the unofficial Slashdot digest archive

People Like Netflix's Original Content More Than Its Other Content: AllFlicks

Posted by BeauHDView on SlashDotShareable Link
According to a study by IHS Markit this month, in the last two years Netflix's spending on original content rose from $2.38 billion to $4.91 billion. The company has invested big in original programming -- and it looks to be paying off. The folks over at AllFlicks have found that Netflix's subscriber base prefers Netflix's original content to that of its syndicated content. AllFlicks reports: Netflix user ratings show that Netflix's subscriber base prefers Netflix's original content to its syndicated content. Netflix originals sport an average rating of 3.85 stars out of five; all other content averages 3.47 stars. That means that user ratings for Netflix originals are 11% higher, on average, than user ratings for syndicated content. Netflix does best in the documentaries category, where users rate non-original content, on average, at 3.54. Netflix's documentaries average 4.07 stars, a pretty impressive showing. Netflix's TV shows do the worst, but still edge their other TV show content by 5.7%. It's possible that the frequent reviewers among Netflix's user base differ from the user base as a whole, but there's not a lot of reason to doubt the raw data here. The Netflix originals and non-originals were both reviewed on the same service and using the same rating system, yet originals consistently outperformed the rest of the content.

Alibaba Founder To Chinese Government: Use Big Data To Stop Criminals

Posted by BeauHDView on SlashDotShareable Link
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Chinese billionaire Jack Ma proposed that the nation's top security bureau use big data to prevent crime, endorsing the country's nascent effort to build unparalleled online surveillance of its billion-plus people. China's data capabilities are virtually unrivaled among its global peers, and policing cannot happen without the ability to analyze information on its citizens, the co-founder of Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. said in a speech published Saturday by the agency that polices crime and runs the courts. Ma's stance resonates with that of China's ruling body, which is establishing a system to collect and parse information on citizens in a country where minimal safeguards exist for privacy. "Bad guys in a movie are identifiable at first glance, but how can the ones in real life be found?" Ma said in his speech, which was posted on the official WeChat account of the Commission for Political and Legal Affairs. "In the age of big data, we need to remember that our legal and security system with millions of members will also face change." In his speech, Ma stuck mainly to the issue of crime prevention. In Alibaba's hometown of Hangzhou alone, the number of surveillance cameras may already surpass that of New York's, Ma said. Humans can't handle the sheer amount of data amassed, which is where artificial intelligence comes in, he added. "The future legal and security system cannot be separated from the internet and big data," Ma said. Ma's speech also highlights the delicate relationship between Chinese web companies and the government. The ruling party has designated internet industry leaders as key targets for outreach, with President Xi Jinping saying in May last year that technology leaders should "demonstrate positive energy in purifying cyberspace."

No One Is Buying Smartwatches Anymore

Posted by msmashView on SlashDotShareable Link
An anonymous reader shares a Gizmodo report: Remember how smartwatches were supposed to be the next big thing? About that... The market intelligence firm IDC reported on Monday that smartwatch shipments are down 51.6 percent year-over-year for the third quarter of 2016. This is bad news for all smartwatch vendors (except maybe Garmin), but it's especially bad for Apple, which saw shipments drop 71.6 percent, according to the IDC report Apple is still the overall smartwatch market leader, with an estimated 41.3-percent of the market, but IDC estimates it shipped only 1.1 million Apple Watches in Q3 2016, compared with 3.9 million in 2015. To a degree, that's to be expected, since the new Apple Watch Series 2 came out at the tail-end of the quarter. But the news is still a blow, when you consider how huge the Apple Watch hype was just 18 months ago.

Article is 95% herp Derp

By Lumpy • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

Nobody is UPGRADING their smartwatches because why the hell should I pay $350 to get a watch that has zero features above what I already have? When I had a Pebble Time it did everything I wanted then and the other pebble offerings were useless iterations that either offered a useless feature (lighter and shorter battery).

the Apple Watch 2.0 only really offers waterproofing. no real advances that people would dump another $350+ to replace their 1 year old Apple Watch 1.0

The android watches, well nobody has been buying them, they have always been the last place runners, but their new iterations are all useless. Zero advantages on the new versions.

The ONLY smartwatch maker not with their head up their ass is Pebble. 10 day battery life in the Pebble Time Steel. Apple could have doubled the battery life, Samsung could have doubled battery life.... nope, they are all stuck in the "ZOMG THINNER!" stupidity.

Dick Tracy is rolling over in his grave

By jfdavis668 • Score: 3 • Thread
In the past that mostly had to do with Madonna, but now he is upset no one uses two way video watches.

So much hate

By Ghazgkull • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

I didn't want one either. So much so that when my wife surprised me with an Apple watch for Christmas last year, I could hardly hide my disappointment. Thinking "I really didn't *want* one of these"...

But having used a smart watch for a while now, I absolutely love it. Why?

1. The haptic feedback. I run my phone on silent 24/7, which meant that I was constantly having to double-check that I didn't miss a message while walking around. There's no missing or mistaking the prominent tap from the watch so this problem is solved. No more missed messages and no more randomly checking my phone.
2. The weather. I wouldn't have predicted this one, but having the current weather conditions plus the day's high/low temps on the watch face is super useful. I probably look at my watch for the weather conditions almost as often as I look at it for the time.
3. The general freedom of not needing my phone in my hand. In lots of small ways throughout the day, a well-functioning smart watch is another one of those "living in the future" joys. Sending messages by voice without even pulling out your phone, pausing/resuming podcasts while mowing the lawn, getting haptic navigation directions while having an uninterrupted conversation... a good smart watch is clearly a step forward.

As a former skeptic turned believer, it's a shame to see so many people dumping on these devices without having the chance to really see what they offer.

Bad data, poor credibility

By plsuh • Score: 3 • Thread

Folks, all of this is from numbers pulled out of some IDC analyst's rear end. Their estimates are no better than SWAG's. I should know, I've had to use their reports in a past life. Sometimes they're accurate, as companies will report otherwise confidential numbers so long as they can't be backed out of the reports. However, Apple doesn't play those games and in this case it's explicitly some analyst's best guess. Most analysts badly misunderstand Apple, and when you misunderstand the biggest player in the market your analysis is almost certain to be wrong.

Also, Garmin's growth was from a very low base. It's easy to grow by 300+% if you start from almost zero.

