Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:Top priority? Always? (Score 1) 132

If your companies top priority is to keep data secure, they how/why did you get hacked. They always say that, but clearly that is not the Top Priority

I see you're doing your part by not using dangerous apostrophes where they are needed!

Implicit in any company's statement that security is their top priority is the large bundle of compromises that don't go away whether or not that is your top priority. They could make the data perfectly secure by disconnecting the servers and putting them in a bank vault. They could make sure the data can't be breached by simply destroying all of it. See?

Security can be your Top Priority, but it has to be done in the context of things like still making it available to users across the internet. Doing it while not going bankrupt. Making the service competitively priced so that it can actually be afforded and put to work.

They could have said that the system could only be used on equipment they ship to their clients, connected to the back end through a hardware-based dedicated VPN with biometrics, dongles, and constant nagging by three-factor comms surrounding every time someone hits the enter key ... and of course nobody could or would want to use the system or pay the monthly fee needed to keep something like that alive.

They may very well put security at a higher priority than chipping away at a long list of UX updates, performance under load, documentation, multi-language support, and a thousand other things. Doesn't mean that doing so means they'll be perfect in their security results. Ever run a business like that? No? Give it a whirl. Make security your top priority, and then start paying attention to what that decision means in real life - including in your ability to get and retain customers during that balancing act.

Comment Re:There will be no train (Score 1) 391

A subsidy for its initial construction is fine. But if the people using a mass transit system aren't willing to pay enough for it to recoup its construction and operation costs, then it is by definition not contributing enough economic efficiency to pay for itself, and is therefore a waste of money.

Comment Re:Well, duh. Mass transportation is a slush fund. (Score 4, Informative) 391

It may work eventually, but it's a boondoggle for construction companies and mayors/governors

. So I must have been just dreaming when I thought I remembered zipping from London to Paris in just over two hours and sending emails from under the Atlantic seabed.

Emphasis mine. What you say does not contract what OP said. From the Wikipedia article on the Channel Tunnel:

In 1985 prices, the total construction cost was £4.650 billion (equivalent to £13 billion today), an 80% cost overrun.

I suspect what's going on is a bit more insidious than mere corruption. Construction companies bid low so that they'll win the contract. Then they charge the actual construction costs as cost overruns. What's needed is an incentive to encourage companies to bid a realistic estimated cost, rather than a completely unrealistic underbid just to win the contract. Something like, say, not paying for overruns and holding the company to its original bid price.

Comment Re:Indiscriminate antibiotic use in farm animals.. (Score 1) 280

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but according to TFA, the woman acquired the bug while in India - a country with the highest percentage of vegetarians in the world. This would suggest basic sanitation and health care, and being sure to complete prescription antibiotic regimens are bigger factors than the use of antibiotics in livestock.

Comment Re:Huge numbers! (Score 1) 266

What? Tens of millions of people routinely bitch, in public with their names attached, about every possible person, agency, posture, act, policy and purpose of government across the spectrum from the local PTA to city, county, state, federal, and international governance. There is nothing "brave" about parroting a lazy meme about freeing Snowden from prosecution for some very cut and dry real crimes. Your sense of drama is wildly disconnected from reality. Show me a single person, ever, who has been put into any sort of legal jeopardy for saying out loud, "Snowden should be pardoned." A single example. Specifically.

Comment Re:Well Trump has one thing right (Score 2) 523

The whole point of the H1-B program (or at least what's supposed to be the point) is to encourage extreme talented people abroad to become U.S. citizens. That way you have a net movement of talented people into the U.S., instead of out of it. If they don't stay in the U.S. and eventually become citizens, that defeats the whole purpose of the program.

It's unfortunate that the program has been abused to replace American workers. (Which is in direct violation of how the program is supposed to work. You're supposed to advertise the job the H1-B is supposed to take for a certain period of time, and only if no qualified American applies for the job can the H1-B be approved. You know those job adverts which are ridiculously specific about which certifications and how many years experience in several different fields are required? Those are H1-B ads - they're specifically tailored to match the H1-B candidate they have in mind, while simultaneously excluding any qualified American.) But don't lose sight of the original goal here.

$60,000 is pretty average or even below-average in terms of STEM jobs. $100,000 is up around where you'd start to think of the person as being talented and worthy of luring into the country and granting citizenship.

Comment Re:Is more education, better education . . . ? (Score 1) 475

No, if 100% of the population had college degrees and those degrees actually helped them work better, that would increase each person's economic productivity. That additional productivity would translate into more sales revenue, which translates into more compensation.

The only way what you say can be true is if those degrees don't help increase your productivity - they are truly credential-only degrees. So the problem is a proliferation of college degrees which don't really help you do a better job at things employers want you to do.

Comment Re:you mean capitalism works? (Score 3, Insightful) 370

No, they're able to do it for money because Mylan stupidly raised the price. If Mylan had kept the price at what it was before they acquired rights to the EpiPen, it would not have been worth it for a competitor to pay to develop their own pen, put it through the arduous FDA approval process, and put aside money to settle liability lawsuits in case something went wrong. When Mylan raised the price, it suddenly became cost-effective for someone to do all that, so CVS did. They still would've done it even if there had been no outrage, because overpricing something just creates an opportunity for someone else to swoop in and underbid you.

Comment Re:And mathematicians, including (Score 4, Insightful) 370

The problem with the free market, and lassaize-faire capitalism is that it is destroyed by the first group that has major success. Becuse the greed that fuels the market can become very destructive as people with pathological levels of it inevitably take over. And the simplistic early agriculture type arguments for it just don't work in a highy technical and mechanized world.

