Slashdot Mirror


User: tqk

tqk's activity in the archive.

Stories
0
Comments
3,154
First seen
Last seen
Profile
(view on slashdot.org)

Comments · 3,154

  1. Re:Is that so? on Is Setting Up an Offshore IT Help Desk Ethical? · · Score: 1

    Software developers who design software that automates labor, or empowers few people to do the work of many, are putting humans out of work.

    In theory, we're eliminating the drudgery part of their work, "empowering" them to do more productive work.

    Designing business practices that put such software developers out of work is just giving them a good dose of their own medicine.

    I tend to agree, and don't know the answer.

  2. Re:Any time you need to ask the question... on Is Setting Up an Offshore IT Help Desk Ethical? · · Score: 1

    if it comes down to a choice between them and me (or people in x country vs people in MY country)....fuck the other people.

    So right or wrong, ethics & morality, are irrelevant? Don't intentionally screw the other guy over, but ultimately, !@#$ them! The only thing that matters is who gets to breath longer?

    I'm tired of sharing a planet with people who think that shallowly.

  3. Re:Ha! on Canada Courts Quash Gov't Decision On Globalive · · Score: 1

    Xenophobic Canadians! Who woulda thunk it?

    We're multi-cult, but this about money. Same as everywhere.

  4. Re:confusing multiple negatives on Canada Courts Quash Gov't Decision On Globalive · · Score: 1

    1. Golbalive wants to operate in Canada.
    2. CRTC says "no, you can't".
    3. Tory Cabinet says "forget the CRTC, you can operate".
    4. Canadian Federal Court says "forget the Tory Cabinet, you can't operate".

    Fuck this planet. Hey Zeus, Kristos! Who's buying who, and who's getting bought?

    Battlefield Earth is a better movie than this life. Ick.

  5. Re:"equivalent to the Y2K problem" on If You Think You Can Ignore IPv6, Think Again · · Score: 1

    Try dealing with time when you're actually doing rocket science!

    Oh come on! Part of your [Nasa] group's talking m/sec, and the other's thinking feet/sec == Satellite smashes into/overshoots Mars. Predictable result.

    Time's not that hard to deal with, as long as you're just doing what a regular computer needs.

    The fact that MS and Apple fsck this up so badly, often, is the important bit.

  6. Re:Chairman of the bored on If You Think You Can Ignore IPv6, Think Again · · Score: 1

    if IPv6 is "a board-level risk management concern", then I certainly can safely ignore it, and so can pretty well every Slashdot reader.

    The three monkey strategy (Hear nothing, See nothing, Say nothing) may work for board members who'll have new jobs a couple of years from now, but it doesn't work for us mere mortals who have to live with the results of their indifference.

  7. Re:ISP on If You Think You Can Ignore IPv6, Think Again · · Score: 2

    You're retarded if you rely on a Windows Server for IPv4 routing.

    And if you think he's alone in doing that, you're retarded. Earth, it's full of human mortals. We may not like it, but we have to accept it.

  8. Re:IPv6 Mess on If You Think You Can Ignore IPv6, Think Again · · Score: 2

    http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html:

    ... after all, once IPv6 is working, we can move everything to IPv6, so who cares about IPv4? The problem is that this mistake has gigantic effects on the cost of making IPv6 work in the first place.

    That's what's wrong, and why it's going to be a mess.

    Don't create replacements that can't grandfather in what they replace. FFS.

  9. Re:"equivalent to the Y2K problem" on If You Think You Can Ignore IPv6, Think Again · · Score: 1

    And likely every decade for the rest of the century we will now have problems because devs decided to kick the can down the road rather than fixing the 2 digit year problem properly.

    Agreed, and that's not even including programmer dumbth! I recently fixed a fourteen year old bug where one routine was datestamping YYYYMMDD and another was YYYYDDMM. How can something like that pass scrutiny for fourteen years?!? It did!

    Apple can't even do time correctly, considering their iPod alarm fsckup last month. If they can't afford competent devs, who can? MS just tries to do their best (in theory) and I can remember times when they screwed it up too.

    Mistakes happen, sometimes this is rocket science, and the scope of knowledge needed to handle it all is vast and can be intimidating. Mortals/lusers blaming us for Y2k management decisions doesn't help. Those decisions weren't under our control.

  10. Re:"equivalent to the Y2K problem" on If You Think You Can Ignore IPv6, Think Again · · Score: 1

    So really no big deal then?

    Y2k was no big deal because we fixed most of it! You people who think it was scam to employ consultants for no reason are fools! There were plenty of failures noticed after the fact (see comp.risks archives) because they weren't fixed, or weren't fixed correctly.

  11. Re:ISP on If You Think You Can Ignore IPv6, Think Again · · Score: 1

    I'm with OP, when my ISP gives me one.. i'll deal with it.

    Or, you could just run FLOSS. I'm pretty sure I've seen IPv6 support in it for at least the last couple of years.

    I'd rather be ahead of the game, but YMMV.

  12. Re:ISP on If You Think You Can Ignore IPv6, Think Again · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's not quite yet the time to retrofit IPv6 everywhere, but it is definitely time to build support into your new development requirements.

    Just like y2k, if you coded software that used 2 digit date fields in 1995, you had only yourself to blame for needing to rush around in 1999.

