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


Forgot your password?
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:Let's see if I have this right (Score 1) 370

Coming up with something would require planning, negotiation, and "horse trading" skills. Trump is not known for any of these skills.

Oh, come on. I think the President is a buffoon but even I still recognize that if he has one legitimate claim to competence in any field is it "negotiation and horse trading." I have no doubt that he is genuinely good at it.

The real problem, as Trump is painfully beginning to discover, is that running a government involves a kind of negotiations that are exponentially more difficult and unsatisfying than business negotiation. Here's why:

In a business negotiation, one of the most vital factors is the fact that (generally speaking) you can always walk away. You're trying to buy Company X or real estate Z and your negotiating partner wants an unreasonable price or unacceptable conditions that there's no breaking the impasse over? Walk away. No deal gets done, but the world keeps spinning on its axis just fine with no real consequences. (Mostly.)

But in government? You don't get a debt ceiling increase passed, you don't get to walk away while the government stops paying its bills and torpedoes the world economy. You don't get an acceptable deal with Iran over its nuclear program, you don't get to walk away and just let them build nukes. You don't get a Middle East peace agreement that you want, you don't get to walk away and remove the US from the region while wholesale slaughter starts. There are real stakes in much of what the government does and no option to just walk away.

So I think that while Trump is undoubtedly good at negotiations, he's having to do them in a completely new environment with a different set of variables and new stakes. And with a 35% or whatever it is approval rating, he doesn't have as much leverage as he's used to. All in all, it's pretty much a perfect recipe for anyone to fail at being a negotiator even if they're otherwise good at it.

Comment Re:What does this matter. (Score 1) 60

I get throttled only near busy cells (based on observation such as: at the mall while lots of other people are there).

That's not throttling. That's T-Mobile's network getting slammed.

Throttling is the deliberate, policy-based use of the network to constrain a user's throughput lower than default "best effort" settings. Traditionally this was done by forcing the user from a higher data rate technology to a lower one, such as bumping a user off the LTE network and onto 3G (HSPA/CDMA), or from a 3G network onto 2G (EDGE/1xRTT). More advanced networks can now do this by using LTE Quality of Service features to 1.) set a maximum bit rate for the user's default data EPS bearer or 2.) lower the user's ARP and QCI values so that they have a lower-than-best-effort priority for resources and in the network scheduler.

If you're getting lower throughput at busy cells, that isn't throttling, that's... the network being busy. If it happens every once in a while, that's an abnormal network load and to be expected. If it's happening all the time, your carrier either has its spectrum exhausted in the area, or sucks at network planning (constraints in backhaul, coverage densification, etc.). Or neither and they are just cheap.

Comment Re:And further (Score 3, Interesting) 519

PRESS: "Donald Trump was wiretapped in an ongoing investigation into ties to Russia" ... It is actually funny seeing the same NYT "reporter" reporting "Donald Trump was Wiretapped" and "Donald Trump wasn't wiretapped".

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it wasn't the New York Times that claimed Trump was being wiretapped, let alone the same reporter. In fact, I'm pretty darned sure it wasn't the "liberal press" that made the claim at all. The whole point of the incredulity over this from the "mainstream press" is that the original claim was dubiously sourced from the beginning and based on nothing more than "I bet this probably happened." Lack of critical thinking skills is disappointing in individuals like you or me, but genuinely dangerous in the hands of powerful people.

Liberals can quote both, and believe both simultaneously

I believe the cognitive dissonance may be going on somewhere else here. Or maybe rather the same affinity or lack thereof for fact checking.

Comment Re:Analysis (Score 2) 55

The Pixel represents Google's first proper foray into the smartphone market

Can someone who follows Android more closely than I do explain WTH this statement from the summary means? Why is this in any way different from the Nexus phones, and why wasn't that a "proper" foray into the smartphone market? What is so special about Pixel compared to the original Nexus vision?

Comment Re:Awesome! (Score 1) 35

I would imagine that if you are in an area where you are using a WISP today, it's probably lacks the population density for the carriers to bother deploying 5G there. The only exception would likely be if you are in an area served by copper phone lines that the carrier (if it's the home ILEC) wants to rip up and get rid of.

Comment Re:Awesome! (Score 2) 35

Whatever 5G ends up being, it won't look like a traditional cellular service. The spectrum that it uses (in the 30 GHz range) is subject to serious atmospheric signal attenuation (especially compared to the 700 MHz bands typically used for LTE) and it won't reliably penetrate walls of any thickness. So it will be largely useless for cellular phones.

Instead, imagine it as just another last mile technology for fixed wireless. You'll have a 5G receiver hung on the exterior of your house, and you will now have an alternative to [CABLE COMPANY] or [PHONE COMPANY] for your home broadband service. One of the upsides to using such high spectrum bands is that you can jam a lot more data into the frequency, so it's likely to be priced (and have caps) that look more like a cable/fiber connection rather than a cellular plan. So, not a bad thing... but not going to change the way you use your cellphone, either.

