Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Take whoever came up with this (Score 1) 91

Well, you're just wrong. I've personally watched inventory shrinkage drop into the measurement noise with the introduction of technology-based tools that catch the people who steal - because other employees understand there are consequences.

Yes, it's a shame that throughout all of human history and in every level of society and income, some people like to steal stuff. Someone who is trying to make a living running a business and who has to make payroll every week and keep customers happy won't usually have a lot of luck changing human nature. Now, I know that you've personally solved these human nature problems in your own area, and no longer feel any need to lock your doors or in any way look after your personal safety, because you've fixed everybody that you might encounter or who might want your stuff.

Yes, people stealing things IS a problem. And taking measures to stop it from happening to you isn't irrational. Yes, more parents should raise kids that have some sort of moral compass and which are educated and motivated enough to go out and create things so that they can trade the fruit of their labors for the stuff they want, instead of stealing it. Your notion that it's wrong-headed to use convenient tools to help deal with the fact that there are lots of people out there who DO find it easier (or even, in some cases, more entertaining) to steal stuff than buy it - never mind, I realize that you're trolling. Silly me.

Comment Re:Take whoever came up with this (Score 0) 91

Give them a decent paycheck so they actually have something to lose if they get fired?

Yep, you've never actually worked in such an environment, have you? I've seen people making six figures who steal routinely $20 stuff from their employers. I've seen well paid general managers of grocery stores stealing steaks. I've seen IT directors who drive Teslas but who still pocket RAM sticks from the lab.

You'll understand when you start working.

Comment Re:Take whoever came up with this (Score 3, Informative) 91

Here's an idea for you:

1) Start a retail business.

2) Get robbed by someone who walks in the front door. Or,

3) Have one of your employees attack another one. Or,

4) Have one of your employees get hooked on heroin and start to steal your inventory.

I'm guessing your solution to getting to the bottom of such things is to hire people to stand around watching everything so they can testify based on their recollections of events later, in a trial. Because you sure wouldn't want what happens on your own property with your own inventory with your the people you pay money to be there doing things to be recorded. Until you really, really do because real life is different when you start paying a fortune in insurance as part of running a business. Or find yourself in court. Or are running out of money because of inventory shrinkage, or have to know which of your very good employees is totally innocent of what one of your rotten employees has been setting them up to look guilty for.

But yeah, I can see why you'd advocate violence against a vendor offering a service you can choose to ignore if it's not useful to you.

Comment Re: Just repeal it (Score 1) 333

The people who "got" health insurance from the ACA, if they're not dirt poor, DID NOT GET HEALTH INSURANCE. They got miserably high premiums they can barely afford, and are left with so little cash each month that they can no longer afford to go see the doctor. And no, the insurance they're now paying a fortune for doesn't help with that, because a small family has a deductible pushing $20,000. So they are legally required to spend a couple thousand dollars a month on insurance they can't use, and have no cash left with which to buy the services of a doctor. Meanwhile, people who don't pay for anything "got insurance" and are being subsidized by the middle class people who effectively had their ability to see a doctor taken away.

The ACA is a terrible piece of law, and was meant by the Democrats to be just that from the beginning. And it's now imploding. I'm glad yesterday's vote got pulled. The current disaster remains under the ownership of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.

Comment Sure, if they had the willpower... (Score 5, Interesting) 333

If I had a team of several million people, I could build a sustainable city on Mars.

As long as I could be totally devoted tot he task, and the willpower to follow through the billions of setbacks you'd hit on the way, especially including my own ignorance.

Trump fixing H1b? It's possible, but similarly absurd to expect.

The Trump coalition isn't the team to fix H1b. They're a wrecking crew, not a construction team. They can foist individuals to make plans, but they're philosophically aligned against, say, the kind of planning that would make a national constitution or something along those lines.

Even if theoretically Trump actually meant the half-dozen things he said on H1b, and DIDN'T mean the several things he said that contradicted that, he'd still need to coordinate with a team that implements it, and a political base to enable a political climate that will make disobeying the rule a bad idea.

Trump could GET folks on board to get all that done... but at this point, he'd really need to construct everything needed from whole cloth. I somehow doubt that enforcing and enlarging H1b rules on the nation's CEOs is going to be a high priority compared to everything else he wants done in the world. It's POSSIBLE, just very unlikely, unless somehow Trump is thwarted on literally every other big thing, and yet not impeached.

H1b is a horrible system. It's virtues are nice - getting qualified folks in to do needed jobs - but that does not justify a system of modern day quasi-indentured-servitude. The way it's used it horrible too, basically used to quash local workers wage increases. Trump speaks against it, but he's exactly the wrong person to choose as a person to crusade against it - he's basically the living avatar of the idea of shortchanging workers using sketchy legal tactics.

