Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:NYC taxi system could DESTROY uber (Score 1) 210

I have had similar experience, though I live about 6 miles away. I've had drivers try to refuse only to be told by the guy on the curb doing the assignments that if he refused he would have to go to the back of the queue anyway. The driver said that he had been waiting three hours and that he'd be losing money. Too bad. I have never, ever seen that airport not have a huge line of cabs waiting to pick people up. Maybe they just have too many. I saw a driver refuse to give a ride to a family with a service dog, back of the queue with him for another three hours. Frankly this seems like a terrible job.

Comment Re:Or the doctors could... (Score 1) 305

Maybe I don't understand the issue. If you refuse to see a doctor that won't prescribe an inappropriate medication, and you jump around because of that, why is that anyone's problem but your own? If I'm a doctor I'm still not going to prescribe it. Or are you suggesting we restrict information from everyone because some people are too dumb to know advertising for what it is? If these people are so affected by advertising that they would be willing to ingest a drug based only on a commercial then they have bigger problems. Maybe we should restrict all advertising because we can't let people get themselves into financial trouble.

Comment Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose (Score 4, Interesting) 284

I think he is referring to the legal requirement to tell the government everything they want to know. But maybe not. I don't really know what's on the Canadian long form. If it is like the US it is mostly bunch of stuff the government already has access to (like income), but are too lazy to go get, and a bunch of stupid stuff like how many bathrooms are in your house.

Comment Re:Flawed Assumption (Score 1) 165

You (and almost everyone here) miss the point. If you have a budget for a new TV, and find one that meets your requirements at a store for MSRP, but also find out they have it down the street for 20% off, would you still pay full price because that's "fair?" The company isn't going to pay you any more than they have to. If they can hire three cheap employees who each do 80% the work of two highly paid employees for the same total cost, they will. It doesn't matter how much value they bring to the company unless it drops below their cost threshold. (yeah yeah, take into account replacement costs, quality of work, public relations, etc...)

Comment Re:I may have missed it but (Score 2) 320

I hope you don't get all your info from hit pieces written by folks whose primary agenda is to drive clicks. Go talk to some Marines. They don't like the Harrier, it's slow, it's vulnerable, it has no legs, can't carry any kind of reasonable payload, and has a terrible safety record. Actually ask a Marine pilot, especially one who has flown both, which they would take into battle today given a choice. I bet you would get a similar answer to the one I got which was "F-35 any day of the week." You managed to pick the one airplane being replace by F-35 which is indisputably worse. Even without stealth and sensors the F-35 is vastly superior to the Harrier. You add stealth and sensors into the mix and the Harrier looks like the relic from the 1960s that it is. You want to have an actual debate on the merits? Talk about the F-18 C/D that is being used by the Marines. I'm not saying the F-18 wins, but I'm saying at least there would be a debate.

At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer.