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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Actually he died of smoke inhalation... (Score 2) 268

...in the safe room. But I'm waiting until you write your "tell all" book, declaring how Hillary personally ordered his murder because he was her gay lover, her being one of those weird Japanese hentai women with male organs

I'm sure you'll make a million dollars or so scamming all the wanting-to-believe teabaggers, and prompt some GOP congressman to ask very strange questions next time she's up on the Hill.

Comment Re:Then who do you recommend? (Score 5, Insightful) 252

If not Trump, then who do you recommend I vote for?

A Democratic member of congress and Democratic national senator from your state.

Just FYI, we have a pretty damned good President now who has for five years asked Congress to do basic stuff, like not give tax credits to companies for their exporting American jobs, and instead give those tax credits to companies bringing jobs into the United States. No go from the Republicans. They listen to people like Carly Fiorina.

So stop focusing so much on the presidency. No matter who is President, if we have an old-school Republican congress, American workers, including American IT workers, are going to be screwed.

Comment Re:Nope (Score 2) 99

I don't trust that this is an accurate representation of what the treaty actually says, any more than I trusted Republicans about the whole Obamacare "death panels" B.S. Hell, the thing is filed under "Censorship" this site, and flat out, combating the piracy of musicians cannot be described as that. Slashdot may not like it, but are legitimate reasons for some forms of copyright laws.

When they have a less one-sided summary, post it. It might be interesting.

Comment Re:Can a Hillary supporter step up and explain? (Score 1) 634

Given the way you stated your question, I know you're not actually looking for an answer. But I'll give you mine anyway. I've been torn for a while until the Sanders supporters convinced me that he really isn't a serious candidate, and so have naturally gravitated toward her.

Here is what I like about her:

  • Her proposals are reforms that actually get the support of the business community. I fail to understand how my fellow Democrats can say "Not all Muslims are evil terrorists!" and then turn about and say "All people on Wall Street are evil!!!1!!1!". Yes, there are reforms that need to be made, but setting the rules to separate the good actors from the bad actors is going to not only have a chance of getting enacted, but actually work as well.
  • I love the fact that she pisses off both the extreme right and extreme left. You know. The morons who make up bullshit because they want it to be true.
  • Both the extreme right and left, but mostly the extreme right, like to lie out of their asses about her. Obama's "death panels" and "birth certifits"? Bitch, please. She's been accused of running cocaine flights out of little rock and personally murdering one of her best work friends, Vince Foster. It's all lies, and I'd support her just for that alone.
  • All the personal reports say that she has an absurdly loyal staff. That doesn't come from being "power-mad". It means that she's an excellent boss. Judge the character of someone by the way they treat the help.
  • The standoffishness you see in her is her being only barely tolerant of all these asshole shit-flingers. I like that. Maybe Obama can smile at those sorts of people, but personally I like that look of disdain she gets when some idiot starts quoting Rush or Beck or Hannity at her.
  • She's succeeded at basically everything she's ever tried. They can only admit it anonymously, but as a senator, she got along quite well with Republicans. As a Secretary of State, she was even more effective in representing US interests.
  • She makes it a point, when campaigning, not to overpromise to voters. This costs her in popularity. Who doesn't want to be promised rainbows and unicorns? But it's fundamentally more honest to say, "Given the views of the country right now, that just ain't gonna happen".
  • Yeah, she's a woman. But there's more than just symbolism at play here. In a business study, women CEOs have been found to be more effective than men are. Especially past the age of 40. That's just the facts.

You want to disagree? Fine. But if you do, please make it interesting. I'm tired of all the "bros" of various stripes parroting what they read, and arguing based on emotionalism. How much you "hate" someone. It's not so much annoying as it is uninteresting.

Comment Re:malware block plus is what I want (Score 4, Informative) 442

This is what AdBlock plus is. They're not against advertising. They're against intrusive advertising. Websites can apply to get their non-intrusive ads whitelisted from the program, so that they show up anyway. (Note: the criteria being used is much akin to the way ads were displayed in newspapers and print magazines.) An overwhelming majority of AdBlock users who responded to their survey said that this was the way to go, because everyone knows the content needs to be paid for.