Comment Re:Not effective (Score 1) 123

The Democrat party is the owner of slavery, eugenics, segregation, and the KKK.

Technically true! But also completely disingenuous.

For any continuously evolving entity such as a nation or political party, there must reasonably be a statute of limitations on claiming either debts or credits for past actions.

The GOP of 2017 can no more claim to be the party of Lincoln than the Democrats of 2017 can claim to be the party of Jefferson, although they both do. The Democrats of today are no more responsible for FDR's interning of Japanese American citizens during World War II than today's Republicans are responsible for the Teapot Dome Oil Scandal or Watergate. The Democratic Party of today would be as unrecognizable today to Strom Thurmond in 1935 as today's Republican Party would be to Horace Greeley in 1866.

Think about the same time frame that you're talking about holding today's entity responsible for yesterday's actions (1865-1964?). Is the Trump US government of 2017 morally liable for paying reparations to the descendants of slaves? Is Angela Merkel's German government morally responsible for unpaid reparations for Kaiser Wilhelm's invasion of neutral Belgium? Are today's management or shareholders of IBM or Ford morally liable for their WWII involvement with the Nazis? Do you think that the Disney Corporation of today stands for everything portrayed in Song of the South? No, of course not. Institutions stay but the people behind the actions die or leave, and the credit or blame leaves with them.

Institutional memory has its place, but only within reasonable time limits. The only place you can draw a meaningful lineage is where the institutional principles remain the same. And if you consider that, I think you'd be hard pressed to make the same argument.

Comment Re:To protect rights (Score 1) 341

"Just let people do whatever" is pretty much the idea of Conservatism, as long as our Rights are protected.

I used to think that, too. Then I realized that the Right in the US only believed in "just let people do whatever" as long as the "whatever" in question was not to smoke pot. Or have consensual gay/lesbian sex. Or get an abortion. Or burn a flag. Or unplug a brain-dead spouse from life support. Or... the list went on.

I hope someday we will all have the intellectual honesty to admit that Left and Right both have different things culturally that they want to permit and other things they want to ban. Neither side actually things government should butt out of your life, they just think the intrusiveness should be about different things.

Comment Re:I thought not all US carriers use LTE (Score 1) 105

No, T-Mobile's HSPA+ was sort of "3.5G" . Their "4G" stuff was always LTE.

Nope. In fact, T-Mobile was partly responsible with the whole BS confusion about "4G" and LTE.

Flash back to about five or six years ago. "4G" was generally understood by people in the cellular industry to refer to the 3GPP standardized Long Term Evolution (LTE) technology, which represented a quantum leap in the GSM family of technologies. Unfortunately, LTE was new and nobody was deploying it yet in the US (Verizon was first eventually, followed by AT&T). At this point, neither Sprint or T-Mobile had announced LTE plans.

Sprint - even then struggling for a positive message to tell about its network and one up its competitors - came up with the brilliant marketing idea to take its WiMAX (remember WiMAX?) Clearwire network and claim that it was the first "4G" network in the US. Whether you could claim WiMAX as a fourth generation digital cellular technology is debatable but if you squint just right it might have been okay.

T-Mobile saw this move and wanted to be able to make similar marketing claims to Sprint about 4G. They basically said, "our HSPA+ is faster than WiMAX. So it must be 4G too!" So even though there was no justifiable way to claim that HSPA+ was a 4G technology, T-Mobile started saying "we have 4G too!" Of course, AT&T didn't want to appear behind Sprint and T-Mobile so they adopted the ruse later too. (Verizon was still using 3G CDMA so it wasn't an option for them to join in the fun.)

If you look carefully at carrier ads today, you will still usually see their LTE coverage maps listed as "4G LTE" in order to distinguish it from their "faux G" HSPA+ or other 3G technologies. All because of some dodgy marketing decisions on Sprint and T-Mobile's parts.

Comment Re:How large?!? (Score 1) 308

The journalism curriculum needs a lot more basic science in it.

The problem wasn't in TFA, it was in the submitter's headline and the consequent lack of editing or fact-checking that it received from a Slashdot "editor." I'm unsure whether that bespeaks more of a need for basic science/math education among Slashdot submitters or a need for a Turing test for Slashdot editors to see if they're just bots approving random submissions based on flamebait keywords. I'm pretty sure I could just completely fabricate a story titled "Trump iPhones Zuckerberg's Laid Off IT Workers and Stallman To Net Neutrality Android Is Awesome" and see it sail through unchecked.

Submission + - SPAM: It Can Power a Small Nation. But This Wind Farm in China Is Mostly Idle.

schnell writes: The New York Times reports on a massive wind farm in remote Gansu province that boasts more than 7,000 wind turbines but whose capacity goes more than 60% unused. The wind farm epitomizes China's struggles in its efforts to become a world renewable energy leader: the Chinese economy is slumping, leading to decreased energy demand; the country lacks the infrastructure to haul power from remote wind-producing regions to industrial centers; and government policies continue to favor the domestic coal industry. China has 92,000 wind turbines, more than double the US's capacity, but China generates only 3.3% of its electricity from wind compared to 4.7% in the United States.