Technology isn't advanced enough yet

By Dan East • Score: 3 • Thread

We still don't have the display technology to make a proper smartwatch. Until we have a watch with a display that is continuously on and active (such as a full-color e-ink display that's at least 30 FPS) that can operate for a minimum of 24 hours continuously on one charge, smart watches are going to be a severe compromise from existing watches (digital or analog). Only those that have use cases that really require them, or that want to bend over backwards to integrate them into their lives, will find them useful enough to bother with.

Look at digital watches. The first generation were LED with red glowing numbers, and they only displayed the time when you pushed a button, otherwise the battery would be dead within an hour. Does that sound familiar? Digital watches did not explode onto the scene until LCD displays matured, which were capable of actively displaying real-time data continuously for months on a single battery. That will be the technology that drives smartwatches - whatever display advancements need to take place to allow continuous full-color, real-time data display with a battery life measured in days. Until then, companies like Apple are putting the cart before the horse and using gimmicks like gestures and the like to try and switch the display on intermittently (and hopefully) when the user is needing to see it.

Electronic Surveillance Up 500% In DC Area Since 2011, Almost All Sealed Cases

Posted by BeauHDView on SlashDotShareable Link
schwit1 quotes a report from Washington Post: Secret law enforcement requests to conduct electronic surveillance in domestic criminal cases have surged in federal courts for Northern Virginia and the District, but only one in a thousand of the applications ever becomes public, newly released data show. The bare-bones release by the courts leaves unanswered how long, in what ways and for what crimes federal investigators tracked individuals' data and whether long-running investigations result in charges. In Northern Virginia, electronic surveillance requests increased 500 percent in the past five years, from 305 in 2011 to a pace set to pass 1,800 this year. Only one of the total 4,113 applications in those five years had been unsealed as of late July, according to information from the Alexandria division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which covers northern Virginia. The report adds: "The federal court for the District of Columbia had 235 requests in 2012, made by the local U.S. attorney's office. By 2013, requests in the District had climbed 240 percent, to about 564, according to information released by the court's chief judge and clerk. Three of the 235 applications from 2012 have been unsealed. The releases from the Washington-area courts list applications by law enforcement to federal judges asking to track data -- but not eavesdrop -- on users' electronic communications. That data can include sender and recipient information, and the time, date, duration and size of calls, emails, instant messages and social media messages, as well as device identification numbers and some website information."

Role Reversal

By jxander • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

The entire default stance for Private citizens and Public officials has been flipped.

We, as private citizens, are supposed to have our lives kept private, except in extreme cases where surveillance is required and granted sparingly and meticulously.

They, as public officials, are supposed to operating publicly, except in extreme cases of national security.

Somewhere along the lines, these roles were reversed. I'm not sure if we're ever going to get things back.

240% ?? Come on ...

By ve3oat • Score: 4, Informative • Thread
Sorry, but a change from 235 requests to 564 is an increase of only 140%, not 240%. Doesn't anyone at the Washington Post know how to calculate percentage changes correctly? I find this is a common problem with journalists. Maybe they have a point about the nature of the problem, but to claim an increase of 240% when it is only really 140% is just hype. Incorrect and preventable errors of journalism.

... had 235 requests in 2012 ... By 2013, requests in the District had climbed 240 percent, to about 564 ...

Seth's Blog: Hardware is Sexy, But It's Software that Matters

Posted by msmashView on SlashDotShareable Link
American author and entrepreneur Seth Godin argues that though hardware is nice and dandy, it is the software that matters. And not just software that runs on a computer, "but the metaphorical idea of rules and algorithms designed to solve problems and connect people," he writes. Godin has used the piece to note how Apple has increasingly grown focused on hardware, and as a result, it's not putting much effort to fixing its software. He writes, "Automator, a buggy piece of software with no support, and because it's free, no competitors. Keynote, a presentation program that hasn't been improved in years. iOS 10, which replaces useful with pretty. iTunes, which is now years behind useful tools like Roon. No significant steps forward in word processing, spreadsheets, video editing, file sharing, internet tools, conferencing, etc. Apple contributed mightily to a software revolution a decade ago, but they've stopped. Think about how many leaps forward Slack, Dropbox, Zapier and others have made in popular software over the last few decades. But it requires a significant commitment to keep it moving forward. It means upending the status quo and creating something new." From the article: Software can change faster than hardware, which means that in changing markets, bet on software. It's tempting to treat the user interface as a piece of fashion, some bling, a sort of jewelry. It's not. It's the way your user controls the tool you build. Change it when it stops working, not when you're bored with it. Every time you change the interface, you better have a really good reason.John Gruber disagrees. He writes: Software, in general, is much better than it used to be. Unlike 1995, we don't lose data due to bugs very often. (For me personally, I can't even remember the last time I lost data.) But our hardware is so much better than our software, the contrast is jarring. An iPhone is a nearly perfect object. Sleek, attractive, simple. The hardware is completely knowable -- there are only five buttons, each of them easily understood. iOS, however, is effectively infinite. The deeper our software gets, the less we know and understand it. It's unsettling.

Dude does a bong hit...

By swb • Score: 5, Funny • Thread

...ruminates on how it's not the bong that matters, but the weed that goes into it.

Stays up late writing blog post on same idea, but extrapolated to hardware & software.


By Gravis Zero • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

The hardware is completely knowable -- there are only five buttons, each of them easily understood.

If he knew about the hardware, he would know the action of every button is software defined!

Neither of these fools understand hardware or software beyond a superficial measure.

Money drives innovation

By DidgetMaster • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread
Let's see...users are willing to fork out a few hundred dollars every few years for the latest tech trinket, yet they want all their software for free. They balk at even a modest charge of $10 or $20 for something really useful. Gee...I wonder why bugs go years without anyone looking at them or features remain on the backlog for decades? If we want innovation in software, we have to be willing to pay something for it.

Re:Money drives innovation

By drinkypoo • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

If we want innovation in software, we have to be willing to pay something for it.

I couldn't give a toss for innovation. They can blow their innovation right out their arseholes. What I want is iteration. I want them to go back over their work and fix their mistakes. I am willing to pay far more for a bugfixed OS than I am for a new scheduling API for example. And I won't pay anything for the developer to add spyware to the system.

