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:Security. (Score 1) 259

For the ICMP thing, I can't imagine how going along with that order from a high-up manager would be "criminally negligent". In fact (I am not a networking engineer BTW), according to my quick research on stackoverflow, networks absolutely *can* work with ICMP blocked, just not well, and it makes it hard to debug some things. A lot of corporate networks seem to be partly broken anyway, and corporate computers running McAfee software are broken but sorta-working too, so running a network this way wouldn't be the end of the world.

Now I should hope that it didn't seem that I was advocating being actually *criminally negligent* in going along with managers' orders. That's an entirely different level. Going along with the company shooting itself in the foot (after documenting it well so you can CYA when the SHTF, and after raising an initial objection but caving after management insists) is entirely different from going along with orders to do something outright criminal. I only advocate not going to heroic lengths to help the company avoid shooting itself in the foot when its own high-up management is insisting on it, because most likely it's just going to result in your termination. If they're ordering you to do criminal things, you need to go to the police or other government authorities, and simultaneously start looking for a new job.

Comment Re: so what? (Score 1) 101

States' rights? I guess you don't care about cities' rights. The NC law was passed specifically because of an anti-discriminatory law passed in an NC city, to override that law. It's no different than the Federal government passing a law to override a state law.

But I guess you don't care about cities' rights.

Comment Re: so what? (Score 1) 101

You're a moron. The electorate in Charlotte didn't ask for a law that overrode their own city law, and was aimed specifically at that. Apparently, conservative morons like you are all for Big Centralized Government when it means they get hateful morality laws passed. On top of that, the voters of NC apparently *didn't* want this law because they immediately voted McCrory out of office as a result of the flap.

Comment Re:In this economy? (Score 4, Insightful) 562

I disagree about the physical clutter bit; I actually like having the real CDs for my music. I buy stuff on CD, then rip it to Ogg to be used on my various devices. However, there's some giant differences from cassettes:

1) CDs actually have excellent sound quality, better even than the MP3 digital downloads sold at places like Amazon.
2) CDs don't degrade when you play them.
3) CDs come with booklets that frequently have the lyrics, artwork, etc. Of course, cassettes do too, but theirs suck because the format is different. CD booklets are a nice format that's about 1/4 the size of an old LP booklet, and has a nice square aspect ratio. Cassette inserts have a terrible aspect ratio and (at least back in the 80s/90s when I used to see stuff sold both ways and was able to compare) is usually missing a lot of stuff compared to the CD version.

But you're absolutely right that there's no rational reason to use cassettes. There's absolutely nothing better about them compared to other formats. They're awful; the size is terrible, the sound quality is terrible (it was terrible even when they were current; I remember well the tape hiss problem), they wear out, you can't skip tracks, you have to rewind them, etc. This truly is a case of simple retro hipsterism, nothing more.

Comment Re: No headphone jack ... (Score 1) 205

and user replaceable batteries (justified by water resistance features very few people demanded, though I'm one of theach few who actually needed it).

This is flat wrong.

1) User-replaceable batteries do not make it impossible to make a phone water resistant. My Samsung Galaxy S5 is proof of this.

2) LOTS of people demanded this; so many, in fact, that Apple was finally forced to give in and make their latest iPhones water-resistant.

The only reasons to eliminate user-replaceable batteries are to save cost, and maybe to profit from expensive battery-replacement services.

Some design choices anymore are due to technological progress, most these days are to make more money. This is due to a consumer market that seems to adopt almost anything thrown at them.

This is mostly true, but Apple's adoption of water-resistance in their iPhones does show that consumers still exercise some power. Apple could easily have continued to tell their cultist customers that they don't need that feature, but since it was being offered in several other high-end phones for several years, they could only get away with that for so long.

Comment Re:Make the banks take the risk when an driver hit (Score 1) 134

What part of my statement implied I thought Trump was going to do any better?

You didn't, but you implied that the people could vote for someone who would do better.

