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 The problem with the new plants (Score 1) 342

Is not design but project management. Plant Vogtle has problems with things like concrete not built to design specs requiring expensive rework and delays. The whole idea with the next gen plants was standardized design an a combined construction operating license, which would keep costs down, IF you built it to the licensed design. Unfortunately that is proving not to be the case. Watts Bar is an old design that was mothballed with plans to restart construction and not a "new" plant.

Comment Re:Why would they worry? (Score 2) 29

Is someone concerned that gadget buyers are going so stop sorting by price and buying the cheapest one? Until Vietnam employs enough people to create wage pressure they don't have a damn thing to worry about. Exploding batteries, shredding tires, contaminated food... none of that has ever impacted Chinese trade with the west. Can't imagine why Vietnam should worry about that all.

Once Hillary pencil-whips TPP through however that could change; there are other disposable Asians that will breath aluminum dust 12 hours a day for even fewer pennies. That's what they really need to worry about.

Lovely little world we have here.

Exactly. There jobs are safe until someone cheaper comes along. Why do the think Samsung is in Vietnam instead of China or South Korea? Any product where labor is is a significant percentage the product cost and doesn't require highly skilled workers will be made at the lowest wage place that can make it at the required quality.

Comment Re:This doesn't prove what they were hoping to pro (Score 1) 192

I'm a doctor, though not a diagnostician. Diagnosis is rarely hard - there are some hard cases, but they really mostly aren't. Do you have a persistently elevated blood glucose level? You have diabetes. Do you have consistently high blood pressure? You have hypertension. Etc. It's hardly surprising that computers are just as good as humans at diagnosing diseases that are mostly defined by strict, objective criteria.

Excellant point. My lay viewpoint on what most doctors do is not diagnose, but treat symptoms, especially at the primary care level. Someone comes in displaying X, the thought process is X is treated most commonly by doing Y and hence we will try Y. If the symptoms disappear than the patients is cured and all is well. The doctor may also offer a diagnosis, often because the patient expects it, but finding the cause is less important than deciding what will make the symptoms go away. To extend your car analogy, a low oil light can be caused by means things, but is fixed by adding oil. If it doesn't come back too quickly the cause is largely irrelevant since the vehicle is performing satisfactorily. If it comes back quickly, then it's time to find the cause an take it to a mechanic, much as a primary care doctor would refer a patient to a specialist if symptoms don't improve and indicate a more severe problem.

Comment Re:Epic tone deafness (Score 3, Informative) 813

I wonder how much Feinstein gets from various pro-offshoring groups to be completely tone-deaf to her own constituents.

Nah, it's just most staffer send boilerplate replies without looking at what was asked. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by sloth or stupidity.

Comment Re:really? (Score 1) 813

> "I am being asked to do knowledge transfer to a foreigner so they can take over my job in February of 2017,"

I have no idea why employees just sheeplike say yes to doing this shit, instead of taking all your accrued leave and looking for/starting a new job at the same time. At least dick the company around, phone in sick all the time, and do nothing for your last few months. Certainly never give the foreigner any training or actually true information.

Many need the money and can't afford to walk away from a few more months pay and benefits simply to satisfy an urge to screw their employer. Of course, there is a difference between showing somebody the textbook way a system operates and showing them all the nuances and little things not in the manual that need to be done to really make the system work properly. A Brit friend of mine explained that to really mess with someone you need to be "maliciously complaint," i.e. follow the exact wording of what they say without regard to the results. I had a friend do that once after being deemed for "not following the procedure verbatim..." and plugging in the test equipment so it had power. After saying, "that's just good judgement" and being told "there is no room for judgement in these tests..." he didn't plug in the power plug for the equipment and when they went to get the results after an expensive test run the log was blank. Not much they could do then after writing him up for plugging the power in in a previous test.

Comment Re:Denouncing Surveilance (Score 1) 277

so it's pretty clear what the intent was

It is, indeed, clear, yes. Only it is not, what you claim it to be. At any rate, the intent only needs to be examined, if the law itself is vague and unclear. Which the 2nd Amendment is not — citizens are to keep and bear arms, or else you will not be able to assemble a militia when the need arises.

