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:Yes. (Score 2, Interesting) 277

I have to say I don't understand your logic there. So you want people who struggled with the core CS material, and just barely managed to graduate by working harder than average over the people who were good enough to be able to skate through? I understand that you want someone who is willing to work hard for the company, but you want that hard work to actually produce something too. There are far too many people out there with CS degrees that can't keep up. I'd rather have the one who slacked off a bit in college because the coursework was too easy and boring to them, than five people who struggled but worked hard to get a degree. As for the original post, in my experience, both personally and from conversations with other companies' hiring managers, after you have worked for 2-3 years beyond graduation, your grades mean nothing. As for the rest of your post, you are correct that there is often a huge difference between working for a large company versus a small company. I have worked in both, and you're right, it is nice to have the flexibility (and power) of working at a smaller company, as it keeps things interesting, but the hours and budget can be frustrating (long hours, smaller/no budget for your projects). At a large company, it is just the opposite, it is no longer *my* department (though the management is very responsive to good ideas), but I don't get wake-up calls from users at 3 AM anymore, can actually take a vacation, and the department has a much larger budget. With the small company, design decisions often came down to "What do we already have that we can use for this?" for things like which database system to use, where with the larger company I'm at now, the question is "Which product is the best for what we need?" and if we don't have it, we buy it. A purchase that would have been more than my annual budget for the entire IT department at the small company is taken care of with a 20 minute meeting. Plus, salary negotiations are easier when your salary is less than a percent of the company's income.

Why Software Sucks, And Can Something Be Done About It? 498

CPNABEND tipped us to a story carried on the Fox News site, pointing out that a lot of programmers don't understand their users. David Platt, author of the new book 'Why Software Sucks ... And What You Can Do About It', looks at the end user experience with end user eyes. While technically inclined individuals tend to want control, Platt argues, most people just want something that works. On the other hand, the article also cites David Thomas, executive director of the Software & Information Industry Association. His opinion: Users don't know what they want. From the article: "'You don't want your customers to design your product,' he said. 'They're really bad at it.' As more and more software becomes Internet-based, he said, companies can more easily monitor their users' experiences and improve their programs with frequent updates. They have a financial incentive to do so, since more consumer traffic results in higher subscription or advertising revenues." Where does your opinion lay? Should software 'just work', or are users too lazy?
The Courts

Luxpro Sues Apple for Damages and 'Power Abuse' 62

Dystopian Rebel writes "The Financial Times reports that Taiwanese company Luxpro (discussed on Slashdot last year) intends to sue Apple for US$100M for 'lost revenue caused by Apple's abuse of their global power.' In 2005, Apple obtained an injunction against Luxpro's Super Shuffle/Super Tangent but the Taiwanese Supreme Court has overturned the injunction, opening the door to Luxpro's legal action. From the article: 'The [Luxpro] product had almost the same measurements and weight, came in a white plastic casing and had similar buttons on the front. Its name, Super Shuffle, also closely resembled the original.'"


Corey Stewart writes: "


Contact: Corey Stewart
Cell Phone: 682/597-5679

Brokenhearted and Homeless, Just Days After Christmas, a Dallas Man's New Year's Resolution is to Keep his Spirits High and to Make a Million Dollars.

Dallas, TX. — For many, New Year's resolutions have been ambitious decisions to lose weight, to quit smoking, to get out of debt, or to find a new job. When a man found himself brokenhearted and evicted from his home just days after Christmas, he set himself an even loftier goal, to keep his head up and to make a million dollars!

Just three days after Christmas, in a story that reads like a comical, tear jerker movie, a Dallas man's girlfriend suddenly ended their two and a half year relationship and ousted him from their place of residence. Depressed and dejected, Corey Stewart made a New Year's resolution to turn every negative into a positive for an entire year. "I'd just finished reading Shad Helmstetter's 'What to Say When You Talk To Yourself' and vowed to turn my life around," explains Stewart with a confident smile. "I simply make up my mind, speak positively to myself, and then do it."

Stewart did just that. Less than 48 hours later he decided to make a million dollars through a website that modeled the successful Stewart's site contains an image of the former couple, which will slowly be replaced by paid advertisements that are displayed over the picture. Pixel by pixel the negative is turned into a positive.

When asked about his motivation, Stewart replied, "I do this with no ill will towards her. Whether the site succeeds or fails does not matter. I'm simply turning my life around with a well timed New Year's Resolution. What's more important to me is the hope to inspire others not to give into despair but instead to see the opportunities in the worst of times."

Stewart's website can be viewed at


If you would like additional information or would like to schedule an interview with Corey Stewart, please call him at 682/597-5679 or email at"

Submission + - Microsoft's Ray Ozzie comments on buying Xensource

spacepimp writes: Boycott-Novell has a posting of a comment accredited to Ray Ozzie, regarding the move of Microsoft to purchase Xensource. If this is authentic, this is another major loss for opensource and another reason to despise Microsoft and to boycott Novell. isition-of-xensource-confirmed-by-ray-ozzie/
User Journal

Journal Journal: 2007: The ultimate computer of the future predictions

It is 2007, and technology continues to advance at an amazing pace. But to what end? What would the ultimate computer of the future be capable of? Using the paradigm of today's PC's, I propose the following measures for determining that we have built an "ultimate computer":
1. Even with its throughput maxed out, it would take you a lifetime (~80 years) to fill the capacity alloted when you purchased the system (might not require local storage).
2. The computer can run all available


Submission + - Diet Pills

Nitack writes: Diet pill makers just got spanked by the Federal Trade Comission today. The FTC levied a $25 million fine for false advertising on four diet pill makers. Apparently psudo-science and testimonials are not considered scientific proof any more! FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras asserted that "They not only didn't have studies to support the claim, they actually had a study that went the other way." The fines are targeted against marketers of Xenadrine EFX, One A Day Weight Smart, CortiSlim and TrimSpa. Looks like Anna Nicole may be out of a job.

Submission + - Ajax Or Flex? How to select an RIA technology

Ryan Stewart writes: "After taking a look at a Forrester Paper on choosing Rich Internet Application technologies, I came away with some thoughts that the Slashdot crowd might be able to chime in on. Will the sheer number of Ajax frameworks confuse people and make them look in other directions when building web applications?"

Submission + - Army "Smellcheck" Sniffs Terrorists &

docinthemachine writes: "Cutting edge military R&D from DARPA has developed a way to smell out bad guys- literally. Move over fingerprints and biometrics- this is what I call "smellcheck". Darpa's "Unique Signature Detection Project (formerly known as the Odortype Detection program)" aims to sniff out genetic markers in "human emanations (urine, sweat, etc.)" that "can be used to identify and distinguish specific high-level-of-interest individuals within groups of enemy troops." There is real science behind this. Specific molecules excreted in urine were related to MHC molecules. The MHC (major histocompatibility complex) antigens are molecules on the surface of cells that the body uses to recognize self vs non-self. The MHC genes are the genes that code for these molecules. Whena person is "matched" for an organ or bone marrow transplant these are the factors that are being matched. Therefore- this new military technology being used to sniff out terrorists in a group could be used to rapidly and noninvasively screen large groups of people for potential transplant matches. This medical concept has already been tested in mice and appears to work. Just get ready to have your arm pits sniffed at the border to see if you are a suspected terrorist. That's another bad job for the list. You can read further details at at"

Submission + - Ray Ozzie on Novell Acquisition of XenSource

An anonymous reader writes: Ray Ozzie has just revealed one of Microsoft's fruits from its deal with Novell. On the face of it, Novell is set to acquire XenSoruce. From the ongoing discussions: 'They (Novell) will release a new ZENworks Q1 for application virtualization on Windows and Suse. Novell also has the only reliable Identity Management, and Directory that scales the Enterprise... Also consider that if Microsoft purchased XenSource directly then VMWare and the other virtualization vendors would rightly scream "Antitrust"'

Slashdot Top Deals

Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest way of selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless. -- Sinclair Lewis