Comment Re:This is simple (Score 3, Insightful) 433

If you're not willing to use official channels and you're not willing to confront the person directly then you need to leave. That's it.

Precisely. However, you really need to question whether the original poster's two above assertions are true, or if they are just conflict avoidant/unable to understand corporate culture. Because if those aren't the case and the two assertions above are true, then the company is a toxic shithole that should be avoided like the plague.

The implication that you can't use official channels - even "skipping levels" up - indicates that the whole place is thoroughly corrupt through to the very very top. Saying that you can't talk to the person directly implies that they are so menacing/terrible/powerful that asserting yourself against a bully could never work.

Unless this is a small family owned business and the offender in question is part of the family, do both of these situations both sound likely?

I'm certainly not trying to impugn the submission poster, but it sounds fishy to me that this company is so rotten that none of the two most obvious approaches are even possible. I've never met a corporate HR department (at least at a company big enough to actually have legal counsel retained) that wasn't ready to jump all over any accusation of misconduct because they're so eager to fend off potential lawsuits. And any company where everyone - including the HR department and the org chain all the way up to the CEO - is totally off limits to a complaint about a malevolent employee is either a nepotism factory or a 100% nest of vipers.

I can't assess better than anyone else the validity of what the submitter says, but it does sound to me like some of the options he/she thinks are off limits might actually be on the table but he/she is too young/shy/lacking in self confidence to pursue. But if those things really are out of the question, then run don't walk out the door.

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 4, Interesting) 433

I wouldn't recommend that unless your country has no laws against libel.

Check your local laws of course, but writing something bad about someone in a private setting (i.e. in a non-public letter to a corporate HR department) is almost never grounds for a libel lawsuit, as far as I have ever heard. If that were so, there would be no such thing as customer service surveys, whistleblower laws, "mystery shopper" feedback, etc.

Libel is generally reserved for covering "public" pronouncements, typically in the form of journalistic stories. And even in those rare cases where, for example, a business has sued a private citizen over a bad Yelp review or some other public lambasting, they have pretty much universally lost.

In addition, most corporations have as part of their employment conditions that you can't sue the company or other employees as a result of negative opinions expressed as part of "official" company communications, such as an employee review or exit interview. (Otherwise no one could ever give an employee a bad review!) There are limits of course - if you allege that someone has committed a crime on the job, that obligates your employer to take it to the police, and depending on how that goes you could be opening yourself up to other things if your accusations of criminal activity are found to be negligibly inaccurate. But I assume you're not going there.

Libel law has many twists and turns which shouldn't be underestimated, but don't take it as a blanket reason for why you should never say anything bad about anyone - especially if it is provably true - in a context that is not intended for public consumption.

Comment Re:Sorely needed in the US (Score 2) 234

But without a good solid education, moving to new jobs becomes hard. So if the local job dries up how do you get a new one if you don't have a decent education?

Here's the problem. The issue with jobs in the US today is not about education per se, but about fungibility of jobs.

A "fungible" job, or item, is one that can be exchanged equally at no loss or differentiation. (A US dollar bill is fungible, for example, because any dollar bill is equal to any other regardless of its source, condition or owner.) If one mechanical piece or the person who produces those pieces can be swapped out without any loss of productivity or quality then it is fungible. And as such it can be produced anywhere at a lower cost.

Education is not necessarily a defense against fungibility. If you have a theoretically white collar job of IT tech support but that job can be done equally well by someone with equivalent education/training in Hyderabad, then your job is still fungible despite your education.

Some jobs cannot be fungible because the quality of the person doing the job. Think of jobs where one person's talent is appreciably different than another's, like athletes, corporate strategists, artists, rockstar programmers, artists, musicians, financial advisors/fund managers, writers, architects or academics. Other jobs can't be fungible because of their requirements to be local, such as healthcare workers, local retail/tourism, or service providers (automotive/building/plumbing/contracting/cleaning/professional services).

So the bottom line here isn't whether you got a C in high school or not, it's whether you left high school early to take an apprenticeship in plumbing - which will probably get you lifelong local employment - or whether you got As in high school and a scholarship that led to a MFA in Medieval French Literature, which will probably get you a lifelong series of Starbucks barista jobs.

Advanced education is absolutely definitely important to a person's likelihood of future earnings. But not everyone is suited to (or wants to) have a college education. If everyone did, then college graduates would have no employment advantage, right? So the obvious conclusion is that it's not so important how much education you have - rather, it's what education you have in a field that people actually have jobs to hire for.

Slashdot Top Deals

When you make your mark in the world, watch out for guys with erasers. -- The Wall Street Journal