Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:WTF!!! (Score 2) 513

If *your* wife had at most 2 months to live, seriously, would YOU be working? (okay, husband whatever)

He obviously felt he really needed the work, especially the benefits. Why would he risk his chances of getting the job by complaining about extra off-hours work during the interview process? Why would he share any of this with the writer of the article when it doesn't fit with his agenda? (brand new lawsuit pending)

From TFA:

the woman didn’t entertain temporary alternative arrangements, such as working from home if needed. She simply insisted he needed to be available at the office 24/7.

His words.

Typically even a soul-sucking HR drone isn't going to "insist on 24/7 availability" if it's not in the job requirements. These people follow a script, and if it wasn't in the script she wouldn't have been asking for it.

Comment Re:How was he wronged? (Score 1) 513

Do you really think the distinction between a cryptographer and a cryptanalyst is going to survive from actual job requirements though to the publication of this article? Besides, isn't an applications heavy firm going to put some crypt-analytic duties on any actual cryptographers they do have?

I mean, they're not inventing the next Twofish, AES, or elleptical encryption scheme, they're just implementing and adapting existing technology for the most part.

Comment Re:difficult to tell who is at fault from article (Score 1) 513

"available 24/7" doesn't mean awake all the time, it means being near a phone (more likely beeper etc) for when the important call does come in.

and 24/7 on call hours as a requirement is a bit of a red flag. Any team environment should be able to "hand the beeper off" so you don't wind up doing much more than 50% on call hours.

Although, having urgent family issues that could call you away at any moment pretty much precludes you from any on call duty at all.

Comment Re:"persuadable voters" (Score 1) 85

I read the phrase "think that over" as meaning you disagree with the quoted text. However, your link does not contradicting that statement, unless you also believe Clinton employed less rhetoric during the campaign. Wikipedia defines rhetoric as "the art of discourse, wherein a writer or speaker strives to inform, persuade or motivate particular audiences in specific situations". Even if we use the less formal definition ("excessively flowery or emotional, often meaningless, speech") can you truly say Clinton employed fewer such devices?

I find such assertions ridiculous; the politician's primary job is to be persuasive, and the most effective tools to do so are the subtle, often trite, phrases which hook into their audience's existing biases. Someone arguing that a slogan, whether "Stronger Together" or MAGA, is not an attempt to persuade tells me more about their bias than it does the politician using it.

Comment Re:BS detector went off and is overheating (Score 1) 309

My question would be, just how high can you get before you miss a whole number?

Infinity (or whatever arbitrary limit of single-arity operations might be applied). I know it's considered gauche around here to read the source article, much less a video, but it gives the formula and process which allows any integer to be reached.

With "sqrt()" being the square root function:
The log base sqrt(4)/4 of [log base 4 of sqrt(4)] = 1.
The log base sqrt(4)/4 of [log base 4 of sqrt(sqrt(4))] = 2.
The log base sqrt(4)/4 of [log base 4 of sqrt(sqrt(sqrt(4)))] = 3.

The number of times the square root function has been applied in the inner logarithm, is the integer which results from the formula. Therefore, you can create any positive whole number with four fours (and an indefinite number of operations).

Comment Re:Who wants DVDs? (Score 1) 157

> Bluerays are still quality superior to streaming,

What are you talking about? The guy at Best Buy who wanted to sell me a 4k TV, since that's all they had anymore, said "internet streaming" was a good source of 4k video. (I get the feeling they didn't have many "ultra" blue-rays yet...)

I almost laughed at the thought of who could be that selfish with their bandwidth... Then got a little scared inside.

Comment Re:Copyright term rollback? Plead the Fifth (Score 1) 157

> I was more referring to exporting to the European market and the post-Brexit British market,

Ya, um. Considering both sides of the Atlantic have been ping-ponging the extensions back and forth every 20 or so years to keep Steam Boat Willie in chains. I really don't think that's as big a problem as it sounds assuming we're careful to abide by the letter of the treaties *except* where they are copyright foo-barred.

As to the fifth amendment. We just need to legally establish that copyrighted content is not private property, being a publicly granted government monopoly with limited purposes in the first place. Of course, this is very different than trade secret property or any other private / secret data individuals have right and ownership to. Or, 1) repeal all retroactive term extensions, they were illegal in the first place. 2) Only apply the new "60-year" law (should be 20) only to works created from this day forward. 3) There'll be some middle-works with insanely long term-lengths, oh-well.

Comment Re:First Step (Score 1) 366

That's 1 / 2 the North American problem. The other half is stop using fossil fuel burning vehicles. (bikes, post-grid-update electrics, stay at home, maybe hydrogen)

Of course, my boss claims solar based on mirrors (not the chemically polluting photovoltaics) can displace nuclear in places where hydro isn't feasible. But I say build out the nukes first then worry about something better. We know fossil fuels are going to end us, I'd rather lose a couple cities every 200 years than the entire human race.

Slashdot Top Deals

You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about 10^12 to 1. -- Ernest Rutherford