Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Supermodels (Score 1) 268

The people who are the most qualified to tell us about the climate are corporate execs and economists who *really really want* global warming to be not real. If someone tries to pull you out of that protective bubble, the best thing you can do is close your eyes, cover your ears, and yell LA LA LA as loudly as possible.

Comment Re:Teamsters (Score 3, Interesting) 228

> > A human will be present at the wheel at all times, and will take control whenever the truck is in more populated areas.

For now. Anyone who thinks that eliminating drivers isn't the end goal of this (or that we lack the ingenuity to do it) is fooling themselves. Think about it. If you replace your fleet of regular trucks with driverless ones, you suddenly don't have to pay all those drivers $50k a year (or whatever it pays now), and your trucks are twice as productive because they can operate 24 hours a day since there's no driver to get tired.

Mind you, I'm not advocating that we halt technological progress, but we're coming up on a time when there just aren't going to be enough jobs to go around, and the economy is going to have to adjust for that in a way that rewards people who work but doesn't starve people who want to work but can't find jobs.

Comment Realistically... (Score 1, Interesting) 236

The anchors in question have iPads and are comfortable using them. Microsoft almost certainly paid CNN to have all their anchors use Surface tablets on air, and the anchors probably aren't particularly thrilled that they have to ditch the platform they're comfortable with. I'm sure that now that this (admittedly hilarious) picture has circulated, it will be mandated that CNN anchors not have iPads anywhere near them while on the air.

Comment This is just traditional web advertising (Score 2) 116

Ads have been pretending to be part of website user interfaces forever now. A good website would ban those kinds of ads, but Facebook's customers (the advertisers) pay top dollar for unfettered access to Facebook's main commodity (its users). The only way that's ever going to change is if people start to leave Facebook in droves, but unfortunately it's the primary way that Gen X, Gen Y, and older Millenials communicate with each other. It's going to be a couple decades yet before Facebook's primary users age into less valuable advertising demographics, and people have already shown that they're generally unwilling to jump ship for better platforms (Google Plus isn't great, but it's a hell of a lot less obnoxious than Facebook). Me, I deleted my Facebook account several years ago, and have never looked back.

Comment Re:Inverse Wi-fi law (Score 3, Informative) 278

I think it's because cheap hotels are for regular travelers and nice hotels are for people traveling on business who will be reimbursed by their employers. Even for expensive hotels, the prices are pretty minuscule compared to what a big company can afford, so money is really no object for them. So the employees book at expensive hotels because it's kind of a perk of traveling for their company, and private individuals book at cheap ones because that's what they can afford.

[A computer is] like an Old Testament god, with a lot of rules and no mercy. -- Joseph Campbell