Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Re:And.. (Score 1) 537

I think the OP is looking in the wrong place. I know plenty of devs that are doing their part to improve the world. I know one that's building apps for hospitals in the developing world for free, literally saving thousands of lives. I know another another that's using his knowledge to do 3d printing of buildings for villages in Africa. I know several devs (myself included) that work in food banks in their downtime. Another that's providing tech education services to inner city youth. Granted, you're not going to find any of this in an app store. But it is out there.

Comment Re: The Point... (Score 1) 248

Depends on whether it makes sense for soap manufacturers to challenge it.
It's not like this one is destroying a whole industry, like other FDA mandates.

Still, it could be challenged under the 10th amendment.
You could make the case that Congress would need to make a law for this, and that without one, there is no standing or interest on the part of government.

Comment Re:Incomplete title... (Score 1) 399

We've reached a place and time where everyone you're going to talk to online is a bigot, whether they want to admit it or not. Even if they preach ideas like open mindedness and tolerance, nobody actually does. Accept that. I'm using the word bigot in a classical sense, meaning, intolerant of viewpoints other than their own. The media fuels this, and we all end up in a place where no reasonable political debate can happen at all. So why try? If you have to discuss politics on Facebook, do it in a group where you know people agree with you. If you have a friend who's a rabid hillary or trump supporter, and they're posting fake news, unfollow them.

Just, avoid the whole thing. Or, face the reality that you're going to have fewer friends. If you're in a general forum, and you say anything political, you're going to alienate somebody. If you take the step further, and you're a dick about it, you're going to have fewer still. Just look at the chaos that happens here on Slashdot, anytime anything political or divisive hits the main page. Is it really worth bringing that kind of crap home, to the people you know and love? I think not.

It's time for us all to be as enlightened as we claim to be, and drop the childish name calling, meaningless soapboxing, and be fucking human again.

The world is not ending.
You will survive the next election.
Shit, we survived Clinton, Bush, and Obama.


Comment Well, actually... (Score 5, Interesting) 561

Recruiters like it when you shave you beard for interviews in the midwest. They do, they really like it. They prefer if you do it. They can't tell you that you have to do it anymore, but they still very strongly prefer it. I've always felt kind of awkward without a beard. So, one day, about five years ago, and just as my beard started going gray, I stopped doing it. It's idiotic to change your appearance in this way, especially when it's a dishonest representation of what you actually look like most of the time.

I've always had a good resume, I get compliments on it all the time from clients and recruiters alike. The only people that dislike the way I write a resume are college guidance counselors, and people poisoned by their terrible advice, but they're few and far between. So all things considered, that factor in this equation has not changed. But since I've been growing the beard both longer and grayer, the number of successful interviews I've had has gone up. And the way I've been treated on the job has changed, dramatically. Bear in mind that the type of roles I go for hasn't changed since I was 25. I like coding. I intend to continue doing it.

People are more respectful. They ask me for my insights more often. I'm treated like an eccentric code sage, and that's absolutely fine with me. Even when I fly out to work in places like California or Seattle, this does not seem to change. I can only think of one instance where this decision has worked against me. One interview for a very hostile publishing company a few years ago, where they made it a point to ask me how often I keep up with new things, where they refused to believe that I read more books every year than their CEO. That said, I think that one would probably have went poorly no matter what I looked like.

I don't mind being older than my coworkers or project managers.
I don't mind taking orders from people younger than me. This isn't my trip in life.
I'm just there to make better stuff, solve more interesting problems, and keep myself challenged intellectually.
My biggest problem is boredom, so I've learned to be pickier in selecting my assignments.

Getting older, and reaching middle age isn't a bad thing.
You just have to know how to sell it.

Comment Cool. (Score 1) 108

With some of the cutbacks and revisions over at Google, with their personalized service over the last few years, I'm a long time apps user who might be open to a subscription based service. It's a good idea, and we need more free market competition. Google, at least up until this point has remained generally unrivaled in this space for too long, and it's been suffering from many of the main factors that made Microsoft a huge pain in the ass for so long. This is good news for everybody. At least, potentially.