Except we have a militia already, under the control of district, states and territories control; it's the National Guard. At a Federal level we have the Individual Ready Reserve as well to augment Regular and SELRES forces. At some point, SCOTUS should recognize the well regulated militia part of the second as allowing broader Federal and State regulation of arms than is currently permitted. There is no need to change the second, only its interpretation.

Comment Re:Denouncing Surveilance (Score 1) 277

It seems you agree that the interpretation should change with time, base on your comment.

No, I rather dislike the idea of changing the laws by changing the language.

I tend to agree as well, since that allows common sense gun restrictions to be put in place

If the restrictions really were "common sense", you would've had no problems passing a new Amendment to alter/qualify the Second.

restore the rights of local governments to decide their own restrictions

Do you really wish for the local laws to trump the Bill of Rights? Go ahead, state so for the record here...

It's clear that the framers did not intend the 2cd to be a blanket right to own any weapon; even during the earliest days of our country localities controlled weapon ownership with various laws; so it's pretty clear what the intent was. I'd like to see that right returned to local citizens with respect to the 2cd.

Comment Re:Denouncing Surveilance (Score 1) 277

Actually, the fourth protects against unreasonable search and seizure

Unreasonable search is unconstitutional by itself — nothing needs to be seized to violate the Constitution.

That's an interesting constitutional questions - do the words matter or are they open to interpretation over time. Courts have ignored the "and" for some time, just as cruel and unusual seems to have become cruel or unusual. It seems you agree that the interpretation should change with time, base on your comment. I tend to agree as well, since that allows common sense gun restrictions to be put in place, and would restore the rights of local governments to decide their own restrictions.

Comment Re:Denouncing Surveilance (Score 1) 277

NSA has never seized anything either.

They collected records, which could be considered a seizure.

Not by anyone with a regular English dictionary.

I see, so if a police officer saw your iPhone on the table in a public park, copied all the data and left it you would not consider that a seizure since no force was involved? Interesting way to let the NSA off the hook.

Comment Re:Denouncing Surveilance (Score 1) 277

But I doubt, this is even technically true — though this monitoring does not, as you say, directly violate the Second Amendment, that's not the accusation. All other objectionable surveillance and recording is usually denounced on the Fourth Amendment grounds — like NSA's snooping of your e-mails or phone-records, it, likely, constitutes an unreasonable search.

Actually, the fourth protects against unreasonable search and seizure, so absent a seizure as in the case of the NSA collecting records, scanning license plates may not violate the fourth. At any rate, the police observing and collecting information in plain view in public would not, IMHO, be unreasonable since you have no expectation of privacy in public.

Moreover, the very "crime", that this effort was supposed to catch/prevent — transport of the legally purchased guns across the state-lines into areas, where they are illegal — should not be a crime to begin with (unlike the terrorism NSA is after). Any State-laws banning certain kinds of weapons are themselves in violation of the Bill of Rights and ought to be protested and denounced at any opportunity far more noisily than the marijuana prohibition or "gay marriage" inequality.

The question is not can certain weapons be banned, but where to draw the line.

Comment The only way this will get fixed (Score 5, Insightful) 164

is when the manufacturers of the devices get hit with DDoS attacks and it disrupts their business. Otherwise, as TFA points out, they had no reason to bear the costs of fixing the problem since it doesn't impact them. Until there is a significant cost associated with making an insecure device they will remain insecure. That's also one of the problems with the internet, there is no way to block access from insecure devices when they become part of a BotNet. If their was, and manufacturers suddenly got lots of warranty calls when it stopped working they might actual care about security.

Comment Re:One month every four years. (Score 2) 294

Thus, to have Judge Haldane Mayer do an about-face on Software Patents is Huuuge, in part because of the influence the Federal Court of Appeals has on lower courts, but mostly since it shows that learning can take place at that level, when presented with cogent arguments.

Perhaps there is hope, after all.

It certainly is a good sign. The Alice ruling is key since it provides him with a basis for his opinion and the Appeals Court can use the SCOTUS decision and clarify and extend the boundaries of what is not patentable. Ultimately SCOTUS may have to weigh in on the boundaries established by the Appeals Court and say yay or nay. Which wold be good since there would be more clarity around patent law.

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: #44 Zebras are colored with dark stripes on a light background.