Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re: Semantics (Score 1) 837

The problem here is that explanations don't do squat for imbeciles. You've already stated that you are basically choosing your beliefs based on what you wish is true, so you clearly have no value. There is an astonishing amount of information out there based on observations that confirms that the only thing that the actual scientists have gotten wrong is to underestimate the sheer stupidity of humanity.

Comment Re:It'll sort itself out. (Score 1) 421

There are in reality two kinds of people when it comes to environmentalism:

Environmentalist and idiots.

In other words, if you don't believe that taking care of our environment is critical for the survival of the species, than you're an idiot... and probably couldn't figure out why your goldfish would die if you didn't change the water periodically.

Comment Re:Supply and Demand (Score 1) 605

I've been a software engineer for a long time myself... been hating the industry for years. I'd never advise anyone to go into this field. I always tell them to start reading Dilbert... and that it's a sugar-coated version of reality, rather than fiction. For the real thing, I send them to the DailyWTF, which hopefully would lead anyone worth anything to run screaming from this field of shit that is the world of corporate idiot tech.

Comment Re:Investment (Score 1) 605

Oh and lastly my own personal favorite... I turn 38 years old this year. I now regularly get asked 'Why are you still in IT?'

I get asked that quite a bit also... and my only response is that it paid the bills. Lately, it hasn't even done that. It's miserable work, 90% of it inheriting sheer idiocy instead of doing work that's worth my time, and the work environment is typically terrible. I hate and despise the industry, but its been paying the bills. Hiring lately however has been insanely slow, probably exacerbated by lots of contractors having their contracts end at Microsoft due to the new hard limit on contractor tenure, plus the large layoffs...

Comment Re:My Argument (Score 1) 125

Clearly then, productivity is going down, not up... working longer hours is not an increase in productivity, which means that the metric is broken. It IS slavery, and I'm amazed that you put up with 75 hour weeks for a year without bailing. I've run into people who were proud of doing that; they weren't just incompetent, they were outright destructive, partly because they were so completely incompetent, but also because the management measured competence by the number of hours people were working.

More people need to realize that if they're working slave hours, then they're wasting their lives, regardless of their salaries.

Comment Re:memory loss defence? (Score 1) 602

If the severance package isn't spectacular, than anyone signing that is basically an idiot, unless the demand to have that clause stricken. Odds are however, since it stipulates "reasonable availability" and no compensation that they'll get no help from any of their laid off staff who are employable, since they'll get jobs. The best will of course simply quit rather than accepting the insult of training their replacements who the bank is already admitting will not be competent enough to do the job they were hired for.

Comment Re:No, you don't have a right to be paid (Score 1) 368

No, you have copyright completely backward. The point is to prevent intellectual theft by companies like apple. The goal is to enable people who create new products to be compensated for them, and to have a way to enforce their right to get paid when companies like apple try to steal from them... like apple wants to do here.

If I develop a product such a film that people are interested in seeing, then I have a right to charge a fee to let them see it. Copyright exists to enable me to enforce that legally if necessary. Without copyright protection, I would have no legal way to enforce my intellectual property. In other worse, without copyright protection, creators can't create. That's how copyright benefits society, not by forcing creators to give their creations away for nothing. Or are you an apple schill trying to defend apple's willingness to steal from a legion of artists for its own benefit?

A machine that can make apples can be copyrighted, apples cannot. Ergo, your example is horseshit.

You do have a right to audition a song from a musician before purchasing more, if that's your preference; if the artist in question won't let you audition their music, then it comes down to salesmanship.

So... either you have a right to get paid for your work, or you're full of shit. If you're only able to come with a random hole as an example, then you should just give up and admit that you have no value to society. If someone needs a hole dug and you dig it for them, you have a right to be compensated, so once again your example is horseshit.

If someone has a product that you want, then you should compensate them for it. If you aren't interested, then you should not. That is the heart of capitalism, and whether you like Taylor Swift or not, it's what her letter is about.

Comment Re: Horray for Taylor Swift. (Score 1) 368

I'm just saying that people should only be praised for genuine altruism, and this most definitely isn't that. This is a selfish, not a selfless act.

Whether or not it's genuine altruism is irrelevant. Her stand is good for artists who are getting screwed, and her stance is the correct one, even if it IS due to greed, so who cares? She's drawing attention to the rest of the artists who Apple is quite happy to screw over, which is what matters here.

There were arguments about this when the Veronica Mars filmmakers launched a crowd funding campaign to finance the Veronica Mars movie. People said they shouldn't have done that, because they had money. They're ignoring however the fact that by launching such a high-profile crowd funding campaign for a film, they raised awareness of crowd funding for filmmaking and at the same time legitimized it in the eyes of the general public who weren't really on the crowd funding bandwagon yet, making it easier for independent filmmakers to find audiences and finance other film projects through crowd funding. They did the independent film community a lot more good than harm, so who cares that they could have paid for production on their own?

Comment Re:No, you don't have a right to be paid (Score 1) 368

The ones who want to make money won't. So what?

First off, copyright exists to protect the people who create the work, not to protect society. The whole point is to ensure that if someone creates a product that someone else wants such as a song, they have a right to demand to be paid for it in return for letting you listen to it.

It's true that if you go and randomly dig a ditch, there's no reason that you should get paid for it, but by your logic, you don't deserve to get paid for building a house that someone asked you to build. So it's YOU that doesn't deserve to get paid, not everyone else.

Comment Re: Horray for Taylor Swift. (Score 1) 368

But, this again? No you do not have a "right to be paid for your work."

You're basically saying that if YOU make a product and someone else wants it, they can take it and you don't have any right to be paid for it, which is ridiculous.

You cannot go dig ditches, fill them in, and say, "somebody pay me."

This doesn't describe what's going on here in any way.

This type of argument takes advantage of populist narrowmindedness, inability to imagine anything but their boring lives, and, frankly, their stupidity

Truly the only stupidity here is yours. On the one hand you're saying that people don't deserve to be paid for their work, and on the other you're saying that artists deserve to be paid for their work.

Whether YOU like Taylor Swift's music or not is irrelevant; what is relevant is that Apple wants to give the products that she and a lot of other artists have made away to entice people onto their service without paying those artists for their work. By any logic, this is called stealing. Apple's basically seeking to take advantage of the fact that they are a big company to screw the artists.

Comment Re:We the taxayer get screwed. (Score 1) 356

Exactly... and never mind that the auto industry, telecom industry, most of our current computing technology, plastics, and so on are also directly the result of government money, mostly in the form of either grants or the space program.

Plus, many the same companies that got their start using government money but no longer need it because they are sustainably profitable, continue to collect subsidies... while funneling profit money into purchasing lobbyists and politicians. THAT should be earning the ire of anyone complaining about companies receiving government subsidies, rather than companies that are creating new industries with government subsidies... because the latter are using the subsidies for what they're meant for.

Slashdot Top Deals

You will be successful in your work.