Apple Releases iOS 10.1 With New Portrait Mode For iPhone 7 Plus

Posted by BeauHDView on SlashDotShareable Link
Apple has released iOS 10.1 to the public today for all iOS 10 users, and with it comes several new features, a long list of bug fixes, and various other under-the-hood improvements. One of the biggest new features introduced is a new "Portrait" mode, which uses the dual cameras in the iPhone 7 Plus to create shallow depth of field portrait photos with plenty of background bokeh. MacRumors reports: To achieve the blurred look, the image signal processor in the device uses the wide-angle camera to create a depth map while the telephoto captures an image, dissecting the different layers of the photo to decide what to blur with an artful "bokeh" effect. It works on people, pets, and objects, but it does require good lighting to achieve the proper results. The update also [...] brings Transit directions to Japan for the first time. There have been some tweets to the Messages app. It's now possible to play Bubble and Screen effects in Messages with Reduce Motion enabled, something that wasn't previously possible. There's also a new option to replay Bubble and Screen effects. It's important to the note that the "Portrait" mode is still in beta, and will not work flawlessly. Mac Rumors has a full list of the changes made to iOS 10.1 embedded in their report, which you can view here.

vs. landscape mode

By vossman77 • Score: 3 • Thread

At first I was thinking portrait mode for the apps, it was always in portrait mode. It was never landscape mode. Whoosh. Should have said fake-bokeh mode.

Please use 'bokeh' in a more useful way

By ScentCone • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread
'Bokeh' is used when referring to the quality of the out-of-focus background (or foreground) of the image, not the fact that it is out of focus. Shallow depth of field images have blurry elements. By definition. But different lenses render that OoF area differently. Some lenses have a jittery, doubled-up, or ring-like pattern, or render OoF highlights as oblong smears or as hard circles. It just depends on the lens design. So when we talk about this, it's about the quality, not the quantity or existence of blurred areas.

Think of it like this: every lens of a given format, focal length and aperture will produce essentially the same mount of OoF areas. It's just physics. The focal plane is where it is, and the meaningfully in-focus area (say, on the subject's face) is going to be a given depth (for a given display size and resolution). Period.

But that's like saying all pianos can play a middle C note. They can. But some sound twangy or harsh, while others sound more pleasing to the ear. Likewise with the OoF rendering by some lenses. With the piano we can say "it plays middle C, but the tone is harsh" - and with the camera, we can say that the lens when wide open can render shallow DoF and thus blur the background, but the bokeh is harsh (or, creamy, or busy, or smooth - whatever... it's the "tone," the visual quality of the blur rendering, generally considered to be more appealing the more creamy it is - though sometimes harsh, nervous bokeh is desireable for certain cinematic moods, etc).

Sorry, pet peeve. "Shallow depth of field" doesn't mean "has bokeh." That's like saying the car's suspension has ride. All cars do! But what's the quality of the ride? More like a sports car, or a limo? Better bokeh usually comes from much higher quality glass, and more of it in the design of the lens. Big, fat, fast prime portrait lenses are built - among other things - to play that visual note more elegantly than cheaper lenses do, even though they both hit the note when told do if they can achieve the same aperture at a given focal length.

Talk about misleading title!!!

By Ecuador • Score: 3 • Thread

iOS portrait mode means portrait vs landscape mode for desktop/apps, PERIOD.
Hmm, do you put a period after you've said period? Anyway, I digress...
If you wanted to use the word "portrait" instead of having a more accurate title like "fake bokeh" or "portrait photo background blurring" etc you could at least use "new portrait mode for camera app". This is supposed to be a site for nerds, know your crowd. Yeah, I know, I talk like I'm new here... ;)

New York Times Buys The Wirecutter For $30 Million

Posted by BeauHDView on SlashDotShareable Link
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Recode: The New York Times is buying The Wirecutter, a five-year-old online consumer guide. The Times will pay more than $30 million, including retention bonuses and other payouts, for the startup, according to people familiar with the transaction. Brian Lam, a former editor at Gawker Media's Gizmodo, founded The Wirecutter in 2011, and has self-funded the company's growth. The Wirecutter provides recommendations for electronics and other gadgets that are both obsessively researched and simply presented. The Wirecutter also owns The Sweethome, which takes the same approach for home appliances and other gear. "We're very excited about this acquisition on two fronts," said Mark Thompson, CEO of The New York Times Company, in the acquisition release. "It's an impressively run business with a very attractive revenue model and its success is built on the foundation of great, rigorously reported service journalism." The Wirecutter tweeted earlier today: "Hey, we're still us. But we're a part of The New York Times now."

Good news for the founders, I liked the site

By ShooterNeo • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

I personally liked Wirecutter's review style. Notably, you can find what they recommend with a link to buy it if you're in a hurry. They always have a section where the review goes over their credentials. They list all the comparable products they tried. They review things that other sites don't review, the general theme of the site is "consumer goods that a millennial has got to have".

I'm sure I'm going to get plenty of posts slamming them and claiming bias or how they often recommend something that is more expensive than the cheapest possible item you can buy that does the same thing. They absolutely do consider cost, unlike sites like wired, and usually they recommend the product that they feel offers the best bang/buck.

Anyways, they were good. Will The Times screw them up? Maybe. Maybe all the review staff will have to move into cubicles in some mammoth office building owned by NYT. Maybe they'll get treated a lot worse and they'll be forced to compromise their ethics to just collect as much cash as possible to boost a CEO's quarterly profits. Then again, maybe not. The Times bought five thirty eight, and I can't detect any significant downgrade in the site.

XPrize's New Challenge: Turn Air Into Water, Make More Than a Million Dollars

Posted by msmashView on SlashDotShareable Link
An anonymous reader shares a CNET report: If you can turn thin air into water, there may be more than $1 million in it for you. XPrize, which creates challenges that pit the brightest minds against one another, is hoping to set off a wave of new innovations in clean water -- and women's safety too. The company announced its Water Abundance XPrize and the Anu & Naveen Jain Women's Safety XPrize on Monday in New Delhi. The first competition will award $1.75 million to any team that can create a device able to produce at least 2,000 liters of water a day from the atmosphere, using completely renewable energy, for at most 2 cents a liter. Teams have up to two years to complete the challenge. India is at the center of the world's water crisis, with access to groundwater depleted in some northern and eastern parts of the country. Water has become so scarce in India that natural arsenic has infiltrated the soil and water in certain regions. While there are systems that can currently extract water from the atmosphere, many of them aren't energy-efficient, or generating enough water. "We know that overuse of groundwater resources are causing the water crisis and it's only getting worse," said Zenia Tata, XPrize's executive director of Global Expansion. The $1 million Women's Safety XPrize calls for an emergency alert system that women can use, even if they don't have access to their phones. The alert would have to be sent automatically and inconspicuously to emergency responders, within 90 seconds, at a cost of $40 or less a year. The device would have to work even in cases where there's no cellphone signal or internet access.

