×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

No Shortage In Tech Workers, Advocacy Groups Say

tubs Re:Two sides to every issue (401 comments)

> They might be able to replace me with someone and pay then 1/2 of what I make, but they're not going to get my skillset.

"They" don't care, they've saved 50% of your wage (probably 80%). In fact, the bean counter who approved it has probably gone on to another company for double the pay already (claiming they've saved ££££), whilst taking the "bonus" for saving money with them.

And when it hits the fan .. http://www.computerweekly.com/...

about 5 months ago
top

Teachers Union: Computers Can Negatively Impact Children's Ability To Learn

tubs Re:BASICally (310 comments)

There is actually an educational phrase you're grasping for here - it's called "differentiated learning" and doesn't need whole schools targeted at different sub sets of students. Maybe you need to do some reading on the subject to help inform yourself, or "independent learning" as it is generally called.

You also argue that not "Every Child is a Special Snowflake", ie every child is the same (the phase "snowflake" is usually called into case for uniqueness, ie every snowflake is different) . But then go on to classify smart kids as special snowflakes who should have their own "schools", so you seem to be slightly confused in your reasoning.

about 7 months ago
top

UK May Kill the EU's Net Neutrality Law

tubs Re:Why are they in the EU again? (341 comments)

No, not really. Not being part of the EU would mean we would have to pay "export" tariffs - and say for example something that London is good at like "banking", would soon be "taxed" - money going from/to France would have a tariff, which would make London more expensive than say, Paris or Frankfurt. (which would eventually lead to companies relocating to the EU)

And indeed, if we then "tariffed" french wine in retaliation, well it would just be our "consumer" costs that went up, and the French wine maker would target Poland, as their product would be cheaper that Australian wine which does have a tariff in the EU.

And by not being part of the EU, we would have no say on what the levels were. As an individual country, we would need access to the EU more than the EU would need "us". You might argue that "we can set up our own trade agreements", but again, whut would anyone give the UK preferential treatment, we might be a large country but the EU, China, The USA are massive compared to us.

about 7 months ago
top

UK May Kill the EU's Net Neutrality Law

tubs Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (341 comments)

Yes, I can travel to any country in Europe without a Visa. Even better, when I get to Europe I can travel from from Spain to Slovakia without a passport. The only people demanding my passport, is the UK. I can fly to Ibiza, or the balearics, or Greece for my summer holiday without a Visa.

I can swap my Pounds for Euros, and travel from Spain to Slovakia without having to change another currency

I can buy a "Class One" banana in Tesco, or Sainsburys, or Aldi and know that they are all about the same size and weight.

We've not had a war against Germany since the EEC/EU was implemented. That's got to be a big bonus.

about 7 months ago
top

UK May Kill the EU's Net Neutrality Law

tubs Re:Why are they in the EU again? (341 comments)

What, you mean like trade wars and tariffs? Are you suggesting that countries don't have trade wars, or impose tariffs?

So, I think the assumption, as individual countries already do impose tariffs and trade wars on other countries then there will be trade wars and tariffs imposed on the UK by other EU Common market countries.

about 7 months ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Which NoSQL Database For New Project?

tubs Re:Do you need a database? (272 comments)

When I read the post the first thought that came to me was "log files" - you mention date & time, a "number" of fields and "few" fields for reporting. It still sounds like a log file from everything that is said. Indeed, just change from POST to GET and you can use the web server logs :-)

But, why not build into the design that you may change the "backend" database without having to worry about what is at the backend?

about 8 months ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Which NoSQL Database For New Project?

tubs Do you need a database? (272 comments)

Do you need a database to do what you're trying to do? Why not just write the information to a text file (csv or tab seperated?), and use other programs to query the data?

about 8 months ago
top

Good Engineering Managers Just "Don't Exist"

tubs The Peter Principal (312 comments)

This sounds more like the Peter Principal effect, people are being promoted on their pas performance, rather than on what they will do. You're a good engineer, you'll make a good manager ...

about 10 months ago
top

UK Benefits System In Deeper Trouble?

tubs Re:Really??? (266 comments)

Is your real name Ian Duncan Smith? That's his argument - they're not budgeting correctly.

