Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Neglect is more likely (Score 1) 99

Nearly right. The "South Vietnamese" government was an illegal and illegitimate device conjured up by Washington to justify its violent intervention. There was a nation called Vietnam. After international talks, an election was scheduled for Vietnam. Washington decided that the Communists were certain to win the election, so it engineered a "rebellion" by a newly-invented entity called "South Vietnam". Insofar as it ever existed, South Vietnam must have seceded from Vietnam, just as Washington maintains

That's a very good summary.

Comment Re: Oh well (Score 1) 186

There are always winners and losers. What amuses me is how you pretend you like birds, when what you really like is not having to do fuck all, and passing the buck to the next generation. And how many species do you imagine will get driven to extinction by spiraling climate change over the next century.

Comment Re:They are chickenshits (Score 1) 54

In part be because it's a horribly corrupt country run by crooks, and in part because it is a petrostate whose economy is largely dependent on oil sales, and because it's run by plundering thieves, there's no sovereign wealth fund, so low oil prices means economic collapse. Furthermore Venezuela cannot hope to raise money because their only friends are other poor Latin American countries, and wealthier investors wouldn't extend them credit.

With the exception of China, which will probably end up owning the country before it's done.

Comment Re:Similar (Score 1) 186

I guess everything is extremist relative to something. What's with all these hypocritical Anti-Murder-Extremists running around saying I can't kill people! SOME OF THOSE HYPOCRITES GIVE LETHAL WEAPONS TO SO CALLED COPS TO STOP PRIVATE CITIZENS FROM KILLING PEOPLE!

Extremism in my view is violence, not demanding a reduction in pollution.

Comment Re:Holy Blinking Cursor, Batman! (Score 2) 198

That's because most "programmers" are utter crap. They don't know their tools. They don't know the language that the program in. They don't stay up-to-date.

I don't "know the tools" or "know the language" until I'm fucking using them. Then I google whatever the fuck it is I need to do using whatever the fuck it is some clown has put in front of me, RTFM, and get it done. Interviews test for the dumbest fucking shit. I for one generally don't care what fucking language or environment I'm in. With documentation (the fucking internet 99.9% of the time) learning how to do X in Y is trivial. Knowing that you need to do X instead of x is the trick. When you give an applicant a test to do X in Y, you're just testing if they know Y and maybe if they have memorized X. You're not finding out if they understand anything or can think critically.

They cannot reason about problems. 95% can't do the simplest of problems. You have to really deep before you find people who can talk about design principles, design by contract, etc.

When your "problems" are all pulled from the same "Shitty Questions and Tests for Shitty Interviews" site/book, what do you expect? If you're looking for people who talk about "design principles" or "design by contract", you're retarded. There are only three design principles: Correct, secure, and fast. There is only one design contract: Deliver X for $Y. If you don't understand what X is or why it's X and not x (even if the customer doesn't, or if the customer asks for X when they need x) then you're gonna have a bad time. See Oracle and IBM and anyone who's ever contracted with them.

You're getting mindless applicants because you're asking mindless questions. You cannot discern a competent programmer/developer from an incompetent one because you're looking for memorization, certifications, etc. Of course, the people conducting the interviews are typically not competent programmers/developers, so they don't know what else to look for or how else to evaluate applicants.

Comment Re:Similar (Score 2) 186

Um, the point is, dare I say this, that there's very hard science and there's soft science. There's findings which are highly testable, repeatedly, and there's findings which are verging on the non-reproduceable.

No. "Soft sciences" refers to fields which arrogant scientists feel are less deserving due to subject matter, not reproducibility. Social sciences are described as soft science.

Your opinion on social science as a "real" science is up to you, but reproducibility is an issue no matter how "hard" the science is.

I used to believe global warming 100% and assume it was all correct, because I normally trust science, but then started to wonder why people were touting consensus and virtual certainty.

Because obviously scientific findings don't change society by themselves. At a bare minimum, you must publish your results or the scientific findings may as well have never been made. With even non-controversial findings, scientists need to do more, results simply don't speak for themselves, you need to write review articles placing the findings in context, issue press statements in journals, present it at a conference. And that's just to get it known within the scientific community in the absence of opposed nefarious interests.

With climate change specifically, you have powerful industries and motivated ideologues trying to cast FUD on the findings. There's an effort to convince the public that it's far from certain. This approach is having it's intended effects. Scientists and people who realize climate change is happening would be idiots to merely keep presenting dry papers when the public is convinced by scumbags in suits saying "Well, they don't REALLY know do they?"

Comment Re:It might not always be partially incorrect (Score 1) 44

It's fucking ridiculous.

"Some Of Hacker Group's Claim Of Having Access To 250M iCloud Account Aren't False"

Let's start with the easiest thing to correct. "250M iCloud Account" should be "250 Million iCloud Accounts".
And while we're telling shitty headlines to fuck off, we can tell them to at least follow their own bullshit rules and not capitalize the first letter of "of". I fucking hate style guides (because they're arbitrary, inconsistent, and ambiguous) but no major style guide (such as AP, Chicago, APA, and MLA) says to capitalize "of" in a headline.
Now let's tackle the core problem here: "Some", "Claim", and "Aren't". As far as I know, we're counting this as a single claim, so we can say that "some" of it "isn't false". If we're counting it as multiple claims, we can say "some" of the "claims" (plural) "aren't false".
For bonus points, we can kill off the double negative as well.

Slashdot Top Deals

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Working...