That's not the hard part

By zamboni1138 • Score: 5, Funny • Thread

Getting water out of the air is easy.

The hard part is dealing with Sandpeople. They will steal your car, your droids... hell, even your wife.

Re:Isn't this like an ancience technology

By speedplane • Score: 5, Informative • Thread
The Wikipedia article is interesting. It mentions that one of the better existing devices generates 9,000 liters a year and takes up 6,500 sq. ft. of space. Assuming it scales linearly, 2,000 liters per day would require 527,000 sq ft of space, roughly ten football fields. If you could increase efficiency by a factor of 2 to 10, and similarly reduce costs, this x-prize challenge would be feasible.

Re:Air into water

By StevenMaurer • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

The problem with "free hydrogen" is that it floats. You start to see it about 70km up, and even then it is extremely rare because it is so light that it can get knocked out of Earth's gravitational well pretty easily by our solar wind.

So no, just burning "free" hydrogen just floating around in the atmosphere isn't possible. Good thing too, or else the atmosphere on our planet would be pretty much Hindenburg-like, which would make for a very crispy planet every time there was lightning storm.

Re:Air into water

By thinkwaitfast • Score: 4, Informative • Thread
I'm running a dehumidifier on solar. I'm getting about 30L/day, but wouldn't drink the water without a lot of filtration. I could theoretically run 4 dehumidifiers with my inverter. I can scale that up by trivially duplicating what I have 6x, so 6x$4k = $24k for the solar. Actually, add 6k in batteries so that it runs at night - $30k in solar + 70 dehumidifiers @$200 $14k.

$44k + $6k fudge factor. I could easiy do it for less than $50k assuming a semi-humid environment. Or a flooded laundry room.

Note that's an off the shelf solution, I'd bet tht this could be reduced by 20% with a more targeted design (no inverters in the system and dc motors in the dehumidifiers)..

Patent it and make some real cash

By Somebody Is Using My • Score: 3 • Thread

Am I the only one who thinks that anyone who can make a device that pulls "2,000 liters of water a day from the atmosphere, using completely renewable energy, for at most 2 cents a liter" would be far, far better to patent the machine and then sell it themselves? The device they are describing would be so miraculous - not to mention useful - that the $2 million prize would be small change to what the inventors would get if they commercialized it.

I mean, I'm all for encouraging scientists and don't think that science should only be about making money, but for what they are describing, they really ought to be offering a /real/ prize rather than what would be comparative pocket-change to the device's actual value.

I mean, I read that the cost of desalinization in California costs ~$10,000 per person (and that's just for the cost of the building plant, not the power or the distribution); to desalinate enough water for the whole state would cost close to $400 billion dollars. A machine that could create water for 5 people (2000 liters is a little more than 500 gallons; Americans use about 100 gallons of water a day) for $40 a day would have municipalities breaking down the inventor's door. XPrize really should offer remuneration that reflects the importance and value of the invention.

Microsoft Raises UK Cloud, Software Prices 22% After Brexit-Fuelled Pound Drop

Posted by msmashView on SlashDotShareable Link
Reader Mickeycaskill writes: Microsoft is to substantially increase its prices for software and cloud services prices offered in British pounds in order to accommodate the sharp drop in the currency against the US dollar in recent weeks. Beginning in January 2017 on-premises enterprise software prices will go up by 13 percent and most enterprise cloud prices will increase by 22 percent, bringing them into line with euro prices. Microsoft said it isn't planning to change its prices for consumer software and cloud services. The value of the pound has fallen by about 18 percent since the EU referendum on 23 June.

Re:resistance is futile

By MightyMartian • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Except Brussels itself is a construct of all the EU members, and it is the pooled sovereignty of all EU members that counts. This claim that Brussels is some sort of overlord that controls Europe demonstrates a great ignorance of what the EU is.

Beyond that, all but the most hardened Brexiteers would love to stay in the Common Market, which was why they kept talking about how Britain could still remain part of the ECC.

Re:resistance is futile

By OhPlz • Score: 4, Informative • Thread

How many times do EU members want to bail out Greece? How many terror attacks must be tolerated that were aided by the EU's freedom of movement between member countries? The Brits had enough of it. That's democracy. France may be next depending on how their upcoming election goes. The ideals of the EU sound great but they aren't working out to every member nation's satisfaction. Once again, Europe has Germany to blame for a lot of what's going on.

Re:Not just bitcoin

By MightyMartian • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

It does not have an intrinsic value that makes it worth weighting an entire currency on, and it is, in fact, rather vulnerable to price collapses itself. Both gold and silver have been witness to significant depreciation events, such as when the Chinese Empire began bleeding its silver reserves in the 18th and 19th century.

Metal-based currencies are no panacea, and are highly inflexible, and worst of all, don't do anything to stave off worst case scenarios like recessions and depressions.

Re:resistance is futile

By MightyMartian • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

How many terror attacks can you link to freedom of movement? And the Greeks want to stay in the Eurozone (which is different than the EU) and it is pretty clear Germany wants Greece to remain as well.

And if the Brits had enough of it, how come so many Brexiteers were hanging on to the hope of remaining in the ECC (which, by the way, would still mean some degree of freedom of movement).

Frankly, I think Brexit was just an episode of national pique, and I suspect if you reran the referendum now, with at least some of the ramifications becoming clear (such as Norway objecting to continued British membership in the ECC), Remain would have a solid win.

Re:Something's fishy

By Anonymous Coward • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

Every time a brexiter in denial with "oh they're just using brexit as an excuse".

No, you dumb bastard - if the GBP is worth 20% less then business either have to absorb a ~20% loss or increase prices. There's no conspiracy here. There's no clever accounting being hidden you by MAINSTREAM MEDIA LIES to make it look like the GBP has not seriously lost value when actually it hasn't. The fact is that the currency is no so useful atm. Just as investment in the UK in general is now not so attractive, not least because of a huge amount of uncertainty that investors hate - all that's really worth doing is buying chunks of UK business on the cheap, like our loss of our best technology asset, ARM.