It seems that the argument "Food banks are available so people use them" is as tortuous an argument as any other.

But that's okay, it sounds like you're in the "I'm alright, Jack" crowd, so you're alright. As long as you're alright that's fine, well done and good luck.

about a year ago
top

UK Benefits System In Deeper Trouble?

tubs Re:Really??? (266 comments)

Yes, you would have thought that "education and retraining" should be the fundamental part of unemployment. But it's not, it's on job seeking.

Lets say you were a "coal worker" and you've been doing that for 25 years. When your pit closes the only thing you're good at is coal minining, but no other pits are open, so you now have a defunct skill set. Yet you still need to eat, pay rent, support a familiy so you no longer have a chance of retraining, but as you started working at 15 you don't have an education.

As your skill set is not transferable, the only jobs you can get are less robust ones - which means you'll be in and out of employment for the next 20 years until you retire, stacking shelves, picking fruit or whatever else you can get.

And capitalism itself needs a % of unemployment - if that unemployment isn't there then there is no opportunity to get new people in place.

Maybe you can wait until the people 10 years older than you retire - excepct there is no enforced retirement now so those positions that would have been forced open are no longer there, and even ifthey are why would someone employ an ex coal miner when they could get a straight out of school graduate that is at the same level as you ...

about a year ago
top

UK Benefits System In Deeper Trouble?

tubs Re:Really??? (266 comments)

So what you're saying, is that the only reason food banks are used, is that they are there?

Maybe the other way is more true? There was a need for food banks, so charities intorduced them, as more people need them, charities are introducing more?

Oh, and most food banks require a "voucher" that is given to the person from Drs, social workers etc, you can't just walk up yo a food bank and demand food.

about a year ago
top

UK Benefits System In Deeper Trouble?

tubs Re:Lets not hope it's like the NHS IT disaster (266 comments)

> required the input of five (was it only five?) major contracting companies

I worked in the NHS at this time, and there were originally 9 companies I think all working on the same thing, but working in different geographical areas - the idea was that the failure of any single company would not cause a major problem - indeed it was accepted that it would probably whittle down to 5. Of course that also fell to 2 companies doing it, which in the end weren't actually doing anything other than sucking up large sums of taxpayer money.

These system though were replacing all of the hospital MIS systems, so they were having to compete with systems that had been in place for years and had improvements and improvements, and didn't actually do a lot of things that users wanted - so they were having to run dual systems. I worked in a trust that was two merged trusts - and they had a different MIS in each hospital site.

about a year ago
top

Open Source 'Wasn't Available' Two Years Ago, Says UK Gov't IT Project Chief

tubs Re:WTF? (113 comments)

There are words for this as well :homogeneous and heterogeneous.

And in their simplest forms... homogeneous simplifies commications, with the negative of locking you into one system. Heterogeneous makes it easier pick and choose "best" for each job, but you spend as much on effective interoperability as on each part of the system.

1 year,9 days
top

Ask Slashdot: Why Are Tech Job Requirements So Specific?

tubs Re:To hire specific people (465 comments)

And you know it's been done over the phone when they ask for "sequel server".

1 year,22 days
top

Microsoft May Finally Put Windows RT Out To Pasture

tubs RT vs Android vs iPad (293 comments)

From a personal point of view :

At the highest end, we have Apple iPads, which aren't compatible with anything, but have the "cool" factor.

And all other bases are covered with android, from smaller chepaer tablets, through the Nexus Range and the Samsungs.

Now there is RT, which only benefit is that it runs office, where as the other two don't.

If the RT had been completely compatible with Windows (7) then there would have been a more compelling reason to have one.

From a works point of view

Well, the RT isn't domain compatible, so I might as well buy any of the others - whichever it's going to make and take a lot of work to integrate, so I might as well look at a solution that covers all.

