Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Gee there sure are a lot of us. 3 competing off (Score 1) 128

Over 40 here. What I observe is that at my age and for the type of money I want, companies want to hire me as a manager rather than a developer. And I'd rather write code. But if I want to pay for my kids' college and maybe retire someday, I have to do it.

Comment Re:what's there to buy at sears? (Score 4, Informative) 145

seems like every other store has better products and selection of every category they sell

It used to be an awesome store. For 2/3 of my life almost everything I owned came from Sears. Clothes. Tools. Shoes. Home stuff. If I bought something elsewhere it was only because Sears didn't carry it.

Then K-Mart bought it. The clothes became K-Mart clothes. No thanks. Then I went in to buy a wrench and it was a cheap sandcast piece of garbage from China. It just felt cheap. Previously their tools were made in the U.S. and good enough quality to make a living with (which I did).

I walked out that day and never set foot in a Sears again.

Comment Re:The relentless onslaught against vaping continu (Score 1) 146

"Big Tobacco hates vaping"

Not even close. Pretty much every tobacco company has some investment in the vaping industry.

The first round of Big Tobacco produced e-cigs were crap. Any smoker would give one a try, throw it out, and go right back to Marlboros. Then the independent market started gaining ground with devices and liquids that were pleasing.

Round 2, enter Juul. 10x the nicotine as any other e-cig variant, nice fruity flavors, and flashy marketing to attract the youth crowd. Owned by Big Tobacco of course. Could it be they are trying to shift to new markets, or trying to get the product banned entirely? Can't get my vape juice anymore, guess I'll go back to Marlboros.

Comment Re:They're both wrong (Score 3, Insightful) 567

I strongly oppose our Cheeto-in-Chief, but it's un-American to try to silence the opposition. The correct response to bad speech is good speech.

Years ago I spelled President Obama's last name "0bama" and was immediately modded to -1.

Recently at a business lunch one of my coworkers went on a rant about "The Orange One". Myself and several other people who I knew were conservatives just listened quietly.

I'm not even sure why I'm posting this. It's just sad.

Comment Re:This is common practice on dating services (Score 1) 174

Setting up a eHarmony profile is free but you have to buy a subscription to respond if somebody contacts you. So if you contact someone and there's no response, there is no way to tell whether she's ignoring you or just set up a profile and never paid. Sort of dishonest, I guess. But the plus side is if someone contacts you, they paid. So less likely to be a bot.

I met my wife there. - Before we were married, I should add. ;)

Comment Re:What if (Score 1) 21

I know your post intended to be a Photoshop joke. But the thing is, from now on, what can we trust?

100% of all photos in media have been retouched. It's always been that way. First via air brushing. Then photoshop.

Actors/actresses need to be terrified of this. Macauly Culkin made $100k for Home Alone but $4.5 million for Home Alone 2. So for the sequel, he basically made $100k for his skills and $4.4 million for his face. The day is coming where that doesn't happen anymore.

Comment Re:Slashdot sure is pushing Climate change a lot.. (Score 0) 355

Someone has to do something to drown out the high-profile lunatic denialists.

The vast majority of the people who study the topic are in agreement that this is a Big Deal.

My commute was disrupted this morning by some idiots who dumped a sailboat in the middle of an intersection in D.C. In the name of Climate Change.

I'm a Climate Change Denialist. It's not the climate change I'm denying, it's the activists.

Wake me up when somebody finds a solution to the problem that isn't just a thinly veiled tax hike.

Comment Re:it's working (Score 1) 72

Yes, but it was an easy fix: there was one particular type of freon gas used in one particular application (cooling) that was damaging the ozone layer, we had functional replacement gasses at hand, and laws were put in place to use the harmless alternatives.

But the refrigerant was banned while products were still being sold that used it. So there was about a 10 year window when most people who drove older cars had no air conditioning. R12 was going for $200+ for a 12oz can (more than I could afford at the time) and a retrofit to the new stuff didn't work well, if at all. If I'd known back then that propane was a drop-in replacement for R12, I probably would have blown myself up.

A transition period where a R12/R134a mix would still be available (just enough R12 to circulate the lubricating oil) would have kept a lot of us from sweating all the time. But nope. Banned entirely.

I hear that's happening again because the new stuff isn't environmentally friendly enough. And the replacement is $400+ a can.

Comment Re:Not mentioned... (Score 1) 206

...was the actual thing the Obama administration tried to do.

They tried to expand the definition of "navigable waters" to a bizarre degree. It used to mean, basically, "a lake or river that you could use for business or transportation."

The Obama people decided that "navigable" meant "any ditch you could drop a canoe in and have a chance of getting the bottom wet, even i it didn't connect to any other body of water."

They also decided that a "wetland" was "any stretch of ground that ever flooded, even though it was dry the other 99% of the time."

It was a bizarre regulatory overreach that did nothing at all for clean water - it just let them exert power that didn't exist in the statute.

"Waters of the United States".

I'm trying to build a residential driveway. It has to cross a ditch about 1 foot deep and 2 feet across.

It took me two years and $50,000 of environmental consultant fees to get a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.

At one point, they had to survey the ditch for historical shipwrecks. Why? Because if you give a government agency the right to go to a mountaintop and look for shipwrecks in a ditch, that's exactly what they'll do. As slowly as possible.

As part of the deal for the wetlands permit, I have to have a *historian* on site at all times during construction in case any civil war artifacts are uncovered. Why? Because it's within an area where the civil war happened (the east coast) and they have the oversight. Not just while putting gravel in the ditch, but for my *entire* project. From foundation to shingles, $120 an hour for a historian to be there in case one of Stonewall Jackson's turds pops out of the ground.

Trump wants to drain the swamp? That'll take a lot of permits!

Comment Re:Not mentioned... (Score 1) 206

WP says "The primary factor that distinguishes wetlands from other land forms or water bodies is the characteristic vegetation of aquatic plants, adapted to the unique hydric soil."

If the subsoil remains damp, and the ground floods periodically, it may well fit the definition.

I've been through this.

You pay surveyors $150/hour to walk around your property and take core samples ~2 feet deep. If the core samples show any signs of calcified deposits, then that indicates anaerobic growth and therefore dampness. Thus wetlands, even if it's dry as a bone. And you're screwed.

Comment Re:Southwest cattle call (Score 1) 223

Not at all. I love how Delta lets me escape the children. Let other people deal with them for 2 hours.

I have three screaming horrible children of my own, so I enjoy seeing other parents suffer on a flight. Their screaming kids aren't my problem! And at this point, my ears are deaf to screaming children. Literally deaf, as in hearing damage.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, `What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud

Working...