It might be worth doing in the consumer sector because 1) they're facing serious competition atm 2) it's a smaller market anyway. But other business can't do this. They either run on much smaller margins, or they don't have huge reserves to release the pain more slowly. Sure, Carney has been making excellent use of public money to buffer things for now - his was the "emergency budget" that took place entirely within the executive sphere - but eventually he is going to run out of other people's money, to quote the old bat, and QE would just devalue the pound further.

I run a small business, but I'm already way worse off because everything I import costs a fuck-ton more and I can't afford to just bump prices up accordingly when my larger competitors already have huge warehouses of stock and have the power of scale to have negotiated pricing agreements. All the OMG RED TAPE that supposedly comes from Brussels is a myth, and what few anti-small-business legislation exists is hardly likely to be removed by the prevent government, whose ear is deaf to all but the largest enterprises.

Brexit is mostly a democratic expression of xenophobia that, because of no minimum turnout requirements, means the majority has to suffer heavily thanks to a third of the country being thick.

Mind you, I could be way worse off. Those northern working class voters who thought this would be to their advantage are going to be in for a hell of a ride.

Climate Change Could Cross Key Threshold in a Decade, Scientists Say

Posted by msmashView on SlashDotShareable Link
The planet could pass a key target on world temperature rise in about a decade, prompting accelerating loss of glaciers, steep declines in water availability, worsening land conflicts and deepening poverty, scientists said this week. But the planet is already two-thirds of the way to that lower and safer goal, and could begin to pass it in about a decade, according to Richard Betts, head of climate impacts research at the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre. Reuters reports: With world emissions unlikely to slow quickly enough to hit that target, it will probably be necessary to remove some carbon pollution from the atmosphere to stabilize the planet, scientists said. That could happen by planting forests or by capturing and then pumping underground emissions from power plants. But other changes -- such as reducing food waste and creating more sustainable diets, with less beef and fewer imported greenhouse vegetables -- could also play a big role in meeting the goal, without so many risks, he said.

Moving goal posts

By Karmashock • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

New York City was supposed to be under water by now. Same people are saying the same thing. Time appears to be very subjective to these people. Any prediction or statement involving time should be taken lightly.

We've already crossed past arbitrary points of no return and whenever it happens... goal post is moved.

We're constantly being treated to this and when the prediction doesn't happen... no apology... no admission... nothing. Just a goal post move.

Will they admit in 50 years what they haven't admitted over 20? Will they admit over 100 what they won't over 50?

I suspect that only death by old age is going to resolve this because some people are going to keep this shit up to their graves.

Re:Pretty sure I read this story last decade.

By _Sharp'r_ • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

The planet could pass a key target on world temperature rise in about a decade, prompting accelerating loss of glaciers, steep declines in water availability, worsening land conflicts and deepening poverty.

The above is a 100% accurate statement. The below statement is also 100% accurate:
"The planet could pass a key target on world temperature drops in about a decade, prompting massive increases in wealth for everyone, plenty of food and peace for all mankind."
or even:
"The planet could pass a key target on world temperature rise in about a decade, prompting massive increases in wealth for everyone, plenty of food and peace for all mankind."

In other words, neither statement says anything but that a possibility, no matter how likely or unlikely exists. Which make them meaningless in terms of a scientific conclusion.

Wake me up again when scientists say, "If we don't drop our carbon consumption tomorrow, we're all going to die. Therefore, wanting to live, as of today I'm no longer going to consume any more carbon than I absolutely need to live" and have actual data to back it up. 'Cause that's about how drastic it'd have to be for people to believe after all the false alarms and cries of wolf not matched by personal action nor actual empirical results. After you're wrong repeatedly in your models, the rest of us will need to see some actually predict something accurately for a while before thinking you're on to something.

Re:Is this the same "One Decade" we were promised.

By phantomfive • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread
There's more. In 1989, we only had ten years to fix the problem.

There are some people who are climate deniers, who say that humans can't affect the climate. Those people are fools.

There are other people who refuse to believe that there is plenty of propaganda going on. Those people are also fools.

Re:DGW - Dinosaurogenic Global Warming

By hey! • Score: 4, Informative • Thread

Of course, the problem with focusing exclusively on the costs of trying to stop or (more realistically) slow climate change implicitly assumes that inaction won't cost us anything. In fact we're looking at costs either way. We're in a minimax kind of situation: how do we minimize the maximum costs?

There's also another wrinkle to this, which is that costs (and indeed profits -- every misfortune profits someone) aren't distributed evenly. The key determinant of how much you have to pay for or profit from climate change is how mobile your capital is. If you're a Bengladeshi subsistence farmer you're going to take +2C right on the chin. If you're a Wall Street bank you take your investments out of farms which are going to lose productivity in the next ten years or so shift to underwriting the opening of new farms in newly favorable places. In other words you make money going and coming. Likewise if you own multiple homes your risk from local changes is spread out. If the lion's share of your nest egg is in a house that is in the new 20 year floodplain or in the range of a newly endemic zoonosis, you're screwed.

So even if you can't avoid +2C without climate engineering (which might not be such a bad thing), getting there in ten years instead of twenty or thirty makes a huge difference. And beyond 2C, there are other benchmarks beyond that we don't want to hit in a hurry.

This is not a black-and-white situation: that we had our chance to do something and now there is nothing we can do. We had our chance to avoid this situation and now we're talking about how much time we'll have to adapt.

Re: Pretty sure I read this story last decade.

By haruchai • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

"the costs are too high"
The costs are always too high.
Same excuse was used against smokestack scrubbers, pollution cleanup, healthcare, social security, you name it.

Internet is Becoming Unreadable Because of a Trend Towards Lighter, Thinner Fonts

Posted by msmashView on SlashDotShareable Link
An anonymous reader writes: The internet is becoming unreadable because of a trend towards lighter and thinner fonts, making it difficult for the elderly or visually-impaired to see words clearly, a web expert has found. Where text used to be bold and dark, which contrasted well with predominantly white backgrounds, now many websites are switching to light greys or blues for their type. Award winning blogger Kevin Marks, founder of Microformats and former vice president of web services at BT, decided to look into the trend after becoming concerned that his eyesight was failing because he was increasingly struggling to read on screen text. He found a 'widespread movement' to reduce the contrast between the words and the background, with tech giants Apple, Google and Twitter all altering their typography. True black on white text has a contrast ratio of 21:1 -- the maximum which can be achieved. Most technology companies agree that it is good practice for type to be a minimum of 7:1 so that the visually-impaired can still see text. But Mr Marks, found that even Apple's own typography guidelines, which recommended 7:1 are written in a contrast ratio of 5.5:1.


