Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment assign blame for bugs (Score 1) 228

Every time a "serious" defect is found, figure out who is to blame. It will usually be the person who wrote the code, but may not always be that person. For instance, if he or she relied on behavior from someone else's code that was falsely advertised. Or if he was given inadequate requirements. If a particular developer is disproportionately frequently to blame for major problems, then that person probably isn't a good developer. Also take into account total output and "sensitivity" of what someone's working on. A developer who does a lot is going to cause more issues, simply because he's doing more. Likewise, a developer working on "tricky stuff" (e.g. refactoring terrible legacy code) is more likely to cause issues simply because of the sensitive nature of the code he's working with.

Comment Re:thoughts: (Score 1) 283

Are you sure? Found this in a quick google search. They claim:

when men are in oversupply, the dating culture emphasizes courtship and monogamy. But when women are in oversupply—as they are today at most U.S. colleges and universities—men play the field and women are more likely to be treated as sex objects.

What I said is that in the Bay Area, where men outnumber women, it's a "woman's market" and they can afford to be more choosy and less promiscuous. That seems to match up with this guy's claim.

Comment thoughts: (Score 5, Interesting) 283

High male-to-female limits sex-per-capita in a couple different ways:

1. In general, men want to have sex more frequently than women and are more willing to engage in non-committed sex. Ignoring homosexual males, since they're a fairly small piece of the picture even in the Bay Area, the amount of sex is going to be strongly tied to the # of women.
2. More men than women makes it a "woman's market", so to speak, so women can afford to be more choosy and less promiscuous. In situations where women outnumber men, women are generally less choosy and more promiscuous, leading to more sex.

Lest I be accused of being a red-pill patriarchal Trump guy, let me assure you I'm not.

Comment depends (Score 1) 435

If you think you can get away with not telling them then don't tell them. The caveat is that if you refuse to play along then it may end the interview process right then and there. In that case, if you would have been willing to entertain an offer of "whatever you were getting paid at your last job plus a small delta" then you your decision not to play along was in error.

Unless you were drastically underpaid at your last job relative to the one you're interviewing for, the new job's offer will be whatever you were getting paid at your last job plus some amount that's 1. big enough to not be trivial, but 2. not much bigger than that. So maybe $5k/yr. That will be the starting point of any post-offer negotiations. Your leverage is low, though, because you already told them what you were making before.

Another tactic is to answer the question, but ask them for similar information in exchange. For instance, "What's the average compensation for someone with my experience in this position that I'm applying for?" If they won't answer, the you can credibly say, "I'm not sure I'm comfortable divulging my compensation history if you're not willing to do the same. Does that seem fair?"

Comment Re:thought (Score 2) 56

If you offer the money and nobody claims it then you haven't lost. If nothing else, you can use it as P.R.

Now that I've had some time to think about it more, what would worry me is that if the prize were lucrative enough, people might delay reporting flaws they've found in order to claim the yearly prize. So it would really need to be an "all the time" thing and not necessarily a yearly thing.

Comment thought (Score 4, Interesting) 56

Microsoft, Adobe, Google, Apple, and maybe some of the larger linux contributors/users (IBM, Oracle, Amazon) should form a sort of "consortium" and chip in $1M/year each to fund a much more lucrative version of pwn2own. That's chump change to them. With ~$8M in prizes yearly, I dare say we'd eliminate a lot of security flaws.

Comment unintended consequence: (Score 1) 540

Companies now incentivized to open foreign development offices. Right? If you hire foreign nationals in their country of origin they're not an H1B employee. So instead of importing foreign workers to the U.S. (who pay rent, taxes and buy things from American companies), American employers will just employ more people abroad.

Comment mitigating factor (Score 4, Insightful) 409

Automating things is itself work, and when a process or job changes it must be re-automated. If the automation wasn't done in a manner that's easily updated to accommodate minor changes, then the effort to "re-automate" something may approach the level of effort it took to automate it in the first place. So while lots of work may be automatable, the effort require to keep all that work automated on an ongoing basis incurs some amount of overhead.

Comment some stats (Score 1) 286

Results within 25 miles of my residence at Indeed (full-time positions only):

C: 1440
C++: 474
Python: 762
Ruby: 336
Java: 1113

I suspect the results for "C" are inflated due to the difficulty of isolating only positions looking for the "C" programming language. Same exercise at Stack Overflow jobs:

C: 2
C++: 2
Python: 10
Ruby: 7
Java: 14

Slashdot Top Deals

We are not a loved organization, but we are a respected one. -- John Fisher

Working...