    And just like in y2k, after we get IPv6 everywhere and nothing blows up, we'll be blamed for running a con job just like in y2k. "Sheesh, nothing happened, and we spent all that money on getting you to fix a non-problem!"

    I say, let's let it blow up this time.

  13. Re:Figures on DoD Leads In Federal Open Source Usage · · Score: 1

    The department that kills people uses open source, the department that helps the poor uses closed source.

    In theory at least, it's called the Defence Department, not "the department that kills people."

    As for the one that "helps the poor", what else should they be wasting their money on, the poor?!? What, you want that dept. to actually get something done?!?

    I wish to hell that either of them would hire me to show how easy and robust this stuff is. In my dreams.

  14. Re:Obligatory Skynet reference on DoD Leads In Federal Open Source Usage · · Score: 2

    Only the FOSS movement can produce something sublime enough to eradicate humanity.

    Terminator running Win* vs. Terminator running FLOSS? So, what actually happens when a Windows Terminator gets infected with malware? It starts saving the planet?

    If you're Skynet, why take the chance?

  15. Re:Passing grade? on DoD Leads In Federal Open Source Usage · · Score: 2

    Why harbor such animosity against freetards?

    He's afraid his boss is going to see the logic of our arguments, and then he won't be able to explain everything away just by waving his hands around about viruses, malware, and crackers. Oh, and he'd need to learn to actually think about what he's doing, instead of wasting all his boss' time in MS-Project, Photoshop, Facebook, ...

  16. Re:Thats just on Model Says Religiosity Gene Will Dominate Society · · Score: 1

    BTW, no offense meant to the parent poster. S/he did say "I could ..." after all, not that s/he was saying it.

    And, despite my atheism, I quite enjoy all I've seen and heard of the Dali Lama. Religion can be beautiful, despite $CRUSADES & etc. (cf. Sistine Chapel). Whether he practices a "religion", per se, I'm not fit to judge/plead ignorance, but I hope he lives happily forever anyway.

    Hell, I even respect Japanese Shinto; inside every rock and tree resides a spirit of some kind. How can you refute that? Why bother to try? It's a pretty thought system, and who does it hurt, as long as Hirohito's not misusing it?

    I save my revulsion for those who believe in vampires and similar imaginary monsters (Space Channel/SiFi), and astrology whores!

  17. Re:Really? on China Blocks 'Egypt' On Twitter-Like Site · · Score: 1

    I think they are only fussy about the ones they are involved with.

    Really? Any totalitarian regime must worry about regime change. Tunisia, Egypt, ...

    Who's next, Iran, Libya, Israel, Lebanon, N. Korea, China, ...

  18. Re:Religious demographics on Model Says Religiosity Gene Will Dominate Society · · Score: 1

    I don't understand the hostile reaction to the idea that propensity to religion has a genetic component.

    Some sort of testable PROOF of the proposition might help, as opposed to wishful thinking. "It's not my fault! It's genetic!"

    Chyaa, right.

  19. Re:*facepalm* on Model Says Religiosity Gene Will Dominate Society · · Score: 1

    What's your favorite explanation for instinct?

    Common sense? Walking too close to the edge of a cliff is obviously not what anyone wants to do if they wish to continue to live?

  20. Re:rubbish on Model Says Religiosity Gene Will Dominate Society · · Score: 1

    Well, he did use the weasel words "is likely to be influenced by", which really says little to nothing. How likely? How much influence?

    However, I agree, it is rubbish so far.

  21. Re:Perhaps a study of regression on Model Says Religiosity Gene Will Dominate Society · · Score: 1

    While religious motivations have been used as an excuse to start wars, I'd like to see any "proof" that the religion itself has been the root cause of the war and not some megalomaniac who got into a position to convince his co-believers into action.

    Wars are started by people, often for a political motive.

    I agree (great post), but wars are not fought by the people who started them. They're fought by the line troops who believe in the righteousness of their respective cause.

    Gullibility wins, and makes politicians rich and powerful.

  22. Re:Where is there proof of a "religious" gene? on Model Says Religiosity Gene Will Dominate Society · · Score: 1

    I'm assuming the gene doesn't actually make you "religious", it just predisposes you to being suggestible and superstitious ...

    That doesn't look very skeptical from here. You're assuming it exists in the first place.

    I think gullibility is just a least resistance path, which seems far more likely.

  23. Re:Evolution on Model Says Religiosity Gene Will Dominate Society · · Score: 1

    Or maybe it was because their "slutty and stupid" male partners fathered 4+ children due to sloppiness around birth control and then gave up most of those children for adoption.

    Takes two to tango. They're both equally culpable. She knew the possible/likely consequence as much as he was willing to ignore them. Lucky for him, he's a guy. Maybe she should have said no.

  24. Re:Evolution on Model Says Religiosity Gene Will Dominate Society · · Score: 1

    So there's an evolutionary advantage to not believing in evolution? Whoda thunk it?

    Is over-population an evolutionary advantage? There's a lot of Greens out there who'd disagree.

  25. Re:Religiosity gene? on Model Says Religiosity Gene Will Dominate Society · · Score: 1

    Is there any logical reason to have kids in the first place?

    Yup, Asimov's 0'th law (Robots and Empire). If you care about the meta-organism humanity, you'll want to help humanity continue, and a kid or five is the simplest way to do that.