By darkain • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

Sure, for an extremely exaggerated definition of "grey" - Just checked SublimeText's default theme: the text color is #F8F8F2, so just a hint of a shade off of absolute pure white leaning to yellow. The background, however, is indeed a "dark grey", but very well contrasted, as it is #272822. The default font is also a nice bold font which is easy to read. The other text editors on your list also follow a very similar style to this too.

Re:UI chases fads

By UnknownSoldier • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

> Skeuomorphic design is stupid and childish.

There is a name for myopic people who assumes their religion is "best" for everyone; their immature "my way is the only way" mentality is called a cult.

The *proper* solution is to give users a **choice** -- because good style is subjective.

Naturally, that begs the question, what is good? We'll get to that in a second.

Some people think this bookshelf is absolutely beautiful. Compare and contrast to the "modern" version which is bland and boring. All sense of charm, and uniqueness is flushed down the crapper -- Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft now all look the same. **Yawn**

I'm not the only one who hates the flat button look. All these modern designs look the same -- bland. Skeuomorphism matches what a real calculator looks like -- and you can pry my HP48SX from my cold, dead hands, thank-you very much.

Again, the best decision would be to match what users prefer. Some prefer the former, others prefer the latter. BOTH choices are OK. But designers love to pretend that they know better -- and shove their crap down my throat regardless if I like it or not.

Personally, I find antiskeuomorphism design to be dumb and gaudy -- as there no context for what is foreground and background. Congratulations, you've removed all signal and just made everything noise!. How is completely over-loading the user with noise helping them???

Maybe you prefer the gaudy, boxy design of Windows 1, er, Windows 8, but many people sure don't.

UI should be about empowering users -- NOT "let's make everything look bland, sterile, gaudy, lifeless and make me want to gouge my eyes out" because that's what modern UI has become. A clusterfuck of visual vomit.

IMO skeuomorphism is like spice

* Too much and you get indigestion.
* Too little and everything is "flat" and lacking.

I also disagree that "flat design" is skeuomorphic but that is a topic for another day.

Henry Poincare derived the e=mc^2 Mass-Energy equivalence 5 years earlier before Einstein. Einstein also abbreviated it as a linear equation instead of an infinite series.

Not just the web

By cliffjumper222 • Score: 3 • Thread

I bought an Apple TimeCapsule and I couldn't read the instruction manual. I'm over 40 and usually don't have any problem with print, but the small light gray font they used beat me. I managed to work out how to use it from the web, but it pissed me off.


By skids • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

Nope. Even when I get a headache and associated monocular diplopia, I still prefer my terminals (all light-on-dark) to websites (these days, practically all dark on light). I get the diplopia on light backgrounds as well, and the overall brightness makes my headache worse.

Re:UI chases fads

By jandrese • Score: 4, Funny • Thread
I thought white on black was good if you are in a dark room, and black on white is good if you are in a well lit room.

So the solution is obvious, we need a browser extension that turns the room lights on or off depending on the site you are currently visiting.

PayPal Payments and Notifications Are Coming To Facebook Messenger

Posted by msmashView on SlashDotShareable Link
PayPal has announced that it's rolling out as an additional payment option within Facebook Messenger, which currently supports payments via debit cards. From a VentureBeat article: PayPal has been pushing to expand its reach into the consumer realm, having struck partnerships with MasterCard, Visa, Vodafone, and Alibaba, among other companies in the past few months alone. With Facebook Messenger on board, this opens PayPal up to a potential one billion users. Facebook first unveiled plans to expand Messenger beyond a messaging app and into a platform last year, letting retailers connect with customers on one of the world's most popular messaging services. Retailers including Everlane and Zulily were among the first partners announced, while big-name brands such as KLM have since signed up to embrace Messenger as a platform.

Take my money, please!

By DogDude • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
This is going to be big. People love to hand over their personal information to Facebook. They love to hand over their money (and banking rights) to PayPal. Put them both together, and now people can have ONE corporate master! It's a win-win for everybody!

Incoming Fraud

By Archangel Michael • Score: 3 • Thread

This is going to open up whole new arenas of Fraud. Imagine a "fake" reseller "NlKE" selling fake Sneakers that never come.

(Please note that is not an "I" (capital i) that is an "l" (lower case L) )

Incoming Message from NlKE, "%50 off all NlKE sneakers! Buy now using PayPal!"

Please file under "what could possibly go wrong"

AT&T's $85B US Bid For Time Warner Sparks Antitrust Fears in Washington

Posted by msmashView on SlashDotShareable Link
An anonymous reader writes: The two top members of the Senate's antitrust subcommittee said Sunday that they plan to probe a colossal deal between AT&T and Time Warner. In a statement, Mike Lee, R-Utah., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. -- chairman and ranking Democrat, respectively, of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights -- said AT&T's acquisition of Time Warner "would potentially raise significant antitrust issues" that the panel would "carefully examine." AT&T Chairman and Chief Executive Randall Stephenson announced the $85 billion deal Saturday as "a great fit" that will combine the "world's best premium content with the networks to deliver it to every screen." Among those new properties are HBO, Turner Broadcasting System and Warner Bros., which would give them ownership of Cinemax, CNN and DC Comics, to name a few. Last year, AT&T completed the purchase of DirecTV, the country's largest satellite television provider. In an interview with NBC News, Klobuchar pointed to past mega-media acquisitions -- including the purchase of NBCUniversal by Comcast in 2011 and of Time Warner Cable by Charter Communications -- and said the "sheer volume" of the deal should give regulators pause.Presidential candidate Donald Trump has said that he would not approve of this deal if elected as the President. In the meanwhile, Bernie Sanders have also asked Obama administration to kill this agreement. The Vermont Senator said, " The deal would mean higher prices and fewer choices for the American people,"

Re:If being the biggest company wasn't right

By WheezyJoe • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Correction: a free market without the FCC is nothing BUT monopoly.
'cause if the FCC ain't there to police things, the big companies are going to cheat.
Buy all the shit up, shut out competition.
Why? 'cause if one don't cheat, another one will, so that in the end, there can be only one.

