Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:IT causes the helpdesk requests for Windows PCs (Score 1) 482

Amen. My department is a software development group (we write C++ for external customers). Back in the day when our computers were locally administrated, we were doing just fine, with a minimum of helpdesk support needed. Then they decided this was unacceptable, and we needed to work with the same systems that the guys in the factory use. Those people work in manufacturing - they build stuff with their hands, and only occasionally read an email on their PCs.

Since that time productivity has dropped sharply in development. We cannot install new tools, nor get them from IT services. We cannot install updates to existing tools either. We cannot even build and test installers, even though that is very much part of our job. We cannot remove icons from the desktop, that requires administrative rights. We cannot use HTTPS. Some internet services work fine when connected to the wired network, others only when connected through the wireless, so all day long I'm switching between the two. Other internet services either don't work at all, or only very slowly, so any interaction with something that is not on a local disk is an exercise in frustration: does it work at all? Is the problem that it's blocked on our end, or is the remote site out? Am I connected to the right network? Do I just need to wait longer?

Opening tickets with the IT services guys is pointless - they are in another country, and consider us to be unimportant. I'm sure it is all incredibly secure. In fact, it's so secure that I'm beginning to re-evaluate whether I want to work there or not...

Comment Re:How can that possibly be legal? (Score 1) 301

If that doesn't disable the car, everything is fine. If it does disable the car, it's excellent ground for a court case. What's your point?

Are we really going to accept a society where manufacturers have ultimate power over every item you own? "You may own a house, but you will accept having cameras controlled by us in every room". "You may own a swimming pool, but we will verify that only you and your family swim in it. An extra visitor license is $2000/year". "You may own a barbeque, but only for personal food preparation."

Madness, that's what it is.

Comment How can that possibly be legal? (Score 1) 301

Once you buy it, it is YOUR CAR, and you can do with it whatever you please. Tesla has no right whatsoever to constrict what you can do with your car. That's what "selling" means: giving up ownership rights. And before you ask: no, you are not "merely licensing" the car.

Next up: supermarket tells you buying potatoes is fine, but not if you plan to serve them in a restaurant...

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 244

I'm not sure why I would have to explain that, since I didn't claim any of that. The OP claimed that a human could not possibly land a moon lander. That's BS - humans _did_ in fact land a moon lander, on the first attempt, succesfully, while the computer was busy crashing. That same human decided he didn't want to land in a field of boulders and veered of course to another landing spot. So far that hasn't been achieved by computers either.

Comment Re:At what cost? (Score 1) 886

The proponents of UBI, I'm not one, seem to believe that the money can be found by:
- Eliminating all existing forms of social security. In fact this is a major reason often stated for UBI: it "simplifies" the rules to the point that you don't even need people overseeing it. Which leads us to:
- Reduced overhead. Apparently they believe that several trillions are currently being spent on "overhead".
- And finally, of course you'd be able to tax all those people since they now have income.

So in the end, you take away money from the people who actually need it, spread it over a far larger group including a great many people who do NOT need it, thus leaving everyone in the first group with far too little to live on. And what little you get, you need to return in the form of taxes in order to pay for the whole scheme.

Then they point at "succesful" trials, without mentioning that no single trial was so succesful that it was continued to this day, and without mentioning that all of those trials relied on money being poured in from outside.

We haven't even begun to discuss what such a scheme would do to society as a whole - if you pay people to do nothing, is there going to be any kind of progress? Will there be anyone left for the less pleasant, but nonetheless necessary jobs? Or hell, for any kind of work? Will it be acceptable for foreigners to enter the country and receive UBI, or will a 'wall' be necessary?

Comment Re:Good for India (Score 1) 813

A country is the personal fiefdom of a small, rich oligarchy. Any possible semblance of shared history, identity, or cultural values should at all times be avoided, and if discovered anyway, must be destroyed through indoctrination, mass immigration, and any other means available. The purpose of the people living in a country is to provide cheap labor and easy income through the maximum possible level of taxation. Randomly applied laws will make it clear to them who's boss. Personal profit shall at all times overrule any consideration for the health of the country. And anyone who questions this state of affairs shall be ridiculed and have his public image destroyed.

Slashdot Top Deals

God made machine language; all the rest is the work of man.