Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re: Sad to see the Zuck... (Score 1) 499

IMO they should split it.

They should offer (but not require you to accept) a unique signed client certificate to every registered voter. If you accept it, you can vote online exactly once in any election using that signed certificate. The deadline for online voting should be midnight BEFORE election day, but you should be able to check online to confirm how your vote was cast after the deadline. As long as you can check back later to make sure your vote didn't get lost/changed, and the software is open and strictly regulated and inspected to ensure that what you see is what's getting counted, I would trust that more than paper. The certificates can be set to expire automatically in a few years to force you to re-confirm that you're still alive, that you still live at the same address, etc.

For anyone who doesn't want to use the certificate, who loses it, or has it stolen (which you would notice immediately when you try to cast your vote online and it tells you that you've already cast your vote), you come in on election day and cast a paper ballot. Showing up in person on election day will automatically invalidate any online vote tied to your registration (it would happen when they verify your ID and check you off the list to prevent you from casting another vote).

If done right, this could be made even more secure than most bank web sites (my bank doesn't even offer client-side certificates for online access), and it would greatly increase voter turnout. Who wouldn't want to avoid taking time off from work, driving to the polls, and standing in line? It would also make the lines a lot shorter for those who prefer to come in person.

Comment Re:Do older programmers even need help? (Score 1) 435

IMO you're making some broad assumptions without knowing any pertinent details, in much the same way you did with the original comment I disputed. You know nothing about the company I work for (where we've had only 2 employees outside of sales leave in the past 13 years) or the type of customer contacts I work with (enterprise-level, but none closely aligned with software development). What about my wife, my kids, my health problems, and everything else in my life that influences my decisions? I can bring up various points, and you can easily pick them apart because you don't know the rest or don't have the same priorities I do.

For the sake of this argument, it doesn't matter whether I (personally) am a good communicator. Have you never even met anyone who was shy/introverted but could still make a good argument when necessary? Can you not even imagine anyone like that?

Comment Re:Do older programmers even need help? (Score 1) 435

My point is still valid that a lack of networking does not imply a lack of communication skills, and I over-simplified my reasons for not maintaining a network.

I agree with your point that everyone has to sell himself when looking for a job, and all too often who you know matters a lot more than what you know. OTOH, hiring managers need to recognize that if they're not filling a sales position, they need to give a higher priority to other traits than an applicant being able to "sell" himself.

Comment Re:Do older programmers even need help? (Score 1) 435

"Networking is a form of communication. If they're not good at this form, what others are they bad at? Code monkeys are cheap and plentiful, people who can communicate their designs, collaborate with others, and work on a team where everyone benefits from the specialist expertise that each individual has are rare. The latter are the ones worth hiring."

That's flawed logic. I happen to be great at communicating with my team, support, services, sales, customers, etc. I'm also at the top when it comes to knowledge, skill, and problem solving. My boss usually assigns me to the largest prospects or new customers that must be kept happy at all costs. I answer their questions/concerns and solve their problems, and they couldn't be happier having me as a technical contact.

However, I do absolutely NO networking at all. Normally I'm introverted, and I prefer to keep a few close friends to a bunch of acquaintances. The thought of "shmoozing" with a bunch of other people merely to maintain a network of contacts is as unappealing to me as applying for a job in sales or marketing.

Comment Re:Infinitesimally precise (Score 1) 134

What you're referring to has nothing to do with the location of the vehicle itself (which is what this article is about), but the location of external objects relative to the vehicle.

The most important thing a self-driving vehicle accurately needs to track about itself is its current speed. Next would be the current state of the steering wheel, accelerator, and brakes (and perhaps whether the driver is trying to take over to avoid an accident). I suppose there are a number of other things you wouldn't normally think about for a moving vehicle such as whether any doors are currently open (it sounds stupid, but it's possible). There are plenty of other (mostly) fixed constant values such as vehicle dimensions, weight, braking power, turning radius, etc. that it needs to know to determine the best way to avoid obstacles/accidents. I'm sure I haven't thought of all of them, but none of those that I can think of are location-based.

Comment Re:Infinitesimally precise (Score 3, Insightful) 134

Actually, self-driving cars don't need any location information at all to avoid accidents.

It's not like a GPS can tell them if a light they're approaching is red or green, if there's a car in front of them, or if that hypothetical car is currently slamming on its brakes. It can give them an idea of where to turn, but it can't tell them if there's a pedestrian, a car, a wall, a lake, a big gaping sinkhole in the road, a flooded section, or something like that in the spot where it wants them to turn.

Comment Re:He really hates Google (Score 1) 246

Actually, I think the more honest answer would be: We asked them.

"We" is collective, of course. It doesn't necessarily mean you or me, but someone asked them. Google is constantly under pressure from various groups/individuals to remove/filter/hide things, and it actually costs Google far more to go out of their way to filter them than it does for it to simply show you what its crawlers found.

Some of these are completely harmless, like the auto-complete filtering. If you want to type "penis", you'll still get what you typed. But if a young child types the word "pen" and auto-complete fills in "penis" and the page fills with pictures of naked men and ads for enhancements, you can bet there will be a lot of people asking Google to avoid that word in auto-complete. To be honest, Google may have seen that one coming ahead of time and taken steps to avoid it in the very first auto-complete implementation. And is the poster too lazy to finish typing Hillary's name? Or is it too much trouble to click on links and read articles, so instead he thinks people will decide who is crooked based on what auto-complete shows them? He's grasping at straws there.

When it comes to removing pictures of military bases and wealthy homes, you can bet that the government and lawyers of wealthy homeowners asked Google to remove the pics.

Even in the case of YouTube videos being banned, it is still based on user requests. Perhaps the employees are biased on which ones they act on, or perhaps it is just simply that the complaints coming from liberals are much louder (or perhaps much more frequent). Though IMO rather than banning them, they should just flag both sides as political flame-bait and let users decide whether they want to turn those on or off.

Comment Re:Ad blocking FTW (Score 1) 57

I feel about 100% certain that Microsoft did in fact choose target sites that favored Edge. Opera was probably a little less "professional" in that way.

Although to be honest, I don't think any ad blocker could be as inefficient as the ads themselves. Every site I manage to visit with my cell phone that has a bunch of ads brings the browser to its knees, which drains the battery faster. Even on my desktop, I find that Chrome performs fine until I hit a site with ads that seem designed to go out of their way to be as annoying as possible (which usually means plenty of poorly-written JavaScript, often combined with audio/video).

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson