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 Re:"New company?" (Score 4, Informative) 74

If Fred Terman could see your company now, he'd kick Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard out of EE school and then shoot himself.

FWIW, Bill Hewlett and his son fought tooth and nail against gutting HP of everything except the computer and printer businesses, and the merger with Compaq. (Dave Packard died in 1996 before these shenanigans began.) They lost. The board and Fiorina won, and "succeeded" in turning HP from a high-tech company into a computer/printer parts reseller (buy tech developed by other companies like Intel, Samsung, Nvidia, and assemble them into a computer to sell to the general public).

Comment True for most "confidential" databases (Score 2) 177

Not just law enforcement. It's why you shouldn't store private data unencrypted on cloud services like Dropbox, Google Drive, OneDrive. Like Ned from GoT thinking a piece of paper signed by the king was going to protect him, you're a fool if you think some company policy prohibiting employees from perusing client data is going to protect you. Those cloud services really should be offering client-side encryption as a standard feature. That they don't should tell you that they are making money by browsing through your files to glean data about you that they can sell to others.

Comment They have the best generic shopping search engine (Score 1) 141

Mind you it's not very good, includes a lot of stuff relevant to one of your search terms but irrelevant to your search because it lacks another keyword, and is missing a lot of options like being able to sort the results by rating but exclude the things with just 1-2 reviews.

Google Shopping used to be better, but about 1-2 years ago they redid the format of the search results page. Clicking on the name of the search result used to give you the list of all stores which sold the item. Now both it and the "Shop" button send you directly to the first vendor selling the item (probably the one which paid Google the most). To get the list, you now have to click the little text that says "Compare prices". And some time this year the search results stopped being a spot-on match for your search terms. Putting terms in quotes no longer excludes results which don't have that term, so the results page is as polluted with irrelevant results as Amazon's search results.

Amazon also has better sort options for the reviews. Their "most helpful review" system really helps filter out the crappy two-word reviews and bring the thorough ones up to the top. Google Shopping's reviews are aggregated from multiple sources, and only recently have they begun to allow you to view reviews only from certain sources. It's aggravating enough that I do my initial search on Amazon, then do a price comparison search on Google Shopping. A lot of useful third party services like camelcamelcamel and fakespot also tie in to the Amazon reviews.

Newegg still has the best shopping search engine IMHO. But they only sell tech stuff.

Comment Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... (Score 1) 384

My position is that anyone can have any opinion they want, and that the significance of that opinion to others depends on whatever level of trust the claimer can command. This puts some people in a de facto privileged position. This can be rational (e.g. privileging an oncologist's opinions on cancer over a layman's) and in other cases not (privileging a fellow mom's opinions about vaccines over an immunologist or toxicologist).

So my point is that you CAN make any of the claims you suggested, but your authority won't carry much weight because you're just a random bloke on the Internet. You would have to make a convincing argument. However even then there are lots of very credible-sounding arguments out there that don't sound credible to someone who has actual knowledge.

The bottom line is knowing the truth of any claim is quite difficult, particularly when it involves jargon. In general the judgment of someone who has spent some time studying an issue is more be trusted than what "stands to reason" in your own judgment. Even so, an expert should still be able to give a coherent defense of his positions.

So in the case of this frog meme, I have no particular reason to doubt ADL; however if it were important to me I would look at the evidence ADL puts forward in justification of their position. I do not necessarily agree with ADL on everything (e.g. on Muslims displaying tokens bearing the Shahada), but they have more than any other group tracked violent extremist groups and their affiliates and therefore are in at least a position to compare and contrast the symbols used. If, however, it were an organization like Kahane Chai, I would feel no particular reason to look into their reasoning because they're a racist group. Life is simply to short to treat a source that is consistently nonsense as if it might be credible.

Comment Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... (Score 1) 384

Well, actually technically speaking you're the one begging the question: you haven't established that either you or I enjoy some kind of privileged position in which we get to condemn other people for condemning language they don't like.

So by all means condemn them for calling things "hate speech", it's your right; but it's also their right.

Slashdot Top Deals

It seems that more and more mathematicians are using a new, high level language named "research student".