Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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:Yes but (Score 4, Interesting) 236

Thought experiment. Let's suppose you're a CIVIL engineer -- the type of engineer the regulations are intended to target. You're on vacation in Oregon, and you notice a serious structural fault in a bridge which means that it is in imminent danger of collapse.

Under this interpretation of the term "practice engineering" you wouldn't be able to tell anyone because you're not licensed to practice engineering in Oregon. In fact anyone who found an obvious fault -- say, a crack in the bridge -- would be forbidden to warn people not to use it until it had been looked at.

Which is ridiculous. Having and expressing an opinion, even a professionally informed opinion, isn't "practicing engineering". Practicing engineering means getting paid -- possibly in some form other than money. At the very least it means performing the kind of services for which engineers are normally paid.

A law which prevented people from expressing opinions wouldn't pass constitutional muster unless it was "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling public interest" -- that's the phrase the constitutional lawyers use when talking about laws regulating constitutionally protected activities. In this case the public interest is safety, which would be served by a law which prevented unqualified people from falsely convincing people that a structure was safe. But there is no compelling interest in preventing an engineer from warning the public about something he thinks is dangerous or even improper.

So if the law means what they claim it to mean, it's very likely unconstitutional.

Comment Re:Abandon hope all ye who enter Slashdot? (Score 1) 40

There have been at times people who identified as full-time programmer employees of slashdot. It is hard to tell if they were just really awful at their jobs or what happened, but they never made any real improvements to the system since Taco's first version. Questions that I do not expect to ever know the answer to (and am not interested in putting any time in to resolving) include how much these supposed programmers were paid and why they were let go...

Could an economic carrot make the difference? Only if the cart is being pulled by a donkey who wants another carrot. Lately it has been hard to tell if there is anything pulling the cart anymore; I've never known a carrot that could bring a donkey back from the dead.

Comment Re:Life's unfair (Score 1) 243

There doesn't need to be any unfairness here, FWIW. Well, OK, maybe if you want everyone to be part of the exact same MMORPG, but if that's not an issue (simple arena matches), why not have servers... all across the world? Including Hawaii? Each player just connects to the lowest latency server available to them to play with others connected to that server?

Doesn't that pretty much fix the problem?

Comment Re:Abandon hope all ye who enter Slashdot? (Score 1) 40

Worth noting that this discussion itself will soon run into another slashdot "feature" that nobody ever thought to change over the years. Once a discussion has reached a certain age - completely without regard to the volume of comments - it is permanently closed. I never bothered to figure out what that age is, though I suspect some people knew it and used it to enhance their ability to get the "last word".

Comment Re:Coordination, not more text (Score 2) 163

Let's see the same story, as published by the Squiggleslash Gazette:

Today Jimmy Wales, known for eating children, announced a new web site whose job will be collecting articles critical of the Trump administration, identifying journalists who are critics of the regime, so that Wales can go to their homes and murder them one by one.

There. That should satisfy for wish for multiple viewpoints. Questions for you:

1. Is it remotely accurate?
2. Is it more true than the summary or the article linked to?
3. Is the truth "somewhere in the middle": the original article says nothing about Wales murdering anyone, so is just a little bit of a child murderer, and is he maybe going to go to Journalists homes and just slightly murder them?
4. Is the viewpoint of the Squiggleslash Gazette worth even a split second of your time?
5. When you read the version of the story, as reported by the Squiggleslash Gazette, were you more informed, or did it make you dumber?

Compare two articles reporting on global warming. One quotes scientists, and accurately reports that the consensus within the scientific community is that smoking causes lung cancer The other fails to report that consensus, and includes only interviews with two denialists, both of whom superficially have qualifications related to health (maybe a practicing family doctor, and the director of a think tank's healthcare policy division) but neither of whom reflect the views of the majority of scientists studying in the area, and who have been found, repeatedly, to lie or misrepresent evidence. The second article presents the views of the denialists as either mainstream within medical science, or normal within science as if there's a legitimate dispute.

Is the truth "somewhere in the middle" for those two articles? Does it help you reach an informed decision to include exposure to information known to be false, without being told it's false? Are you helped if you're essentially lied to?

Comment Re:I hate them all (Score 1) 195

T-Mobile neglected to mention the "Regulatory Compliance Fees" that added $15/mo to my bill (and made them look like taxes when they're not, and no, they're not the fees for giving poor folks phone access, those have a separate line item)

That's pretty much true of all cellular companies, I've never come across one until recently that doesn't outright lie about their prices, omitting stuff like the universal service fee that's actually a cost of doing business. They lobby quite extensively to the FCC to get the FCC to agree they should be able to lie about their prices in their ads by omitting various costs-of-doing-business and adding them to bills as mandatory add-ons.

The one carrier that doesn't? Well... actually it's T-Mobile. No, not accusing you of lying, you were right up until a few months ago, it's just they've finally started to be honest about it with their T-Mobile One plan, where the prices quoted are all-inclusive.

Comment Re:AI killing industry (Score 1) 119

Except in a real movie, you wouldn't just take the audio stream straight from the algorithm; you'd have some kind of highly skilled specialist tweaking it to get the exact effect the director wanted.

A combination of art and science will eventually be able to produce completely convincing audio forgeries, very likely long before science alone will be able to.

Comment Re:Myth: Mayer didn't do well for Yahoo! (Score 3, Insightful) 150

The bottom line is that CEOs are supposed to generate value for shareholders

Reports say that Meyer ordered underlings to not buy the resources to prevent and then not report the security breaches at Yahoo! That cost shareholders more than $1B in valuation on the Verizon deal.

That's one heck of a negative RoI. She had the wrong instincts, she did the wrong thing, and her owners paid dearly for it.

speculation about what someone else might have done is unproductive

No, all her competitors invest in security and are not punished by the market for doing so. This is comparing her to the field, not some ubermensch ideal.

Slashdot Top Deals

When it is incorrect, it is, at least *authoritatively* incorrect. -- Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy

Working...