enough to qualify for the adjective "impossible."

Comment What do they hope to accomplish? (Score 5, Insightful) 201

I can't imagine what they could possibly do to derail Trump's campaign. Trump is not cowed by divulging his affairs - he's been a "reality" TV star, and his loud mouth has already exposed all manner of nastiness without derailing the campaign already. His websites are just that - websites. He likely doesn't rely on them either for getting out his message (the MSM is doing a fine job already) or for his business dealings, so shutting them down is useless.

His supporters don't support him because he's a high-and-mighty politician of impeccable ideology. They support him because that's precisely what he isn't. There's simply nothing that Anonymous can do to dissuade Trump's followers from following. And everyone else who might be swayed by anything they uncover is already swayed by the ranting that has already come out of Trump's mouth. I just don't see anywhere they can go from here.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you're not careful, you're going to catch something.