Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:So that's where the trolls came from? (Score 2) 637

Your point really bears repeating. I don't know how people can be so willing to just dismiss what a candidate says they'll do. I mean, saying that all politicians make meaningless campaign statements, though true some of the time, ignores the many, many campaign statements that, once elected, politicians actually follow through on. In fact, the majority of campaign statements made by politicians actually do manifest in some form or another.

Of course, I can already hear the, "Trump isn't a politician," sentiments. Fine. To those to whom that applies, if you prefer to ignore actual campaign statements under the assumption that, really, Trump is a decent guy who'll just do whatever the right thing is (or at least, less wrong than Hillary), I'm sure he'll happily sell you exclusive real estate too.

Comment Re:Tech Company arrogance. (Score 1) 161

The human body is something that needs to be discovered

We are explorers in the further regions of experience...

Sorry was just reminded of Pinhead (perhaps not the misinterpretation you anticipated). I agree with the other points you were actually making, though; there's a bit much hubris on display.

Comment Re:A modular PC? That's an amazing new idea... (Score 1) 78

How many office workers in a typical corporate setting do you see digging into their computer case?

You're not the customer that matters here because, while I'm sure they'd happily sell you one of their sleek new desktops, you don't represent the corporate-oriented target market.

Comment Re:Prepare to be (Score 1) 532

Umm, the earth is not flat, geocentrism is wrong, and spacetime is not always flat. All of these (that last one representing Newtonian gravity, by the way) were considered basic natural laws at some point until they were shown to merely approximate reality.

Now, you can argue for the validity of using those approximations in specific circumstances, but the fact remains that those are now known to be approximations, not laws. If, for example, you're going from one house to another in your neighborhood, a flat-earth approximation makes sense. If, however, you're building a suspension bridge to span a couple kilometers, you need to know that the earth is actually curved.

When you go from the flat-earth, to spherical (ish) earth realization, that's a discovery, just as the GP pointed out. That discovery can only come at the expense of the prior "law," though, which must necessarily be broken.

Comment Re:I hate Apple, but no (Score 1) 564

Wow dude, calm down before you have a paranoia-induced aneurysm or something. I'm my own account and, if anything, his would be a sock-puppet of my account, based on user IDs.

admit his defeat before looking dumb yourself

Your willingness to demand correctness on pain of ad-hominem pretty much sums up why you look so very, very wrong.

Comment Re:Money (Score 1) 564

That math should really be something more like $2.2M / number of years tax incentive was in place (since that's how the $14.5B was derived). From what I've read, this was in place since the mid-80s, so that should be $2.2M / 30. So, really, that'd be ~$73K per employee, which seems a lot less unreasonable.

Comment Re:I hate Apple, but no (Score 1) 564

Really? Seems to mostly be populated by the "make them pay their fair share" types; not that there's anything wrong with demanding a fair share be paid. That said, it does seem a little ridiculous to effectively say, "Oh hey, you know that thing you were doing for the past 30 years in full public view? Yeah, well, we suddenly decided that we're interested in that, and we'd like a cut for all those years we didn't express an interest."

It's one thing to demand a fair share forthwith, but another thing entirely to allow an protracted exception, then decide that that exception wasn't really allowed after all. It's entirely reasonable to push back a little in that situation.

Comment Re:I hate Apple, but no (Score 1) 564

So your quibble is with the "founded by Apple" claim? Maybe the GP overstated things a bit, but it seems pretty clear that the point they were making (and which you argued against initially) had nothing to do with who was first to enact this tax strategy; their point was that the tax benefits offered by Ireland were instrumental to Apple operating there, and known for a long time. Incidentally, this quote from the article they cited pretty clearly illustrates the point they were making:

"We were the first technology company to establish a manufacturing operation in Ireland," recalled John Sculley, Apple's CEO from 1983 to 1993. He said government subsidies had also played a role in deciding to set up a base in Ireland.

In other words, it looks like you shifted the goalposts in an attempt to "win" your argument, except that it's really badly transparent.

Comment Re:I'll bet it's all Larry (Score 1) 156

I'd suspect that Microsoft probably is not involved, at least not in any remotely direct way.

Microsoft is busy trying to broaden adoption of its Google competitor products, such as Edge and Bing, and it really does not need the PR headache that would ensue if it was tied to this pretty seedy anti-Google group. I mean, Microsoft still has its past anti-competitiveness practices hanging over its head, and the broader public still regards Microsoft with a tinge of cynical skepticism. Were Microsoft to involve itself with Oracle's dirt-digging operation, and that involvement was known, it'd probably do a lot to bolster anti-Microsoft sentiments, and further hinder Microsoft adoption where alternatives (especially Google's) exist. So, yeah, it'd probably be best if Microsoft steers well clear of this thing, and I'm sure they know that.

That said, Microsoft definitely has an interest in Oracle finding success here, so they'll probably find some means of supporting this group, but very indirectly. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of non-binding winking and nudging to get some of Microsoft's business partners on board.

Comment Re:More proof (Score 1) 415

This isn't asking you to prove a negative; this is asking you to support your reasons for presuming a practice, other than just assuming it because it aligns with your argument. By the way, I'm not making some unfalsifiable claim on hiring at Facebook: all you need to do is point to the hiring policies of Facebook that are provided to the hiring managers. If there's no mention of any incentive to hire URMs, then you can claim what you did; if, however, there are incentives outlined (as I suspect there would be based on prior dealings with other tech companies), then you're just spreading a falsehood. Moreover, that potential falsehood seems to be pretty central to a lot of other arguments that you're making, so it's kind of a problem if it turns out to actually be false.

Now, neither you nor I have access to that information. The difference between us is that I'm not claiming something with certainty, but you appear to be. I said that I suspect there are hiring policies that favor URMs at Facebook (and have good reason to make that claim), but I don't know for sure. You said that there aren't hiring policies to favor URMs. Period. Now you've gone on -- in a pretty intellectually dishonest manner -- to dismiss my challenge to your claimed knowledge, which you still haven't addressed, as some sort of ridiculous demand.

Comment Re:More proof (Score 1) 415

Please point to the actual quote from the article that says what you said. What I see is the following:

Recruiters bring in candidates, but it is up to hiring managers to make job offers. Therefore, attracting more candidates doesn’t necessarily result in a more diverse workforce.

That doesn't imply that hiring managers don't also receive similar incentives for hiring URMs; it just indicates that hiring managers are under no obligation to hire according to the proportions recruiters supply to them. Now, the Gizmodo article said what you said, but it's clear that that's a supposition on the part of that article's author. In short, they're just assuming, as you did, that hiring managers have no incentive to hire URMs. Again, that's not at all in line with what I've actually seen.

Slashdot Top Deals

"There... I've run rings 'round you logically" -- Monty Python's Flying Circus