Fair competition? Feh. Playing fair, if you don't HAVE to play fair, is for suckers.

Re:Randomly selected policy positions

By swb • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

I think there's more than chance at work.

I think Trump's populism and Sanders' populism differ by the solutions they advocate, not by the problems they diagnose.

In many ways, Trump seems to have the kind of everyman "common sense" mindset shared by ordinary people who don't really know and/or care about high-level ideological alignment and coherence. I think this is what frustrates a lot of people when it comes to politics and why so many Americans identify as "independent" -- in their minds, solutions should be practical and effective first. They're not bothered by the fact that $solution_1 and $solution_2 are ideologically inconsistent.

More than many Democrats, Sanders seemed to be more pragmatic focused, or at least he seemed that way by focusing closely on more everyday economic concerns.

The more "political" a politician or voter is, the more they seem to demand ideological consistency, purity and cohesion.

Fickle as the wind

By sjbe • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Trump never solidly supported the Iraq War.

Trump never solidly supports any position. He changes his mind more often than a teenage girl changes moods. I don't actually mind someone changing their mind about a topic when they learn new information or even if they give a matter serious consideration. Trump never gives anything serious consideration. His policy positions are the very definition of fickle and certainly aren't based out of any ideology or even pragmatism but instead out of whatever whim strikes him at the time. He basically plays to whatever crowd he is facing and lies almost all the time.

Hillary Clinton voted for the war; that's a bit more serious.

So did most of congress at the time and they did so largely based on bad data from our intelligence agencies and the Bush administration. A mistake I think but not one that makes me think Trump would be a better choice as commander in chief.

Re:we have always been at peace with the klingons

By hawguy • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

An antitrust suit based on what? Not like AT&T and Time-Warner are competitors.

It was right there in the summary:

AT&T Chairman and Chief Executive Randall Stephenson announced the $85 billion deal Saturday as "a great fit" that will combine the "world's best premium content with the networks to deliver it to every screen

The company that owns the pipes shouldn't be the same company that owns the content.

"You don't want AT&T and want to switch to Google Fiber? Well then I hope you don't mind giving up CNN, HBO and other content"

The incumbent carriers already have too much power, they shouldn't get to wield content over subscribers heads too.

Re:Fickle as the wind

By jbengt • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

Hillary Clinton voted for the war; that's a bit more serious.

So did most of congress at the time and they did so largely based on bad data from our intelligence agencies and the Bush administration.

BS. Most of the politicians voted for it because the war was very popular with their constituents at the time.
Most wars do tend to be more popular before they start than after they drag on for 10 years.

Swedish Administrative Court Bans Drones With Cameras

Posted by msmashView on SlashDotShareable Link
An anonymous reader writes: The ruling of the Swedish administrative courts forbids anyone to fly a drone equipped with a camera as long as its not "... to document crime or prevent accidents...". They also rule that there is no exception for the ban for commercial use or in journalistic purposes. According to the court the issue with the drones is that is not "controlled locally"

The ban could cause a great problems for the drone industry within Sweden and the UAS Sweden has taken a stand against the ruling because of how it "... strikes against an entire industry that employs thousands of employees."

Re:Easy Solution

By TWX • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
In that case the nature of intent comes into play, and they very much would be considered criminal.

Don't panic

By c • Score: 5, Funny • Thread

If you're flying a camera drone in Sweden, just tell them you're documenting the crime of flying a camera drone in Sweden...


By RyanFenton • Score: 3 • Thread

Now available in my "NotExista' store page, I have large stickers featuring the following civic-minded messages:

"Remember kids, look both ways before crossing the street, to prevent accidents!"


"Be on the lookout for police brutality! It's all our jobs to record police in order to prevent crime!" ...along with the FINEST of google-translated Swedish-language versions. Yours for only 50kr! Or get 2 for 80kr! Some shipping and taxes may apply.

Transform your old-fashioned 'drone' into the latest in mobile crime-prevention and accident-prevention platforms today!

Ryan Fenton

Strangest argument

By TimothyHollins • Score: 3, Insightful • Thread

"The ban could cause a great problems for the drone industry within Sweden and the UAS Sweden has taken a stand against the ruling because of how it "... strikes against an entire industry that employs thousands of employees."

So, it shouldn't be illegal because it generates a lot of money? What about sex trafficking, cocaine smuggling, or ransomware? Is it fine to break the law if you get rich doing it?

I for one would hope that the judicial branch does not set the bar by what makes the most money.


By JesseMcDonald • Score: 3 • Thread

The ruling of the Swedish administrative courts forbids anyone to fly a drone equipped with a camera as long as its not "... to document crime or prevent accidents...".

The Swedish administrative courts have created a legal paradox. If it is a crime to fly a drone with a camera, then by doing so one is automatically documenting a crime... which apparently makes the drone legal, ergo no crime exists to be documented, ergo flying the camera-drone is illegal. The drone thus exists in a superposition of legal and illegal states, threatening to tear the entire Swedish legal system to pieces. (One can only hope.)

Women in Computing To Decline To 22% by 2025, Study Warns

Posted by msmashView on SlashDotShareable Link
New research warns that at the rate we're going, the number of women in the computing workforce will decline to 22% from 24% by 2025 if nothing is done to encourage more of them to study computer science. From a USA Today report (shared by an anonymous reader): The research from Accenture and nonprofit group Girls Who Code says taking steps now to encourage more women to pursue a computer science education could triple the number of women in computing to 3.9 million in that same timeframe. Women account for 24% of computing jobs today, but could account for 39% by 2025, according to the report, Cracking the Gender Code. And greater numbers of women entering computer science could boost women's cumulative earnings by $299 billion and help the U.S. fill the growing demand for computing talent, said Julie Sweet, Accenture's group chief executive for North America.

Re: Oh noes!!!!11111

By Anonymous Coward • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

Any problems that still exist in IT still exist in any "traditionally male" industries and occupations. And it's not just females that are affected, it's any special snowflake.

We can't single out IT and say how sexist and terrible its constituents are when I'm sure there are still much worse places (harassment-wise, etc.) for snowflakes like refineries, steel mills, oil rigs, railroads, heavy equipment repair, and probably almost any other blue collar job where you get dirty or risk your life.

