Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:How dare they hack NY Times reporters! (Score -1, Troll) 61

So...it's NSA's fault when foreign intelligence services conduct espionage against US political parties, media organizations, etc., and actively try to influence the outcomes of US elections, and manipulate the opinions of US citizens? You realize that no matter who wins in November, possibly millions of Americans will believe the election was stolen or rigged, and possibly by foreign influence?

I know, I know -- in this crowd, the US is the enemy, here, and we don't actually need to have any kind of foreign intelligence capability; NSA's sole purpose for being is to figure out ways to illegally spy on Americans so it can solidify the power base of shadowy elites. Or something. Whenever I need to be reminded of just how out of touch many people are with history, reality, or both, I read Slashdot comments.

Comment What is a CEO's job? (Score 4, Insightful) 176

A CEO's job is...

A) Run the company in the most successful way that returns the greatest value over the long run.
B) Run the company in the way that most benefits society and the employees.
C) Create the greatest short term growth in stock prices so the current investors, who control their hiring, can sell and realize a profit.

Given it's the involved, activist shareholders that determine most CEO's hiring and firing - and they're looking for a dramatic change in company value over the short term...

Any CEO who chases A or B is an idiot who's going to ultimately get replaced by shareholders who want a sudden bump in value and then to get the hell out. They don't give a damn about whether the company will be worth more money in ten years because they intend to have sold, bought again when value tanks, sold after a short term solve, bought again when the value tanks... and repeated many times.

How a company does over ten years as a metric of CEO efficiency is just a demonstration of completely missing what CEOs are rewarded for.

The CEO who created a massive short term growth, then left and left the company to tank for a while, is worth that large bill to the shareholders who are trying to get just that.

Also, we don't get ponies just because we really, really want one and it's only fair!

Comment No. This is an unprecedented shit in nothing. (Score 0, Flamebait) 983

It is a remotely-controlled device, jury rigged for a purpose that is not at all its use.

I know people will become uncontrollably outraged about this, but it's a standoff weapon. Just like a spear, a bow and arrow, an explosive tossed through a door or window, a gun, or even a vehicle employed as a weapon.

The legal standard for lethal force is the same. Beware of academics or other commentators who will claim this is some kind of new territory for which there is no legal standard and that we have no idea how to approach.

But by all means: pretend this is an "Unprecedented Shift in Policing" instead of an improvisation under nightmarish circumstances.

Comment As A Manager... (Score 4, Insightful) 765

If I'm doing my job properly as a manager, no one should ever be indispensable.

Highly valued? Sure. I want to build a team where everyone is exceptionally valued.

But if anyone ever becomes indispensable, I've failed in my job as a manager.

Why? The hit by a bus factor. That wonderful employee who loves me, who I love... can still get hit by a bus. Can still get sick. Can still have a loved one die. Can still have a relative offer to pay all expenses for a once in a lifetime six week world trip.

If I have any employee that I can't keep my team running without, even at zero notice, I'm not running my team well.

It may suck. It may be sad. It may require some juggling I'd much rather not do. But any indispensability means I've done my job badly.

This means, if someone quits with zero notice, I can handle it.

At that point, it's actually a good thing anyway. If they're so pissed off that they'd statement quit, I don't need them in the office, poisoning others, dragging their heels through their short timer's disease. Let's get them somewhere where they're happy and get my team of great people back doing great things. We'll live.

Strange thing? When you have a well run team that you can already be confident in, people rarely statement quit anyway. For some reason, they don't seem to feel the need. Imagine that. And when they do? You've got it handled anyway.

Comment Two Way Street (Score 3, Interesting) 765

Does the company give at least two weeks paid notice to everyone it terminates?
Then my minimum will also be two weeks notice.

Does the company usually just tell people to gather their things and pay out the minimum it's legally required to?
Then my minimum will be the same.

Does the company generally give a couple of weeks severance unless for cause?
Then my minimum is also two weeks unless I'm quitting due to their cause.

Does the company have a good standard severance package?
Then I will also give them the option to have my work out longer.

Note: I say minimums. I'm also aware that, as poor as their behavior may be, I've also got my own reputation to watch out for. They may be a bunch of asshats. But my next employer is likely looking for reassurance that they'll get a respectful notice period and my quitting without notice, unless it's really easy to justify, just makes me look bad to future employers who background check.

Comment Data Protection Act (Score 1) 371

"As if this isn't abusive enough, the candidates are not allowed to see nor challenge their report"

The data protection act, 1988, says they are.

You can naively write whatever you feel like into a ToS. But it won't hold us to the first even cursory legal challenge.

The ToS can say, "You grant the landlord the right to enter your apartment and invoke droit de signeur whenever you are passed out drunk." It doesn't make it true or remotely enforceable.