Comment Re:Let 'em go. (Score 1) 503

What I want to know is when Slashdot got so loaded with fascists that comments like this became toxic. Really is a sad state of affairs on Slashdot when things are being moderated this way. "Hey remember all that lofty shit we said about free speech on the internet? Just kidding. Fuck you."

My original point, even though I never followed it through was this: If you're someone who is willing to leave your country at the first sign of a political movement you don't like coming to power, one that doesn't even have much chance of making any real change to begin with... how good can you possibly be at something like writing code, or maintaining systems? I mean, honestly. What's it going to take to get you to change careers, if you're willing to change countries over something as slight as who is President? Not much, probably. Success in any field of endeavor requires persistence and dedication.

Anyway, let's address this:

Registered Republicans make up less than a third of the voting public; when including independent "leaners" and voter surveys from states which do not associate a party affiliation with voter registration, we get up to around 40% of the voting public being effectively Republican.

That's simply untrue. There are numerous polls that show that there are more conservatives in America than Liberals. Even among the non-white voters that everyone keeps talking about this cycle. But the numbers are closer than you might imagine. The 10% margin you speak of simply doesn't exist. Even Gallup has the numbers statistically tied in 2015, which is interesting. But the math is a lot more complicated than all that, with so many other things in play.

And if you compare wins to losses in most every state where both Democrats and Republicans have played, Trump is beating clinton. Arizona for example. Where Trump's 249,916 beat Clinton's 235,697, Missouri where Trump statistically tied with Cruz at 382,093, but beat Clinton who could only pull together 310,602 votes. This is even true in states that Trump lost in. Overall turnout for the Republicans this year in general is higher than turnout for Democrats nationwide, and it's even something our friends in the media noticed.

So, no, it's not clear that Trump is only appealing to white voters, because the facts on the ground are simply not reflecting that (sorry media guys). And it's further unclear that Clinton can rally enough of her base enthusiasm in the event of a Trump nomination to beat him, if he he is the nominee.

Comment Re:Let 'em go. (Score 1) 503

Thank you for giving me something thoughtful to respond to.
I really appreciate it.

You're not entirely wrong. The government itself, functionally, is one of the biggest corporations in history. When anything gets this big, it's like trying to stop a moving train when you refactor something. No doubt about it. We're lucky that it's as compartmentalized as it is.

But I think there are a lot of specific cases that taxpayers, in general have some serious issues with. Take for example cases of waste, such as the hundred thousand dollar toilet seat that's strictly designed to conform to ISO 17966:2016, with the best quality control standards on earth. There's no reason that has to exist.

Then there's cases of waste, which you correctly pointed out overlaps with both fraud and abuse. Such as, you might remember the bill that was floated in the 90's to give the feds bulk buying power to medicare and medicaid for prescription drugs (which would save the taxpayers about 11 billion dollars at today's numbers). The one that the insurance companies and various other special interests spent a fortune to defeat in Congress. I remember the commercials on television vividly. And sure, they were successful, but it's still a problem.

In the abuse category, there's the nepotism of "no bid" contracts going to donors, which have been pervasive since the Bush Administration. Conservatives like to talk about Solyndra. Liberals like to talk about BlackWater, both are problematic for the same reason.

I don't see why it's necessary to audit small companies that big on government contracts for fraud when there's already a system in place to do that. It's a pain in the ass, but you think of it as a necessary evil when you do government work. At least on the business level. Why not audit Congress? Audit every bill, and every amendment. This wouldn't be the first time that there was an organized effort to get rid of pork. The line item veto wasn't a bad idea. It's just a shame that the Supreme Court found that it was illegal.

And you're right. No one man can change all of it, especially with the system of checks and balances that are in place. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't lead the charge, try to refactor the thing. Every sufficiently large codebase gets reworked or replaced eventually.

Comment Re:Let 'em go. (Score 0) 503

At no point did he say or imply that you said or implied that. What he said was that you are in a bubble if you believe the overwhelming majority of the tech community is behind Trump. And I will absolutely join him in challenging your assertion. Most techies -- like most people generally -- are not behind Trump. .

That's subjective. Like I keep saying. Tell me who "most people" are, and I might have some basis for agreeing or disagreeing with either of you.

