Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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:speak ENGLISH WILL YA? (Score 2) 57

I fail to see the downside here. It's also not slang, it's just the word we use.

It's a word used by a small minority of English speakers. It's not a literary word. It's a slang used when talking to an audience which has not idea what it is. And it was used in the title of an article about a global company -- not a local event (which might have justified the usage). In the US it's considered British slang. It will not show up if you try to look it up by typing "define trainers" in Google search bar. If you try to lookup "soda" in the same manner (which is a colloquialism for "carbonated water", but not a slang), you will get a definition.

Comment here's an idea (Score 1) 116

Instead of going off on tangent projects, get back to basics and fix Android. Why the hell do Google-branded phones (not just Android, but Google-branded Android) lose apps and panels on update? I lost count how many near-accidents I had because of the free Google navigation app. Fix the the core business before you off on your tangent projects.

Comment speak ENGLISH WILL YA? (Score 2) 57

"Trainers" is British slang. It is not used in any part of the largest country in which English is the majority language. If you want to use a region-neutral word, go with "athletic shoes". But the most commonly-used and universally understood colloquialism is sneakers. I promise you that "trainers" is not just something that sounds British in the US. This isn't like "coke" vs "pop" vs "soda". "Trainers" will make majority of Americans reach for a dictionary, find out that it's a British usage, and then wonder why the hell was the editor publishing this for international audience not fired yet.

Comment Sure, Uber is evil. (Score 2) 255

It's an anti-social company that's a horrible place to work. Everybody knows that by now.

What nobody can know for sure is why an individual takes his life, or what circumstances would have to be different.

Take Google, which in several recent lists is the best company in America to work for. Google has just shy of 60,000 employees. Given the US suicide rate of 46/100,000, if Google were largely reflective of that you'd expect 28 suicides/year among Google employees. Of course (a) not all Google employees are Americans and (b) Google employees are economically better off than most people in their societies, so you'd expect there to be a lower rate of suicide. But it's safe to assume a dozen Google employees a year take their lives.

And if you look at them as individuals, you'd inevitably suspect work stress was involved, and if you'd look you'd probably find it -- because it's a chicken-or-egg thing. Suicide is a catastrophic loss of coping ability; when you head that way you will find trouble everywhere you turn.

When something like this happens to an individual, everyone feels the need to know why -- even strangers. But that's the one thing you can never know for certain. Now if suicide rates were high for Uber, then statistically you could determine to what degree you should be certain that Uber is a killing its employees with a bad work environment (or perhaps selecting at-risk employees).

I think its inevitable and understandable that this man's family blames Uber. And it's very likely that this will be yet another PR debacle for the company. But the skeptic in me says we just can't know whether Uber has any responsibility for the result.

Comment It is true (Score 2) 376

However, like everything, if a technology comes along to supplant it, in this case, the cost of greener alternatives is lower than coal, it'll simply dwindle and fade over time, with absolutely no need for liberals trying to regulate the crap out of it.

This flawed argument ignores the incontrovertible fact that allowing coal to continue to provide energy on equal terms with other energy supplies rather than pressuring the market to switch to less environmentally damaging sources of energy would do real and substantial harm to us all. The bottom line is: the less energy produced from burning coal and supplied instead from less polluting resources, the better off the world is.

So in fact, there is a need for it to have the crap regulated out of it in a context where it can be replaced with (considerably) less polluting energy sources, which is exactly where we are today.

Comment Re:Do we really need more people? (Score 1) 179

And anyways isn't it a Progressive stance to bleat on about how there's too many undesirable people in the world and how to fix it?

No, and definitely not when it's thinly veiled "Brown people are to blame!" We are interested in fixing issues with the world, we're just uninterested in trying to claim it's all a massive moral failing on someone's part and make ourselves feel superior for it.

And you should realize that unlike the right, it's not a religion with us. If a key liberal position were there's too much babies and we need to stop trying to save lives, I'd be firmly opposed to that but would still be a liberal.

Slashdot Top Deals

Optimism is the content of small men in high places. -- F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Crack Up"