My assertion is that they can't. The system is too broken for that to happen. It simply isn't feasible to get someone who will do better, with the way our election systems work.

they'll base their entire vote based if there's an R or a D at the end of the name.

And they have to, because of first-past-the-post voting. It's simply mathematically impossible to have anything besides two dominant parties with such a voting system, so we're stuck with it until we somehow manage to get the Rs and Ds to pass a constitutional amendment reducing their power by changing the voting system to something else.

Comment Re:The dangers... (Score 1) 133

And we have NO WAY to change that trajectory anyhow.

Sure we do, or at least we would if we invested some resources into the project. If we spotted city-killers like this far out enough (with enough warning time), it's entirely possible to change their trajectory through various means: solar sails, painting them white, strapping a rocket engine to the side, etc. But we need to know about it well, well in advance so we can accurately predict whether it's a threat, and then work on modifying its trajectory over the course of years to reduce that threat. That can't be done if we're too stupid to invest some resources into looking for these NEOs and also developing measures to redirect them safely. But if we as a species are so dumb we'd rather invest all our resources into making nuclear weapons to bully each other with instead of making ways to protect ourselves from cosmic threats to our species, then maybe we deserve to get wiped out by an asteroid like the dinosaurs.

Comment Re:Minor damage (Score 1) 133

Pedantic note: The bomb dropped on Hiroshima wasn't "nuclear", it was "atomic". "Nuclear" (in the context of bombs) is short for "thermonuclear", which is a type of bomb that uses nuclear fusion to achieve most of its yield. They accomplish this using a smaller fission bomb to set off the fusion part of the bomb. "Atomic" bombs are fission-only devices with generally much smaller yields.

Comment Re:Make the banks take the risk when an driver hit (Score 0) 134

If you would like to see the DoJ throw more CEOs in prison for wrong doing of their companies, demand it of your elected officials and vote them out if the refuse.

The DoJ under Obama hasn't been very strong on this, and people have now voted for Trump. If you think Trump's DoJ is going to do any better, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Comment Re:Finally! (Score 1) 399

No, it doesn't, that's just you trying to push an agenda. The debate here is who's a worse CEO. "Worse" isn't defined here, but I'm assuming that "incompetence" is the measure of "worse", and by that measure Carly is the worst of the lot. Fraudsters aren't incompetent (unless they incompetently perpetrate their fraud of course).

And if you're trying to argue ethicality, I fail to see how Fiorina or Mayer are any more ethical than Theranos. They're all morally bankrupt people. People who become CEOs generally are.

Comment Re:Finally! (Score 1) 399

Wow, this is a stupid post.

We're discussing female tech CEOs here (with the discussion starter being "who's worst?"), so obviously it's going to be a comparison between various female tech CEOs to argue which one is worst. Male CEOs can't be compared here because we're talking about females.

Maybe you should leave adult discussions like this to us college-educated folks since this seems to be a hard concept for you.

But since you allege sexism, there's no shortage of shitty male tech CEOs (and male CEOs in general). Stephen Elop is a good example here from recent years. Steve Ballmer of MS is another one. Tim Cook I think is a great example; he's really running Apple into the ground it seems. In the last decade and outside of tech, Home Depot's ex-CEO Bob Nardelli was widely reviled as running that company into the ground.