I believe strongly that you're entitled to an opinion, even if I disagree with it. That's the key difference here. If you agreed with me on this, there would be no thread here. I'm what you might call classical liberal in approach, rather than authoritarian. For some reading, I urge you to pick up a copy of Rules for Radicals, by Saul Alinsky. That's the approach I'm commenting on. It's a formal method, not something casual that you just do. And it's designed to shut down debate.

I don't quite know what to say other than this is exactly what you're doing. You identified him as being in the "Authoritarian Left", attributed a whole bunch of random viewpoints to him, on the basis that he disagrees with your assertion. He could himself be a Trump supporter, just one that's a bit more realistic about Trump's support within the tech community.

I don't really care if he's a Trump supporter or not. I'm speaking from a standpoint of personal observation. I think that's the part you're missing. Why are your observations, or his more viable than mine? I'll tell you why. Because you don't agree with them. Therefore, in order to justify why I have a different outlook than you do, and it's clearly stated as an outlook, you must assume there's something wrong with me. I'm socially isolated, in this case. Perhaps I'm "uneducated," or any number of other things you could come up with to delegitimize me, rather than attempting to have a conversation based on my views. This is common fare, and it's droll. Thoroughly uninteresting at this point. Don't pretend you haven't read the book.

Then maybe don't open by saying all your opponents don't work very hard? And then when somebody challenges your boldest and least supported assertion, don't call them authoritarians that are incapable of honest conversation?

Modern Liberals working hard at anything, has not been my experience. It's a philosophy that's deleterious to productivity, in my assessment and observation. This is not a personal critique of anyone here.

I'm going to call them authoritarians when they behave like authoritarians. And you don't have to like that.

Comment Re:Not far enough (Score 1) 503

Well, if you feel that strongly about it, I would say that there should be plenty of options available to you.

First and foremost, space is cheaper than it's ever been. You should be able to build a space ship and get yourself at least into LEO for cheaper than ever. Just get enough supplies to last you six months, and you'll make it to Mars. Mars may be a desolated wasteland, but... at least Donald Trump isn't there. And that's really what you care about, right?

You may want to think about Mars anyway, because even if he doesn't get the nomination, or win the election, you're still sharing a planet with the man.

Comment Re:Let 'em go. (Score 2, Insightful) 503

See, this is the problem with people on the authoritarian Left. At no point did I ever say that you were defective for having a view I disagree with. And yet, you refuse to offer me the same courtesy. You assume that your view is the absolute correct one, and that anyone who disagrees with you is either defective mentally, evil, or some other arbitrary defective thing you can think of. It's straight out of the handbook, which, incidentally, I've read. But it isn't have you have an honest conversation, friend. There can be no meaningful discussion if we can't agree that we're equals.

Take care.
And good luck.

Comment Let 'em go. (Score 1, Insightful) 503

You're not going to get very many good workers that don't like Trump.
It's been my observation that those who work hardest, and have the most skill either don't care about politics at all, or they like Trump.

Trump has consistently come out on our side, on this one. He doesn't like the fact that wages are being artificially lowered in high skilled professions. He wants American workers to have first priority of any job, and for the H1b Program to be revised so that it's no longer abused by billionaires. Also, he has a softer stance on intellectual property restrictions than Obama (or any democrat for that matter) does, which is important to both open source and freedom of speech. He did come out on the wrong side of the encryption debate, but in his defence... it's a complicated topic.

He's also called for less fraud, waste, and abuse in government, which means more and better software for the plebs like us that write the stuff. And that means more work. The wall he's proposing is also employment positive for programmers, nerds, and IT, as is Keystone XL, which he's in favor of.

I understand the populist Left, but they have yet to propose anything that benefits me as a common programmer and knowledge worker personally. Trump has proposed a dozen unrelated things that do. And I think the overwhelming majority of the tech community is smart enough to see that.

With the industry the way it exists today, my honest feeling is that less domestic competition from people who would rather go to Canada, than stick it out is a good thing. So I encourage all far Left liberal tech workers to at least take offers like this seriously, and consider them. But the way I see it, our professional world gets better if someone with a billionaire’s mindset is running the economy. Not worse.

Slashdot Top Deals

A successful [software] tool is one that was used to do something undreamed of by its author. -- S. C. Johnson