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


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

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 525

It seems to me that most offices would benefit from having a sensible balance of both genders. For whatever reason, women tend to have a different approach to problem solving than men, which might add value in itself. It might also motivate people to be a little bit more aware of certain aspects of coexistence that are often somewhat neglected in an all-male office - IOW it might make the office-atmosphere a little nicer.

I doubt it. The modern office workplace today is entirely asexual. It's quite the opposite of "Mad Men" (a depiction of office life that I doubt anyone wants to restore). The ideal environment for HR and the lawyers is one entirely blind to anyone's gender. Get rid of the gender labels on the bathrooms, for god's sake, it's causing too many issues. Don't comment on anyone's clothing or hairstyle, don't even mention whether someone is male or female, that's the way. Office romances, once a stable of work life, are horribly verboten. We can't have Dan from accounting asking Doris from Marketing out for a date. Don't even extend an invitation to lunch - harassment is a wrong glance on an elevator these days.

So when you go to work, dress androgynously, speak to everyone in the same monotone voice, and for crying out loud try to forget that all these people are humans and sexual beings. It's dangerous.

Comment Re: Oh noes!!!!11111 (Score 0) 525

You'll need to do this kind of social engineering over in India, then, because that's where all the coders are coming from now, and the ones that are filling all the jobs. It's probably going to be a much rougher battle for the SJW crowd to make the kind of headway over in that culture than they do here in the US. But maybe it will give them something to do while we (men and women) get on with business.

Comment Re:Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts (Score 2) 331

Sure, they source things and explain why they rated things the way they did (like rating Obama's statement that "people buy guns over the Internet without a background check" during a speech calling for better background check laws as TRUE by qualifying the statement with "He never said people do that legally).

But no one ever looks at that. They look at the rating which often has twisted justifications that are, yes, clearly biased. But, like I said, no one looks at the justification. In fact, they will propagate nonsense like a aggregate of a bunch of rating as if they were unassailable facts to judge the "truthfulness" of one candidate or organization compared to another. When all that aggregate really tells you is how biased those "fact check" sites actually are.

Comment Re:The press will also suggest it was "government" (Score 1) 435

Nope, no US agency has said anything of the kind. Your article quotes unnamed "former security officials" saying that Russia stole files from the DNC. One is actually named, retired CIA director Hayden, who has been out of government for 7 years, and has no idea what was in the security briefing.

It's interesting to note that this is the same Hayden Hayden referred to people who believed that enhanced interrogation techniques used against CIA detainees have never yielded useful intelligence, as "interrogation deniers". He currently works for the Chertoff group. Conflict of interest? Yes. Credible? No.

Comment Re: Still Confused .... (Score 3) 435

I've never seen so many Americans rush to defend Russias honor

If more Americans had questioned the evidence that Iraq was stocked with WMDs and ready to use them, maybe we would have never gotten in that war. Let's question evidence that Russia is involved in espionage before we decide to go to war with them, okay?

Comment Re:Still Confused .... (Score 1) 435

As for the hacking, Russia has been on our top 2 threat list to our country for over a decade

I think you mean top threat to our country's energy companies. That's why we're fighting proxy wars over pipelines. Of course the Putin hate really ramped up after they gave Snowden asylum. Hillary has a personal vendetta against him, and is clearly interested in starting a war with Russia just to get at Snowden.

This is not a false flag by the Clinton campaign in coordination with our government, this is Julian Assange coordinating with Russia (to what degree, who knows).

More unsubstantiated Russia hate and warmongering. Assange has now be cut off from the Internet, thanks to threats to Ecuador by the Obama administration. I think it's pretty horrible that it appears the president is ready to start a war just to ensure the current party stays in power.

Again, this is my $0.02 but Hillary has supported President Obama's intention to bring Snowden and Assange to trial here in the US.

And she's perfectly willing to start wars to make it happen.

Comment Re:Too few good live entertainers (Score 1) 552

Particularly among the flavor of the day pop acts.

Well, yea. That's the thing: those guys are just touring as a way to sell records (or Spotify hits or iTunes downloads or whatever), and that's how they make money. So putting on a good show is not something they put any effort into. They're just making an appearance to sell recordings.

There are plenty of great artists out there that don't really make a lot on recordings, they make money putting on quality shows for the audience, typically doing stuff that doesn't even translate well to their recordings. If you're interested in see live acts, it's those artists you should be supporting.

Comment Re:Many believe that we live in a computer simulat (Score 1) 1042

Instead of lowering taxes to encourage profits to come home, why but just change the tax rules so that they have to? That's what the EU is doing. Tax is paid based on where business is transacted, not where they funnel the profit to.

That could work, too. The US tax system is a screwed up mess right now. US citizens can't even get bank accounts in many countries because of the onerous reporting requirements the IRS imposes. Needs to be something simpler.

Comment Re:Many believe that we live in a computer simulat (Score 1) 1042

On top of that, due to lower tax income

Lower tax rates do not necessarily lead to lower tax revenue. In fact, lowering a rate to a point that the US has a structure for companies competitive with other countries, it encourages more companies to headquarter there. Combined with incentives for repatriating the trillions of dollars US companies are hording overseas, it could well lead to significantly increased tax revenues.

You can either compete with China to set up the lowest cost sweatshop, or you can concentrate on high end manufacturing and service jobs.

Service jobs are not going to help with the trade deficit. The US is still the premier manufacturer of weapons, one of the few exports left. High-end manufacturing, yes, as well as but China is not going to buy our robots for their factories (though others might). One of the things that helps the weapons manufacturers are rules that require them to do certain things within the US, as well as significant amount of federal dollars to develop high-end products. Meanwhile, other industries face crippling regulations for the smaller companies, and tax incentives that encourage large companies to create jobs offshore. Both of those things need to be fixed before ANY significant improvement in the job market can happen.

Slashdot Top Deals

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr