Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:And who's going to pay for it? (Score 1) 241

and: what is the chances you can send say 5 people and not one of them will have a condition that requires hospital attention in 2 years? I love how scientists (and I have a physics degree) love to suggest very expensive projects and they always claim it will save humanity. Heck I worked in a genetics laboratory and everyone would be doing stupid (but interesting) things like figuring out how lizards grow their tails back. When grant time rolled around it was always: we could grow our own organs, we could cure cancer, we could cure paralysis etc. Heck they literally had whole conferences devoted to people studying one particular type of worm. Sure those things could happen but all the scientist's cared about was getting their PhD so they could land a good post doc. Cancer landed on the grant proposal because that was the circus you had to run to impress the granting committees and or tick boxes to be considered for different government sources of funds.

Anyone thinking the guys at big science facilities are completely working for the benefit of humanity and their own fame and fortune doesn't come into play are smoking crack. Science has as much snobbery as any military or private organization I ever worked about. Getting the best funds, grad students, lab equipment, lab location (EMBL, CERN, Harvard etc), getting your papers in the best journals etc.is 90% of the work senior researchers concern themselves with in my experience.

Comment: Re:And who's going to pay for it? (Score 1) 241

I think we'll have colonies in the next couple hundred years at the longest. But the thing is exponential growth. Space travel might get cheaper but the amount of power needed to launch a spacecraft means we won't move people off the planet fast enough that the population actually shrinks.

Why doesn't the US challenge China to a healthcare or human rights race? Something we know will help people now not hopefully help them in the future. If we can't figure out how to take care of each other we don't deserve to colonize other planets.

Comment: Re:Will Technology Disrupt the Song? (Score 1) 157

by ILongForDarkness (#49783231) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Will Technology Disrupt the Song?

I agree with a lot of your comments. What I miss about radio is discovering new stuff. That said my tastes lean away from mass market stuff. Not that I hate all of it but the current Lady Gaga song or whatever being played once an hour means 1) I listen to crap I don't like and 2) I don't really discover new music that I want to listen to anyways.

So I rely on friends and concert festivals to find new bands. Because my stuff isn't played on the radio often by the time I discover a band they've put out 6 albums and I have a lot of material to enjoy before moving on to the next new thing I find.

Social aspect: going in all ways. Everyone has headphones on listening to their own playlists while they text with their own friends. casual acquiescences don't really share anything anymore.

Comment: Re: Will Technology Disrupt the Song? (Score 1) 157

by ILongForDarkness (#49783139) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Will Technology Disrupt the Song?

No those might have had actual technical limitations length of a record/phonograph for example.

Another possibility: maybe song length for pop songs is self-limiting. People hate to hear songs they don't like. If they have 10min of a song they like and then 10min of a song they don't they'll change the dial. But if you keep them short they'll rid them out like a lot of people do with commercials.

Comment: Re:Will Technology Disrupt the Song? (Score 1) 157

by ILongForDarkness (#49780899) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Will Technology Disrupt the Song?

Also probably due to the genre but one of my favorite bands, Opeth, has an average song length of probably 9min. They have a whole bunch of songs 12+ min long. I've never heard them on radio but did hear an a snippet from one of their softer songs in a CSI episode I think it was. I don't listen to the radio because generally it doesn't play the type of music I like. Sure with online I could search around for a station somewhere that plays it but being online I can just listen to the things I like in the first place.

I think radio is an outdated medium at least for music. For discussions and such it can be okay, but then again that can also be replaced by podcasts.

Comment: Re:just what we all love (Score 1) 241

by ILongForDarkness (#49762861) Attached to: Amazon Decides To Start Paying Tax In the UK

Can't you both be right? price changes tend to happen in chunks throughout the supply chain. Your aluminum is $2/kg from the supplier and then one day they tell you it is now $2.25. You suck it up for a while but then when they raise it again to $2.35 you finally say now we need to charge the customer more. That is why everything in Walmart can be *.97, you don't see a whole bunch of 1.36 products etc. prices move (stupid new keyboard is defective p apparently doesn't work with the shift key, nice) because they retailer has a pricing model, whether it be a standard ending on the end of prices, or "brackets" they place different categories of goods into etc.

I agree though: taxes on profits not total revenue does help a lot though. Same thing with the personal tax rate. When people say you can raise the top bracket it is just silly. 1) If you were making $300k and they changed the tax rate would you chose to stop at say $200k so you wouldn't hit the new high bracket or would you "settle" for making $275k this year? people tend to get used to making a certain amount and plan their spending accordingly. Which means they are still highly incentivized to earn (before tax) at least as much as before the tax rate hike. 2) A lot of high earners aren't making their money by salary: they are "choosing" to make X amount of money every year regardless of the tax rate. How much they keep and how much the tax man gets doesn't really affect them much. The investments, creative works whatever are already done. New investments needing bank loans might be another issue but that is what equity is for. If equity does get spread out because they can't get favorable loans, it will likely go at favorable multiples, which means the same revenue gets split more ways, less people in the top bracket and we get a more balances wealth distribution with fewer and fewer people hitting the "unfair" high bracket.

Comment: Re:It's not a networking issue. (Score 1) 384

by ILongForDarkness (#49745315) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Way To Solve a Unique Networking Issue?

Also how often do you upgrade the software. If it is only once every 6mth-year or whatever is the cost of the setup going to pay for itself? If you run wires where are they going to go? If not how are you getting a wifi card into all these devices (are they configurable enough to do it, etc? What is the current process is this guy working after hours or doing one at a time at a gas station that is still operating? They might not like it so much if you close all the pumps at once for 20min vs only one at a time for 3 hrs.

Comment: Re:It's not a networking issue. (Score 1) 384

by ILongForDarkness (#49745277) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Way To Solve a Unique Networking Issue?

I don't know if I'd blame the manufacturer. They couldn't exactly run ethernet under ground at a gas station very easily. Could have used wifi I suppose but flaky/some people are freaked out using phones around gas stations (might cause a spark, kaboom) so knowing they have a built in "cell phone" would make those nutjobs more paranoid than they are already. How often is this software updated? It might just be that, sorry to say, the posters time is of neglible value vs the cost of deploying and maintaining a network: remember networks have issues too. They probably don't trust a random guy they hire to do the upgrades to have the skills to figure out their software + any networking issues that pop up. Not sure wasn't clear if the poster is a true "IT" guy or an installer monkey. Installer monkeys are cheap you just have to keep the systems they play with very simple. Anyways, not clear what the business decision on the deployment was, might have made sense at the time.

Comment: Re:Anecdotal evidence (Score 1) 241

by ILongForDarkness (#49718191) Attached to: How Windows 10 Performs On a 12-inch MacBook

+1 to notification crap. You can disable it but I'm amazed at the software that thinks it needs to startup an updater on boot just in case a new version is available. In my case at work: java, adobe, graphics driver etc. You can disable most of it but I agree it is stupid. My graphics card is particularly spammy( "you might not be planning on using it, but just in case, we really really need to let you know we have a driver that will give you a 5% improvement on Dirt 4"). Once a week or more it gives me an update notification.

Nivida: I like to stay up to date but I'm sorry I really don't care about your point-point release as in 187.02.03. Apps IMO should only check for updates when they are actually used (hard to get around the graphics driver I guess) and even then I think it should be limited to once a month or something.

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." -- Albert Einstein

Working...