1 year,23 days
top

Man In Tesla Model S Fire Explains What Happened

tubs Re:They should upgrade the warning ... (526 comments)

Simple citation, that I linked to earlier, showing Ford complaining that 1973 proposal was too soon. This was only a requirement for federal government cars, not all cars.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19700602&id=tcQxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EOYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=7132,4036595

Hence, the reason why GM designed and produced a fleet of cars with air bags to sell to the government in 1973 with Airbags.

about a year ago
top

Man In Tesla Model S Fire Explains What Happened

tubs Re:They should upgrade the warning ... (526 comments)

Sorry, I'll disagree again - the FG requirement for air bags was before 1970 (1969 I believe), to be in place for 1973.

The article that I linked to, that which is a newspaper article from 1970, has Ford saying that "it (Ford) sees no way it can comply in time with a federal government proposal that all 1973 cars be equipped with airbags."

I would argue that an experimental fleet was just that, an experiment. It wasn't for sale to anyone, and a bit more research seems to suggest this.

I would suggest that without the Federal Governments requirements, there would have been no Air Bags in cars in 1971, 72, 73 - and indeed it would suggest that as what happened in Europe it wouldn't have been until 1980 + that they would have been introduced.

about a year ago
top

Man In Tesla Model S Fire Explains What Happened

tubs Re:They should upgrade the warning ... (526 comments)

You said Government should have no credit for any safety improvements. That's your comment. Thats what you said. You then implied it was consumer pressure that produced safety measures (by metioning the ford Pinto)

I pointed out that you should look at federal government(FG form now as I don't want to type it) introducing mandatory airbags. To elaborate on that, it was the FG that mandated that all the cars the FG bought from 1973 must have airbags. Thats the year, those are the facts. I was not specific and I should have been, but I was not talking about the 199X consumer laws.

It seems you don't see the link between the FG mandating airbags in 1973, GM and Ford testing them in 1970 to meet the deadline, and making them available because of the FG demanded it.

The FG may not have "made" the airbags, but the made the motor companies go down that route, by telling them it must be - the article in 1970 that I've linked to makes that obvious - the FG mandated airbags in the cars it bought before the technology was mature enough to go into any cars, forcing the makers to accelerate developing and testing airbags.

I, at no point said that the FG made airbags.

about a year ago
top

Man In Tesla Model S Fire Explains What Happened

tubs Re:They should upgrade the warning ... (526 comments)

There were no cars with Air Bags being sold in the US before 1973, and the only reason that Ford & GM (And I's suspect other) were developing Airbags in 1970 were to meed the federal requirements that every car sold to the federal government had to have air bags. the following news article alludes to that fact.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19700602&id=tcQxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EOYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=7132,4036595

If you cannot see this link, that the reason Ford and GM were developing Airbags in 1970 was for because the government required it. There were no other cars, there was no competition on airbags.

According to Mercedes, it wasn't until 1980 that they felt they were ready to introduce airbags, 7 years after the federally mandated requirement that Ford and GM were trying to meet in 1970 and introduced in 1973.

> All of these things were already working and being sold in Japanese and German made cars.

There were no cars with airbags before 1973. GM & Ford introduced cars in 1973 to sell to the federal government that had air bags. Seven years later Mercedes thought they were ready, and introduced it. To my mind 1973 comes before 1980.

about a year ago
top

Man In Tesla Model S Fire Explains What Happened

tubs Re:They should upgrade the warning ... (526 comments)

> I vehemently deny that the Government did anything that improved the technology or shortened development time. That was happening at Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, etc.. so the US had to compete.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19700602&id=tcQxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EOYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=7132,4036595 [google.com]

You may disagree, but the news story above shows that you are wrong. The federal government made it a requirement that in 1973 that all cars it buys must have an airbag, which pushed the US car makers to develop it. It would not have happened without the Governments involvement, ie the car makers would not have voluntarily have made any cars in 1973 that had airbags.

about a year ago

Submissions

tubs hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

tubs has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?