Comment Re: I'm sure Drump is all torn up over it (Score 2) 403

When you're referencing all Mexicans and call them murderers and rapists and some, you assume, are good people... You're a racist.

When you use the possessive to refer to African Americans... OK, then you're probably just ignorant.

When you call out Hiliary over Bill's infidelity yet the woman you're having an affair with gets caught screwing someone else under a lifeguard tower... You're a hypocrite as well as a cuckhold.

When you tell everyone how successful a businessman you are, having vastly lost money compared to if you'd just invested the money daddy gave you in the S&P500 and then claim the tax credit for earning UNDER $500K in NYC for each of the last three years, to go along with your many corporate and personal bankruptcies, you're a failure.

Though, actually, to be fair, I doubt he is a racist. To be a racist, you have to hold those beliefs. He's just hitched his wagon to those who hold them. He fits the definition of a sociopathic narcissist, a very scared and shallow little man who'll say and do whatever it takes to get what he needs.

In that regard, I actually feel sorry for the racists who do vote for him...

Those who vote against him always knew he was a sociopathic narcissist.

Those who vote for him, who really hoped he meant whatever he spouted to get their vote, are going to be the ones left with a far nastier shock when they no longer empower him and he needs to chase someone else.

When he bashed the Muslims, I said nothing because I wasn't a Muslim.

When he came for the Mexicans, I said nothing because I wasn't a Mexican.

And when he came for my guns, there was no one left to speak up for me.

Comment Re: Obamaism (Score 4, Insightful) 403

I'm going to agree with you but only in the hopes we can become friends and you connect me with whoever sold you what you were smoking.

Neither party is who they were in twenty years ago. If you look at the degree of polarization, even then, there were some who could work across the aisles.

Go back as far as St Ronald and you get someone with more in common with current democrats than republicans.

Go twenty years further back and you have broadly un recognizable parties pivoting on some of their traditional issues as other of their traditional issues drove them to do so.

Go back half a century more and you've got parties no modern zealot could agree with as each held political territory that deeply appeals and deeply disgusts each of the current parties.

Just because a party once did something the better part of a century or two ago really means nothing in a world where 20-30 years can make a party unrecognizable to many of its old stalwarts.

Or, you know, whatever your talk radio of choice tells you.

Now can I get some of that weed?

Comment People In Need (Score 5, Interesting) 127

"The other more obvious risk is that such a system could take jobs away from those in need."

Social Media Nipple Checkers Local 857, like my father and his father before him.

It's hard work on the Internet nippleface but we're a proud people.

Some people might say it's false drama, lamenting the decline of an industry that only goes back a dozen years but we original "ought fourer families" as we like to call ourselves have never known any other way.

I have friends in who were Internet Radio DJs for the four hours that was a thing until smart playlists replaced them. Many of them have never found employment since.

Comment Finally! New Functionality! (Score 5, Funny) 304

I've got a few years old Samsung Smart TV.

Every month or two, I get a notice about another service being discontinued. I think I'm down to maybe three whole apps that still work on it.

Sure, these are invasive ads that weren't a part of the product I bought. But at least Samsung is finally adding in place of their constant stripping of functionality.

When you're a Smart TV owner, you take victories where you can find them.

Submission + - Prominent civil liberties expert says he and Snowden were wrong on NSA 1

An anonymous reader writes: Last week, Geoffrey Stone, a longtime civil liberties stalwart, Constitutional scholar at the University of Chicago, and member of the National Advisory Council of the American Civil Liberties Union, moderated a live discussion with Edward Snowden from Russia. As a member of the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, Stone was given unfettered access to unfettered access to our national security apparatus, and told the NSA what he thought. This week, Stone offered more detail on his own findings that only someone with direct knowledge can provide: "So before I began the work on the review group, my general view was that, from what I learned in the media, the NSA had run amok and created these programs without appropriate approval or authorization or review. And whatever I thought of the merits of the programs, my assumption was that it was illegitimate because it didn't have appropriate review and approval. What surprised me the most was that this was completely wrong. [...] The more I worked with the NSA, the more respect I had for them as far as staying within the bounds of what they were authorized to do. And they were careful and had a high degree of integrity. My superficial assumption of the NSA being a bad guy was completely wrong. [...] I came to the view that they were well intentioned, that they were designed in fact to collect information for the purpose of ferreting out potential terrorist plots both in the U.S. and around the world and that was their design and purpose." Stone provided detail and examples, including rationale and justifications for the review group's findings, and concluded that Snowden "was unduly arrogant, didn't understand the limitations of his own knowledge and basically decided to usurp the authority of a democracy."

Slashdot Top Deals

Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards. -- Aldous Huxley

Working...