Comment Argumentum ad lapidem (Score 5, Interesting) 311

Also called "Proof by assertion", or as Steven Colbert defined it colloquially, "Truthiness". You see this absolutely everywhere. It's where people don't even bother to try to make an argument, much less one that is correct and founded in fact. They just declare whatever they're feeling at the moment to be "true", because they want it to be.

We make fun of more sophisticated logical fallacies, but at least those who use them actually get to the "because" part. "Obama is worse than Hilter... because Hitler took away everyone's guns.." The justification isn't at all true, but at least it's an attempt. More typically all you see is this: "Obama is worse than Hitler". End of sentence and thought, as if the writer didn't have any. Which in all fairness, in these sorts of situations is probably true.

Comment Re: SAFe (Score 1) 210

The problem with Agile is that it effectively does away with estimates for when things will get done. Now this is fine for developing a running website, in which development velocity is king, and it's simply better to delay a feature rather than write throw-away code to make it work for a demo. However, it works very poorly for anything hardware related, or in which there are shows to make, or where there is a marketing roadmap, or senior management is impatient, or basically anything in the real world.

So instead what happens is that many companies do quote "Agile" unquote, in which an Agile process is a synonym for no process. Generally engineering is running along happily using Agile to stack rank things, but overall estimation of when this stuff is getting done is done at a higher level by people who are often relying on pure guesswork. Furthermore, in such a system, it invariably ends up that delays are not accounted for. Stack ranking one thing as your #1 item absolutely means that some other item isn't being worked on, but that rarely makes it back up the management chain.

Program Management is the discipline required to fix this, to insure that the waterfall-esque marketing roadmap and the engineering development stack rank is in alignment. However it also requires senior management buy-in, and talented program management, neither of which is common.

I guess the only think you can really say is that everyone is in the same boat. There are no companies run absolutely perfectly. And if they are, they grow so much that they can no longer be.

Comment Re:State doing the CYA thing (Score 3, Insightful) 261

Clinton knowingly had classified information on a server that was not secured. If you can't understand that, you're either a moron or a hyperpartisan loon.

Clinton's private email server was set up to receive mail from the State Department's UNCLASSIFIED email system. That State Department network was: 1) Not encrypted, 2) Had been hacked multiple times (including during the 1990s when Bush was in office), and 3) Not supposed to have classified information on it in any way.

There actually is a scandal here, but it's not the one morons like you think it is. The scandal is how so much classified information was being put onto the unclassified State Department servers in the first place, long before it got copied to clintonemail.com, and the lax attitude that many State Department employees had in regards to handling such classified information.

So in short, if you want to bash Secretary Clinton for failing to recognize that the Department of State had a serious cultural attitude problem in properly handling classified information, and failing to fix it by directing her staff to find the people who were putting classified information onto the unclassified State Department server system - well, be my guest. That's a fair critique. (Though one, Secretary Powell would also have to cop to, and he was a general, so my assumption is that he should have been more aware of this than Clinton.)

If, on the other hand, you want to act like some sort of typical hyperpartisan loon and try to accuse her of some sort of crime, by making up complete bullshit about the system or her private server, well then I can't exactly stop you - I can only laugh at your idiocy, as common as it is. I understand that we're fully into silly season by now, with basically half the country acting sounding like the Cobert Report's Steven Colbert, except actually being serious about it.

Comment Taking risks guarantees failure (Score 5, Insightful) 139

In addition to all the other comments about $231 million being chump-change, recognize something else about advanced technological research: sometimes it doesn't pan out.

That doesn't mean that we should never try to research new things though. Not everything can be discovered the way the Japanese like to do it, through hundreds of small polishes to an existing working design. Sometimes you need to think big to make a real breakthrough.

I would also put this story and some of the kneejerk responses to it in the category of "why the US isn't as successful as it once was". If the 60s were like today, with anti-science teabaggers controlling half of congress, would we have made a manned mission to the moon? Especially given that every one of those missions could easily have ended in disaster?

No people. Even the vaunted Solyndra failure came out of a program that overall had a better success rate than most private funding, and in the end, not only advanced technology, it made a considerable profit for the taxpayer. The willingness to scream and cry and throw tantrums by the anti-technology/pro-fundamentalist haters, every time some risk doesn't come out out 100% perfectly, is a cancer on the body politic. And we're sinking due to the over caution that results.

Slashdot Top Deals

IOT trap -- core dumped

Working...