Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Re:I don't think it matters at this point (Score 2) 92

Only 20 years?
Are you only 20 years old?

There has always been a gap between the big boss man and the workers. Communism started because of these issues.
During the 1990s we were at a peak. Cold War ended we were for the most part at peace with the world. People were working to fix the Y2K bug or replacing their infrastructure.
It was mostly due to circumstances and the tech bubble. Not politics.

Part of the issue from getting out of the 2008 Recession is the fact we do not have too many major players that came up with something new. The few exceptions are the gig economy jobs. Were people can empower themselves to make some extra cash on their free time. The problem became when these people made it their full time jobs.

Comment Re:Wow, just... I mean, wow. (Score 0) 389

I see, so now Uber, who you basically just said yourself is *saving people from starvation and death* is a husband who beats his wife?

So what you are saying is that the wife that is being abused is actually unable to survive without the husband, is that what you are implying? So is it the economy that makes the wife unable to survive or is that only something that exists in her (your) head?

You are now comparing people, who are driving for Uber to wives that take a beating but cannot leave their husbands because *they believe* they cannot survive in the world without the husband?

You see, I wouldn't make claims similar to yours, so I wouldn't put myself in such a precarious position in a conversation.

I think that people driving for Uber are not on the brink of starvation and hunger death, they have other choices, *you* implied that they are starving and cannot survive without Uber.

I think that they are making a conscious decision to drive for Uber because it works for them better, maybe it gives them extra income, maybe it gives them the flexibility, maybe they like not going to an office and like being treated as independent adults who are perfectly capable of making their own life choices.

You, on the other hand, are implying all sorts of things about these people that I think cannot stand to any type of scrutiny. These are not starving people, they are driving cars, they wear clothes and they have mobile phones and they are able to afford all of that and still they can eat something (or they wouldn't be driving).

You should stop attacking companies simply because you think they are not providing the type of work conditions that you expect them to provide, instead maybe (if you think you can do it better) you should run a competitor to Uber or to WalMart or to McDonalds or to Apple or to whatever and see if you can do better and if you can provide those jobs under the conditions that you are promoting here.

Comment Re:Don't worry (Score 1) 389

This has nothing to do with 'deserving', the point is that nobody at all is forcing anybody to drive for Uber.

I run a company of my own, at times I made not simply less than minimum wage would be, but in a number of cases I was paying people who work for me out of pocket, as in I was losing money, not making it. *Nobody* forced me to do this, it's a private personal decision.

Comment Re:I wonder (Score 1) 213

the issue that the federal government is meddling with stupid shit that is not within its charter.

- correct.

guarantee that I can find a job

- also not within their authority, because to *guarantee* a job to person A would mean to guarantee that other people have to subsidise that job. It's direct transfer from one person to another. OTOH government should step aside and *not diminish your chances* of finding a job by destroying the economy, that would be nice.

Comment Re:Headline correct; summary wrong (Score 4, Insightful) 375

I'm glad Alphabet decided to help out by donating .... but if I worked for them, I'd still be a little upset by this.

#1? These donations of millions of dollars worth of technology to help schools/education don't exactly have a great track record. When your teachers and staff are underpaid and over-stressed, they're just not going to take the time and effort required to implement the new tech very well. A lot of this stuff will wind up sitting in schools, unused -- or under-utilized. $30 million given to help hire more quality teachers and keep up with maintenance issues in the school buildings would probably have done a lot more.

#2? It's not necessarily being "spoiled and greedy" to assume that your employer will give you a "bonus" or gift at the end of the year, if they're traditionally known for doing it. That's part of how your overall compensation is factored. (EG. When I was hired on where I work now, I tried to negotiate for a higher salary than they offered but they wouldn't budge. Instead, they countered that they almost always gave out end of year bonuses, plus typically did at least one big company meeting/trip to a nice location for several days, where we'd enjoy a lot of perks and entertainment too. Those were bargaining chips to make me take the offer ... not truly gifts that I would be "greedy" to expect to receive, if I did good work through the whole year.)

Comment Re:Translation (Score 1) 188

Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?

Narrator: You wouldn't believe.

Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?

Narrator: A major one.

Comment Re:Hacking review !== Election results review (Score 1) 477

From more reputable news sources: every recount in every other state had more votes for Trump coming out, when Michigan's recount started looking the same way, the Obama appointed judge stopped the recount on a technicality which had been cited before but ignored: Stein has no right to burden the tax payer with a recount since she never stood a chance.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have never seen anything fill up a vacuum so fast and still suck. -- Rob Pike, on X.