Saying that the snowflakes get treated worse in a cube farm full of programmers than literally any of those other places is doing a disservice to the real women working in those other fields every day busting their asses. The difference? Your average millennial snowflake doesn't want to be a millwright, work on an oil rig, repair railroad tracks or become a tradesman. Why? Because (unlike tech) it isn't perceived as glorious, you have to deal with extremes of temperature, you can't become famous doing it, you can't sit on your ass and tweet all day about how oppressed you are while doing it, you probably won't get rich (but you'll earn a very comfortable living) and you sure as hell can't be a SJW idiot if you want to survive (literally, in many of those places) the first month on the job.

Yet, women have been working in all of those jobs for generations now. The problem isn't sexism or discrimination or harassment (which again, the HR departments and years of sensitivity training have pretty much taken care of), it's the softness of the last two generations of humans. They've been taught that feelings must be preserved above all else, above self, above country, above safety, and above security. In the traditional blue-collar industries I've mentioned above, anyone who makes it past training and the first week on the job will realize, right quick, that the safety of you and your crew is the number one priority. Feelings be damned. Does it matter if someone hurt your feelings if they got you out of a serious jam alive?

Now, in IT, it may not be life or death, but you might make a bad decision and decide to preserve someone's feelings and lose your career or promotion over it. You might lose your business a ton of money if a critical system goes offline or worse. And that isn't cool, we shouldn't have to lie to people and tell them they're good at something they aren't if they actually aren't good at it because of some protected status (or worse yet, feelings). There are plenty of women throughout history who have found great success in traditionally male fields. There are probably a lot who (for whatever reason) couldn't cut it and decided to move on. We are at a critical juncture right now where we decide what's more important: feelings or honesty. Hurting someone's feelings isn't always malicious, unwarranted, nor is it discrimination, in fact, it's one of the few things that even to me (as a man) can reach me when I'm sure I'm right and I'm really not. It's part of growing and being an adult.

So, are we going to embrace being an adult, growing up, and being responsible for making good decisions? Or are we going to embrace a permeating culture of perpetual adolescence where everyone gets a trophy and we base someone's worth not on what they produce or they can create or build, but on how many oppression points they can collect for themselves or how many times you signal your virtue to those holding those points? Women should work wherever they want to work, it shouldn't matter what percentage of them work where, it's their decision to determine whether they can cut it or not in a certain field. And saying they somehow shouldn't be left to decide their own future and destiny for themselves is positively the most sexist thing I've ever heard.

Re:Not this again

By ADRA • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

Women's bias seems less about stability and more about work flexibility:

I call BS on "doesn't belong" meme

By drnb • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

Alright, anecdotal evidence is always dodgy, ... She was talking to one of the HR types and they felt the need to inform her that there were multiple generations of engineer there, and that some of the older engineers sometimes said things like, "Women don't belong in programming." ...

I'm perfectly willing to accept isolated incidents. But the widespread existence of such a sentiment, I have to call BS. As you say, its just an anecdote

I am an old engineer and in 30+ years of software development at various employers, small, medium and large I never saw that sentiment. Were there occasional inappropriate jokes, well from a PC/SJW perspective yes, but the women I knew could give as well as take. And when in a female majority environment the non-PC jokes targeting men came from the women occasionally too, All these jokes whether from males or females, while admittedly not PC, were not offered with malicious intent and were more in the nature of friendly teammates joking around with each other. Everyone, male and female, had their day where they thought something was not funny. Even so, when a team transitioned away from an all male team as that first female member joined, there was either indifference or a supportive sentiment, not a hostile sentiment, when we males got together and talked when we got the news; even in the old days of the mid 1980s.

Were there excessive dating invitations, excessive as in "how many times do you need to hear no", yes. One time I had to have a serious talk with a peer from another team about taking "no for answer" when I found a team member in her cube obviously pissed off about something and she confided in what it was.

I have to admit that one day I made one of my female team members cry. I got her to follow me out of our cubicle farm and into an empty office and I closed the door for privacy. I then told her that of all the people I had worked with these last four years at the company she was the most reliable person I knew. That if it were possible to get something done she was the person I learned to trust more than any other. And the fact that she did this while having to juggle hours around occasionally to take care of things related to her two kids, school events, doctor's appointments, etc made her even more impressive. She cried, gave me a big hug, and then I went for my exit interview with HR since that was my last day. By the way, this was not my unique opinion, she was a highly respected engineer among her peers and management. As I was getting ready to leave I realized I had never shared my opinion with her.

I agree that women have faced challenges over the decades. For several years I dated a female engineer, she worked on embedded software, so I have her perspective to add to my own. And while these many challenges still exist to this day to one degree or another, the "women don't belong in programming" problem is not something I've seen myself or had 30+ years of coworkers mention that they had seen. I'm sure it happened somewhere but such a sentiment is an anomaly not a widespread problem like being asked out on a date too many times.

My opinion as to why the low representation of women exists, I think it is simply that fewer are exposed to it. I initially imagined programming boring, then I had to do a little in school and I discovered it to be a lot of fun, interesting and that I was also good at it. It was literally a life changing revelation. I expect that fewer females are given the chance to make such a personal discovery. So maybe there is a "women don't belong in programming" sentiment, but it would seem to be at home with their family, parents, aunts, uncles, etc than in industry. FWIW that girlfriend I had who did embedded software, her dad had a small manufacturing business and her and her sister grew up around people who made things. Both had the same opportunities to explore, but only she had the curiosity, her sister did not. Programming

Re: Oh noes!!!!11111

By luis_a_espinal • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

No problem of this nature is fixed by forcing people to change. The only way is to stick it out in the hostile environment until you are a majority. Then you can change the situation simply by acting differently. When you're the majority, you set the tone.

That's assuming there's a problem to begin with, of course.

The Civils Right movement says otherwise. Sometimes you have to force people to be less of an asshole.

Re:as a layperson, im a little confused.

By werepants • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread

If you're a manager and your making decisions on bonuses, promotions and pay and you're even unconsciously taking gender, race, religion or ethnicity into account, then you're a bigot.

Hang on now. There is probably nobody out there who doesn't unconsciously get influenced by those factors. We all have biases that we aren't even aware of - the very best we can do is try to take conscious steps to counteract those biases, or to evaluate a field of resumes without looking at the names, something like that.

Having a bias does not make you a bigot, it makes you a human. You only become a bigot when you believe that those instincts towards prejudice are appropriate and seek to rationalize and protect them. And you become a willing enabler of bigots if you try to pretend that bias doesn't exist.