Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Let me break it down for you (Score 1) 131

Actually, all of the conspiracy-theorists I know are all extremely left-leaning.

Actually, it depends.

The left-leaning ones talk about how the good government is being corrupted by evil businesses. The right-leaning ones talk about how the evil government is fighting good businesses.

You see it all makes sense if you add in well known problems like the revolving door [1] and regulatory capture [2].
In this case the evil/corrupt corporations (and their wealthy owners) take over the government (and vice-versa), and then fight the good business to help out their evil cronies.

Finally, the combination of these two work together to perform rootkits on democracy like the Citizens United ruling, and the TPP/TTIP/TISA, so they can corrupt and dominate other countries as well.

It works if you think of corruption like an infection.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Comment Very fuzzy thinking. (Score 1) 508

We are talking about two different things here. Secure retention and secure deletion.

Clinton was very cavalier about secure retention.
She was apparently very serious about secure deletion.
And her argument is that the things retained with poor security were those of state, while those deleted with apparently deliberate security were personal.

One could easily thus infer that she wasn't particularly concerned about protecting the secrets of state, but was very concerned about ensuring that her own secrets never saw the light of day. Whether or not that's the case is another matter, but you're conflating a whole several things together here that are in fact conceptually separate—retention, deletion, national, personal.

Comment Actually the opposite. (Score 1) 203

The problem is the quasi-monopolies (i.e. industries with very few players but very high barriers to entry)—but in the other direction.

I'm a Google Fiber user, but in this area, the moment that Google Fiber announced, the two other providers both suddenly rolled out gigabit fiber plans at around $70/mo. after years of charging about that for 5-20 megabit plans. Their customers all switched to the new plans while waiting for Google Fiber to build out (took many months) and as a result didn't go through the hassle of switching to Google Fiber once it was available, since they already had an affordable gigabit plan with their current provider.

Basically, Google encountered the power of monopolies in exactly the classic sense. They found out that it was very difficult to enter an existing monopoly-served market because the large interests are able to instantly match whatever the new kid on the blog was offering.

It also demonstrates the power of competition—as soon as *someone* was offering $70/month gigabit fiber, all players in the area were. But sadly, it is the new kid on the block that suffered most by incurring the costs of trying to enter at a lower price point without realizing the expected benefits.

As an aside, I also imagine that were, hypothetically, to pull out of this area, those gigabit fiber plans from the others would suddenly and magically "disappear" again.

Comment Or the other reason.... (Score 3, Informative) 442

The fact the whole state is a river flood plain and only stupid people build homes in a river flood plain?

Global warming may have cause the weather pattern changes, but it does not change the fact that if you build in the low lands, you have to expect flooding because it will absolutely happen with a 100% guarantee.

Comment Re:This is why (Score 1) 251

Good advise, not getting involved in anything not "core" to the business.

The problem is, sometimes that still doesn't help. I was employed by a company that was based almost purely on analytics. They hoovered information about their targeted area (yeah, I'm being intentionally vague), repackaged it and had their in-house 'analytic engines' massage the stuff before reselling it.

They were/are big sellers to government, business, and the press. Then some PHB got the smart idea of outsourcing their IT stuff to another company (who shall also remain nameless). Now, the only actual product of this company was the data itself. They had no manufacturing or similar operations. I would have thought that the IT stuff was in fact their 'core business', and to this day would argue the same.

Anyway, rather than saving anything at all, they merely instituted yet another layer of unaccountability. I most specifically do not call it any form of actual "accountability", as all it has done is elevated finger pointing and buck passing to an art form. Even though many of the former IT workers for the company were essentially 'sold' to the outsourced company, there was still a huge drain of institutional knowledge in all IT areas. My particular support group essentially evaporated within about 3 months of my leaving.

The people who took over our former responsibilities were almost entirely 'offshore assets', who had zero knowledge of the how/why of the environments. To the best of my knowledge, no actual money has been 'saved' by this outsourcing decision, and all it has essentially done is make the company that much slower to do anything because instead of having one level of bureaucracy to deal with, you now have two, and each of those two levels have conflicting missions. The vendor just wants to keep costs as low as possible, while the business just wants to get things done. Add to that, the fact that prior to this massive divestiture, you had groups with quite a bit of institutional knowledge in its area of responsibility, and these groups and the individuals within them took ownership of the areas they supported. Now, there is no institutional knowledge, and no ownership. People work on everything up to the various bright lines that demarcate what is "theirs" and what is "ours", and doesn't take initiative to actually try to figure out what is "best".

Over all, I'd say it's been a complete waste of time, money and effort. The company is still hobbling along on pre-existing momentum, but there is a big vacuum out there that someone else will eventually fill.

while I'm here ranting, I'd like to ask if anyone has ever actually seen one of these big IT deals like this that actually worked and made sense? I've seen a lot of weird goings on, over the past 40 years in different companies, and I can honestly say that sometimes I'm absolutely astounded that most of them have managed to stay in business. (The only one with a real clue didn't, because it was so well run that it was bought out by a criminal enterprise that was willing to leverage itself into oblivion to keep it's pozi scheme running.)

Comment Re:YouTube video showing BGA damage under microsco (Score 2) 222

The average iPhone user is not going to evaluate the repair on anything but the replacement cost. Disposal of the old phone is a negative cost - after all, there is a large market for broken iPhones. So sell the year-old broken phone for $100, get the "newest" phone with all the new features for $100 down payment, and the cell company just charges an extra $50 a month for a few more years.

To people who don't understand the costs of buying on credit (which are most of them) it's a new phone for free.

To the people who buy the broken or used phones, it's a bargain.

To the cell carriers who sell the new phones, and to Apple, it's a platinum-plated gold mine.

Comment Re:I don't get it (Score 1) 130

Bleeding off the excess H2 and O2 seems as wasteful as throwing away the tank itself. I would suspect that having an extra ton or two of oxygen and hydrogen wouldn't be all that hard to turn into an extra ton of H2O, which the crew might appreciate. Or if they send up multiple partially empty tanks, they could designate one tank as the recovery tank.

The tank purging process would probably be time consuming, but there should no reason to be in a hurry to convert the tank into a different usable space. Conversion is something the crew can do while under way to their final destination (with the reward of having an extra building to live in after they're all done; that should provide incentive to prioritize the task.) I would question the value of sending dedicated construction robots into orbit since the crew is already going to be there (unless the task has dangerous elements due to the residual fuel, risks of fire or explosive decompression while cutting openings into the tanks, etc.)

It definitely limits the main engines to burning hydrogen and LOX, though. There would be no way to purge a tank holding any of the other fuels they might want to use. Imagine if living in an empty diesel fuel drum was the best of the other available options.

Slashdot Top Deals

Failure is more frequently from want of energy than want of capital.

Working...