There are so many examples which disprove this that I'm amazed it was modded up: IBM PC, Compaq, Apple iPhone, 3dfx, Blackberry, Palm Pilot, Nokia, GeoCities, Myspace, Wordperfect, Lotus, Silicon Graphics, Kodak, Blockbuster, Sony Walkman, Sears, Pan Am, Schwinn, Motorola, Sun, DEC, Yahoo, Xerox copiers, Nintendo (except they managed to claw their way back with the Wii).

All of these were market leaders who in many cases once owned 80% or more of their respective markets, til they were out-competed and were replaced as king of the hill. Contrary to what you claim, it's harder to maintain a dominant market position in a highly technical and mechanized world. The rapid pace of technological progress means it's very easy to fall behind if you misstep (Yahoo, Sony, Pan Am, Blockbuster), or get lazy (Xerox, Kodak, Myspace, Blackberry), or get out-maneuvered (Nintendo - both ways, WordPerfect, Lotus, Apple iPhone, IBM PC).

The free market works most of the time. Monopolies are the exception, not the norm, and I'm fine with bashing those with government regulation when they happen. Believing that monopolies are inevitable and thus everything must be regulated, is just as foolish as believing everything will work just fine if there is no regulation.

Comment Re: Amazing (Score 4, Informative) 370

I've been self-employed for a while, so I've paid for my own health insurance for a couple decades. My experience mirrors OP's. My health insurance cost has increased about 2.5x since the ACA was implemented (vs 1.1068x increase in the CPI) . My deductible has gone up (though roughly in pace with CPI). Vision coverage was dropped. My prescription coverage option tripled in price. And my insurer just switched from being a PPO (I can visit any doctor in their network including multiple doctors if I want) to an EPO (I have to pick one doctor in their network, and s/he has total control over if I can visit a specialist - no real point getting this over an HMO now).

Looking over my past premiums, there was a 18% increase from 2014 to 2015. A 24% increase from 2015 to 2016. And a 18% increase from 2016 to 2017. So that may be why your link found such a small increase in premiums. The bulk of the rise in my premiums has been since 2014, when the stats used by ended. Crunching the numbers, my premiums rose 47% between 2010-2014 (average 8% per year), but 73% from 2015-2017 (average 20% per year).

Anyway, that's just my experience. I'm curious what other people have seen.

Comment Re:This is why emissions testing should actually t (Score 5, Informative) 125

California reached a nexus point on this issue in the 1990s. See, emissions testing is cost-effective only if a significant fraction of the vehicles are in violation. If a smog test costs $40, and 10% of the cars are failing, then it's costing the economy $400 to detect each non-compliant car. If the excess pollution the car was putting out costs the economy (say) $1000, then testing is a cost-effective way to get these polluting cars fixed or off the road.

But what if the program is successful and compliance rates increases to 99%? Then you're spending $4000 to detect each non-compliant car, and the cost to detect these polluting cars exceeds the damage they do. That's the situation California found itself in in the 1990s.

The companies which made emissions testing equipment came up with a radical suggestion. Get rid of the annual smog tests. Instead, mount emissions detecting equipment at areas where cars normally slow down to pass. Freeway off-ramps, intersections, etc. The equipment would constantly detect emissions, and when it saw a spike in emissions it would snap a photo of the offending car(s). If the same car's plates showed up in multiple photos, you could send that registered owner a fix-it ticket requiring they bring the car in for testing. This way you're not wasting time or money dealing with the 99% of cars which are in compliance, and only spending extra money testing the 1% of cars which are probably in violation.

Unfortunately by the 1990s, smog testing in California had grown into a billion dollar industry. The service stations and smog test stations lobbied hard in Sacramento to kill this idea. They won, and so we still require smog tests today even though the vast majority of cars pass. It's worth nothing that an on-road emissions detection system would've caught the violating VWs nearly a decade ago when they first started cheating.

Comment Re:And what's the point? (Score 1) 184

Because unfortunately, most people are wired to give more weight to a few standout examples rather than to the overall trend. e.g.
  • Planes are safer than cars, but many people are afraid of flying when they don't think twice about getting into a car.
  • People oppose nuclear power because of Fukushima and Chernobyl, when statistically it's the safest power source man has invented. (Yes, safer than solar and wind. They kill more people per unit of energy delivered. The only reason they don't kill many people is because they don't generate much electricity, and when they do it's scattered one here and one there, instead of all concentrated in one place.)
  • The general belief that child abductions by a stranger are a serious problem, when in fact they represent only 0.01% of missing children cases.
  • Bush Jr. being perceived as anti-science because of his opposition to fetal stem cell research and killing the superconduction super collider, when he's actually responsible for the biggest increase in Federal non-defense R&D spending since the space race.

If you want to lead people to a conclusion opposite of the facts, presenting a few contrary examples is a great way to do it. That's why people are obsessed with assigning credit or blame for specific incidents. Kudos to you for seeing the forest despite the trees.

Comment Re:Does this mean that... (Score 1) 184

That's really more a consequence of Amazon's delivery contract with UPS. Apparently it's very generous (probably some sort of flat rate based on cumulative weight) so there's little incentive for Amazon to consolidate your orders into fewer boxes. UPS is the one who will have to put pressure on Amazon to reduce the number of boxes. And with Amazon branching out into its own delivery service, I don't see that happening.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If you own a machine, you are in turn owned by it, and spend your time serving it..." -- Marion Zimmer Bradley, _The Forbidden Tower_