As for Hillary, yes, she absolutely did do a terrible job, as did the entire Democratic Party. That's why they lost to the second most unpopular candidate in history (she's the most). They stuck a knife in the back of Bernie's campaign (as shown by the leaked emails), and pushed a horribly unpopular and flawed candidate at all costs, and didn't even bother campaigning in a bunch of states they thought were "safe" (e.g. Pennsylvania), and as a result, a bunch of people voted 3rd-party and a bunch more just sat at home (see the turnout numbers in comparison to 2008). They completely failed to learn from recent history: Democratic presidential candidates have lost election after election in the past several decades because they were uncharismatic and unpopular: Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. They won with Bill Clinton and Obama, and what do those two have in common? They're both highly charismatic. Obama also did a masterful job of campaigning, and he energized the under-30 vote, getting them to turn out in record numbers. It was obvious early on that Hillary just couldn't do that, and had no love from the Millennials, but Bernie did (despite being even older). Even worse, Hillary and her campaign were outright condescending to young people, telling people it was their duty to vote for her because "it's her turn", "I'm with her" (not exactly a message that tells you why the candidate is worth voting for), that you're a sexist if you don't vote for her, etc. It was no surprise that she lost, and ultra-liberal filmmaker Michael Moore even predicted it long before the election. It wasn't bigotry that cost Hillary the election, it was the fact that she was a terrible candidate who reeked of corruption and seemed to be a warmonger, and this just wasn't enough to get people to get up and get out to the polls to vote for her. Meanwhile, a significant part of the country has been left behind by economic changes and they really thought a crappy businessman could actually fix things for them because he spoke their language and told them what they wanted to hear, so he actually had a lot of enthusiasm on his side. No one was enthusiastic about Hillary, except for a few idiotic sycophants like you; the vast majority of people who voted for her did so out of fear of the "worse evil", and historically that strategy has not gone well for Democrats. It works fine for the Republicans because conservative voters will happily go vote for someone just because of a single issue, whether it's gay marriage or guns or abortion or whatever. That doesn't work with liberal voters; they need to be inspired to vote for someone they believe in, because apparently they have higher standards (and of course more idealism). Too bad the DNC is too incompetent and stupid to understand this and back the candidate who actually does inspire people, rather than the corporate whore.

Comment Re:Finally! (Score 1) 399

No. Carly is the worst.

Holmes managed to build up a company from nothing into something hugely valuable. It of course turned out to be a giant fraud in the end, but she did at least manage to turn nothing into something for a while.

Pao? I'm not sure I see how she was ever bad at all. She ran an internet forum site for a while, and due to the nature of Reddit and all its hugely diverse discussion groups, it's a lot like herding cats and she ran into some big problems and finally left. Maybe she could have done better, I don't know. Either way, Reddit is still just fine today and still hugely popular, so she certainly didn't run it into the ground.

Neither of these rise to the level of destruction that Carly accomplished by pushing for a merger of HP and Compaq, destroying the great company that was HP and turning it into a purveyor of shitty laptops. She took a solid, excellent company and ran it into the ground, leaving it much worse off than it was before. That, to me, makes her the worst female tech CEO of all time. Mayer doesn't deserve this distinction; the company she took over was already a shitty has-been and it's unlikely anyone could have done anything great with it. She certainly didn't do anything good with it, but it's just not comparable to Carly and the way she ruined HP.

Comment Re:Finally! (Score 1) 399

That's not that debatable, in my opinion. Carly is worse, much worse.

Mayer took over a company that was already a big has-been, and ran it into the ground. It's doubtful anyone else would have succeeded in really turning it around, it's just a question of whether they could have done a better job extracting value from it (at the point that she took over) or turning into something that performed better by excising the stale parts.

Carly took over a great company that made great products (HP) and ran it into the ground, splitting off the parts that made excellent T&M gear and medical equipment, and keeping the part that made crappy computing gear to compete with low-cost Asian companies. She did this largely by forcing an expensive merger with Compaq, which at that point was a lot like Yahoo: a big has-been.

Also, before Carly took over HP, she helped run Lucent (a successful telecom equipment maker) into the ground.

Mayer wasn't a good CEO by any stretch, but let's at least be fair: she took over a company that had serious problems, and then failed at doing much good with this bad hand of cards. This just isn't the case with Carly and HP. There was no good reason for HP to merge with Compaq, but she forced it and it really destroyed what made HP a great company.

Slashdot Top Deals

Only through hard work and perseverance can one truly suffer.