Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment For as smart as he is (Score 1) 264

Musk once in a while misses a trick. The media reports on NEWS. Regular people dying in regular auto crashes is normal - it happens every day, so unless it's a particularly bloody or strange crash it's not new.

Autonomous cars are a brand new thing, and when a brand new thing kills people, it's news.

He may or may not be right (I actually think it'll have little to no real effect), but it's hardly surprising.

Comment Mail-only voting (Score 3, Interesting) 454

Senator, you do know there's a REASON we went to the secret ballot originally, right? Because without it, a political figure who wants to buy votes can easily see if the people he bribed or threatened did what he wanted. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-vote-that-failed-159427766/?no-ist)

I've long considered Oregon insane for going to all-mail-in voting, for precisely that reason. I can easily imagine a union getting all their members together and 'helping' them vote. Under the guise of pressuring everyone to vote, they'd actually be pressuring everyone to vote for the candidate that they wanted.

Even if they don't do anything overtly illegal, peer pressure is a powerful thing, and a secret ballot nicely end-runs around it by making it so that you can lie to people about who you voted for, if you like.

Comment Re:I just don't get it... (Score 1) 47

Because it doesn't affect the bottom line. Until it hurts the manufacturer to be insecure, they won't give a crap. These Chinese companies are the 'commodity -whatever-' business. That means pushing the costs of design and production as close to zero as physically possible. So unless their existing customer base suddenly decides to sue them for their incompetence, or a regulation appears that makes them fix it, or new customers simply stop buying, they have ZERO reason to change anything.

Comment Are they big enough? (Score 1) 111

Is Mozilla big enough (in the form of Firefox) for the rouge CA in question to care what Mozilla does? I've no idea whose numbers are reliable, but the first set I found indicated that Firefox has less than an 8 percent share of the browser market, with IE @ ~27% and Chrome @ ~53. If that's even close to true, is Mozilla taking an action like this relevant? Or will it just push people into dropping Firefox?

Comment Re:Easy back-up solution (Score 1) 149

Just use email to send stories to people who are interested. No web server needed. Problem solved. New subscribers from word of mouth. Cheap, easy, effective.

Useless. Without the ability for someone to link to the story it can't get large-scale play - going viral can't really happen via e-mail these days.

Comment Re:Gig economy = absolving corporate responsibilit (Score 1) 108

Gig economy is ultimately about absolving corporate responsibility and offloading traditional costs of employment on society while retaining control of the profits and money flow.

Historically, corporations were responsible for worker well-being. Work accidents, unemployment insurance, disability and illness, old age benefits were all part of the pay package. This was fought for and won by unions during early industrial age (aka the robber-baron age). Over past 30 years corporations fought hard to reverse these gains. First, pensions were absolved. Now, with this gig economy the rest of protections are being removed. We already have undischargable student dept.

At this rate, we will be back to debt slavery, compelled work, and company towns in another decade or so. Only this time it will be "gig economy" and "enabled entrepreneurship" or some other PR BS.

One point: old age benefits are seriously problematic under the old system - ask anyone whose pension vanished in a puff of bankruptcy.

While I'll certainly agree with your basic point that the Gig economy is about employers weaseling out of their responsibilities, I'll also make the assertion that the employer should NOT be running any of these things themselves (having seen the bills my co-workers got when our employer stopped putting money into the 'self-insurance' pot). They should be PAYING for them, just not RUNNING them.

Comment "Will be"? (Score 2) 206

"impossible to know when that inflexion point will be reached" - who says it's ever going to get there? There's a LOT of skepticism about the security of this kind of transaction, coupled with the fact that it really doesn't solve a problem the consumer has - it's not simpler than a credit card transaction (you still have to take a token out of your pocket, and perhaps type a pin or whatever). It's not particularly faster for the consumer, and it doesn't cost the consumer any less money.

If you want something to take off, it's got to be BETTER in some way than what went before (or, you have to cut off the thing that went before so the consumer doesn't have a choice). Neither of those things is happening, so why does this guy assume that it's ever going to take off? I kind of assume it WON'T at this point.

Comment If you thought it wasn't going to change... (Score 1) 94

Then you're either not very smart, or you've been paying ZERO attention for the last decade or two.

Facebook didn't buy Whatsapp because they like their logo - they bought them to monetize them somehow.
The way Facebook USUALLY monetizes things is to learn as much about you as possible, and then sell ads targeting you.

It's hardly surprising that Facebook would start to try to make use of any data that Whatsapp has. And remember that Facebook acts as though it things privacy is a thing for other people - not for you.

Comment Oh no. (Score 3, Insightful) 140

Yet another thing that will draw a bunch of people who can't think into programming.

Guys, the languages are NOT the root of the problems we have (they don't necessarily HELP, but they aren't the problem). The problem is people who can't wrap their heads around what they are doing, or the problem they are trying to solve, or the fact that they actually have to check their own work.

The problem isn't the languages, it's the people.

Comment If I thought it would help... (Score 5, Insightful) 279

I'd be all for it. I just don't take DHS as being competent enough to actually make a real difference. In fact, I suspect they'd just add layers of policy and procedure that would further interfere with making sure our elections are fair.

Yes, elections are critical, but NO, DHS isn't the right people to try to make it any better.

Slashdot Top Deals

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