Don't expect too much from Trump on this.

Ryan Fenton

Comment Re:Law mandated technology (Score 1) 237

So, what in AmiMojo's post mentions the Federal Government?

FWIW, yes, since the mid-nineteenth century, after the creation of railroads and the adoption of a national currency, the Federal government has had power over virtually all commerce due to the fact it's allowed to regulate interstate commerce, and the things I just mentioned makes all commerce effectly interstate. I know it's not a popular thing to say, but things change. This changed 150-200 years ago and yet there's always someone who thinks that the government doesn't have the right to regulate something the constitution now gives it the power to do.

Want to change that? Either amend the constitution, or put up real barriers between the states.

Comment Re:You mean like my 6 year old Atrix (Score 1) 66

The Atrix was exactly where I hoped phones were going and I was so disappointed to see Motorola drop it, and nobody else pick up (I couldn't buy the Atrix because it was Verizon only.) At one point Canonical had an alpha of a Ubuntu/Android hybrid which was intended to be similar, but that seems to have disappeared completely too.

It'd be piddlingly easy to do in hardware to the point I doubt it'd change the cost of the device by more than a few cents - make sure the USB port is bidirectional (it probably is already) and put in an HDMI out (maybe using MHL.) The software... well, as I said, Canonical already had something, Microsoft has Windows 10, there's a few prototype Android desktops out there which, if a community rallied around them, could be made usable.

This is not hard, it's just nobody seems to want to do it.

Comment Re:People don't care because ipv4 works for them (Score 4, Interesting) 52

Almost all mobile phone providers in the US are switching over. They never really offered full IPv4 in the first place, with their networks fully NATed. But they're introducing real, routable, IPv6.

From personal experience, on T-Mobile if your device supports it, you can even use IPv6 only (that is, your device only gets an IPv6 address, not even a NAT'd IPv4.) If you try to access an IPv4 only site, T-Mobile's DNS provides a virtual IPv6 address that can be used to route outgoing TCP connections to that address via a proxy.

Now, some people would be unhappy with that situation if, say, Comcast were to do the same thing. But I must admit, I suspect 99% of the population would never notice, and over time, the few that do would find, say, their employers scrambling to have IPv6 gateways etc so they can use normal VPNs (the gateways to office networks, not the proxies for bypassing Netflix nation blocks I mean), and other applications that require full two way communication.

IPv6 is very nice. It really is a shame there's so much inertia.

Comment Re:Plutocracy (Score 1) 394

I was under the impression it is under the FCC's remit, as they regulate telecommunications businesses. But either way, if it's just a "We think it should be under this agency's jurisdiction, not that one" thing, then that's at least not terrible.

Like the sibling post however, I'd like to see evidence the FTC will actually step up to the plate on this.

Comment Re:Plutocracy (Score 1) 394

Because, in my experience, libertarians - both self described, and described by the dictionary - would generally rejoice about any reduction in regulation, arguing instead that somehow consumers and ISPs can just sign contracts that agree to the levels of privacy they want.

In the real world, that's bullshit, because you have to hope that an ISP with a service and price level that's acceptable would consider it worth offering.

Comment Re:So, it's not only the Russians that hack, huh! (Score 1) 110

Just to be clear: you think the CIA doesn't spy on anyone with modern technologies, and you think this because the media didn't report it?

First: Are you aware what the CIA is? Or the NSA?
Second: Do you really read newspapers? I mean, there's this Manning person, and another guy called Snowden, who passed quite a bit of information to the newspapers during the last part of the last decade, and first part of this one, about how groups like the NSA work. Did you not read those articles?

Look, I'd point you at some links, but why not just hop over to guardian.co.uk, and do a quick search. You'll find quite a bit of news you apparently missed.

Comment Re:Plutocracy (Score 3) 394

Seriously, is there an actual reason for this that isn't corruption or some kind of libertarian ideological nutcasery?

I try not to take these things at face value, but everything looks like blatant corruption from here. It might give me some faith in humanity to know there's a good reason beyond "Ayn Rand would approve, and so does my wallet."

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 469

Well, then you managed to avoid the context given by the preamble to the summary. They're saying Fivvvvvrr.com 2.0 (or whatever the f--- they're called) sucks. It doesn't really matter what they make, because that's not what the article is about, it's about how they're an example of a company that dresses up the fact they shit all over the people they work for them by dressing up Victorian labor conditions as dynamism.

Slashdot Top Deals

No extensible language will be universal. -- T. Cheatham

Working...