Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:So Oracle discriminated (Score 5, Insightful) 190

It is true that the article is written poorly, but Oracle is in fact discriminating against everybody. This is true of many companies.

The way it works is simple:
The managers are racist. They pay X group more - usually white men.

But the company does not WANT to pay a lot of money. So the Hiring managers are told to actively find people that are not white men. Then they offer these hiring less money.

To work like this it requires a wide spread racism among hiring companies combined with a slightly desperate population.

Honestly, if they stop there, it's not that bad. They sift off the cream of desperate people, helping them out. Theoretically the company would end up dominated by the disadvantaged group.

But it doesn't stop. What happens next is the real problem, internal discrimination.:

When it comes time to promote people, they only promote the X group (white men). After all. those were the people getting paid the most and who, because of internal discrimination, were given both the best opportunities and the most credit.

So you end up with a racist company paying X group more, while proudly proclaiming how many minorities they hire - even while they underpay them.

Comment He cheated OTHER players (Score 5, Insightful) 399

When you play baccarat, you are playing against other customers, never the Casino's money.

Did the casino return the money to the other PLAYERS he cheated?

Or did they simply keep the ill-gotten gains?

Also, he deserved to keep the money he won in other games. That was bull. Money is fungible, he made those bets and won.

Comment Busses, Street Sweepers and Garbage Trucks (Score 3, Insightful) 79

They drive the same route day after day, they don't need to go fast, they are either owned by the city or by companies that have major relationships with the city so they can avoid major regulatory hurdles.

These are the obvious first adopters of driverless technology.

2020 should see a quick reduction in the number of bus and similar drivers.

By the time I retire, I hope to be able to afford one of those high end driverless cars.

Comment noticing a flaw in the cards is NOT "too good". (Score 1) 2

He noticed a flaw in the casino's preferred cards and took advantage of that. The fact that the casino agreed to which set of cards to use does not negate the fact that this person cheated the people he was playing against.

Being skilled and smart should be rewarded, but being unethical should be punished.

Note, the casino should have returned the money to the people that lost, the article did not mention if they did that.

Comment Bad headline (Score 5, Insightful) 70

I was all set to rag on them for only having 'thousands', when the article stated Hundreds of thousands. Big difference. Most people I know have thousands of dollars in the bank - rent cost more than 1 thousand, after all. But not many people have hundreds of thousands.

Hundreds of thousands means they actually are letting every day Cubans use the internet, rather than just government officials.

Comment Re:Capitalism works, SLOWLY (Score 1) 372

Psst. I have here a generic "EppiPen". Just inject it into your muscle whenever you have an allergic reaction. Ignore the words "Heroin", can't you see it's been crossed out?

In this case, both the drug and the delivery system are extremely risky. The drug can cause a heart attack and the delivery system has to work through clothing when used by totally panicked, almost untrained people.

Comment Re:So you don't die of cancer... (Score 1) 210

1) Lobsters do age. Their life expectancy is between 30 and 50 years in the wild. While it is true that they do not get wrinkles (shell), even during the 50 years they live, they slowly weaken. Often they lose the ability to molt.

2) Lobsters get cancer.

So the lobster says "He's right, aging is how creatures deal with cancer."

Comment Re:So you don't die of cancer... (Score 1) 210

There are three reasons why reduced cancer death rate is important.

1) Cancer is an expensive, long, painful death. Let me have a heart attack, please.

2) Cancer is the reason we age. The entire aging process is an attempt by the body to stop cells from reproducing without limit (i.e. cancer). We can't stop aging until after we cure cancer.

3) Cancer gets all the big money and press. Once we defeat it, we can put our resources into other illnesses.

Comment Re:Safety first? (Score 1) 121

Tell me again how lenses can both see things as small as bacteria and also see things as far away as other planets.

Oh, wait, those are two similar but different instances of a class of technology, optimized for strikingly different purposes.

Also, fire can both cook meat AND light your home, but not the same fire. And Nitroglycerin can both protect your heart and blow up things.

Comment Re:Misguided Priorities (Score 1) 303

You are making a really bad assumption - that they can't cut the FM spectrum in half, use the digital version to maintain the existing number of stations. That frees up VALUABLE spectrum to give to other technology.

We desperately need radio spectrum for other services. Ever have trouble using bluetooth? Not enough spectrum. Cell phone can't connect? not enough spectrum.

Comment Re: Just to screw with Trump (Score 1) 110

False. The government has evidence. Some they have released (the code was written in Russian, using Russian idioms that non-native speakers are not likely to use), and some they have not released for national security reasons.

The released evidence may not be convincing, but at the very minimum, they do have some evidence. The deniers have no evidence and more importantly, HAVE MADE NO ATTEMPT TO GET ANY EVIDENCE.

Comment Re:Not that all the science is wrong. Gore made $1 (Score 2) 110

You demonstrate incredible ignorance.

1) Politicians are not as stupid as you think. They can find green products that actually make money. Yes some fail - so does some of any market segment. In general the green initiatives are just as profitable as any other business. If they were all scams, smart people would invade the market and out-compete the idiots,

2) While it is true that millions go to green companies, billions go to non-green companies. This is obvious to anyone that looks at the economy (Five of the ten largest companies in the world are oil companies, plus an electrical grid and 2 car companies). When you make that much money it is EASY to get government subsidies. But they call them tax breaks, rather than subsidies

3) In this case it is not a case of both sides being bad. Instead it is a clear case of an older established industry doing everything it can to stop a new technology that they are afraid is going to kill them. The new tech struggles to compete and has to beg the government that has been funneling billions to the old business to give them a few millions so they can survive.

Then the old money says "hey, no fair giving them millions", all without mentioning their own billions.

And you say, "duh, that's not right", in total ignorance of what is really going on.

As of today, 2017, solar is the single most profitable energy source in certain low cloud, high sunlight areas. Granted, most humans don't live in these super hot, dry, parts of the world. But that wasn't true 20 years ago. Come 2030, someone (China and Germany are leading the way), will almost certainly have Solar cheaper than fossil fuels in areas where you have to pipe or ship the natural gas.

But that requires an investment. China and Germany are making it, the question is:

1) Will the US do it also, or will we cede this market to foreigners?

2) If we do it, do we fund it with
A) direct grants (requiring government to make science decisions)
B) or instead via business rules that create a market based profit motive for private investors to do the funding.

I vote for (2B), because I am an American capitalist. if you are a communist, vote (2A). Or Chinese/Russian, vote (1).

Slashdot Top Deals

Been Transferred Lately?