Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Linux Mint? Cinnamon? (Score 1) 155 155

Speaking as someone from a country that idolises lamb and mint sauce...that sounds more like a desert...

As a non-US person I have noticed that your recipes can contain up to 5x the sugar I would ever think to put in a dish.

I guess this is a desensitisation thing?

The mind really does boggle...

Comment: Re:C is not what people think it means (Score 1) 226 226

Thank you for giving yet another example why people confuse this issue and end up not understanding that you can travel distances of 1000's of light years in much shorter than those years without making Einstein sad.

I understand the theory. I don't need yet another reinterpretation or metaphor.

If you think that is what was required then you missed my point entirely.

But then that may have been the point...

Comment: Re:Mental health workers? (Score 1) 385 385

Nice and comprehensive try at reverse explaining your not-so-well thought out knee jerk response to the article.
"As to strawmen, I think you're drawing a distinction without meaning."
Nope, I explained this as thoroughly as needed.

"As to 20 percent of the labor force being out of work... it has happened many times before. We're still here."
Those did not occur "here". With trillions in debt and outsourcing of the manufacturing industry. You have NEVER been there. But again...nice straw man.

"As to less people buying stuff... that doesn't make any sense."
Then you need to redo economics 101. This is not even close to a contentious point and if you DO think it is, then that explains why you fail to understand the rest of my post!

"Why outsource when you're automating?"
Because the number of highly skilled people reduces and land/labour/tax/etc costs are a small fraction of that in your own country. And all those widgets you need? Most of those are made in China...

"No really. Take a few deep breaths to get some more oxygen to your brain... and TRY to make sense..."
I have been. Just because you don't understand does not mean I am not making sense. Try breathing through your nose and perhaps you will also.

"As to trade deficits causing a loss in economic growth... How? "
Holy shite. Really? You REALLY don't understand how trade deficits are bad for a country?!

Ok...I give up. There is no hope for you...

Comment: Re:Mental health workers? (Score 5, Insightful) 385 385

"I could go on... the fears of everyone losing their jobs to robots are ill founded. "

You could, but it would not enlighten anyone. You are talking in absolutes and margins like they are all that count because you are arguing a straw man.
The "fears" (from people not writing clickbait articles) are not around "everyone" losing their job. They are around too many people losing their job.

Do you know what would happen to ANY of the modern first world economies if 20% of their workforce is no longer needed? Fucking disaster.
And most at much less than that!

So here is a list that has actual meaning in terms of this subject.
  - Less people working means less people buying all that rubbish that is the only thing keeping our debt fueled economies from collapsing.
  - More automation means (even) more companies outsourcing entire factories overseas: INCLUDING many of those jobs you mention above.
  - Since more stuff is made in 3rd world countries which means your trade deficit worsens.
  - The above depresses economic growth in said country and thus causes jobs losses in support industries which cause further job losses...etc
  - More unemployed means more pressure on government money and less tax to pay for it. It also can mean civil unrest and crime spikes.
  - Income inequality skyrockets as the the rich invest worldwide but the rest must earn locally - which further slows the economy.
  - All this also depresses wages which also reduces spending which brings us back to DOH!

And this is not theory. This process has already taken place in many areas of manufacturing already. The OECD has just released a report on the impact of income inequality on economic growth.

And this is not an exhaustive list by any means and many of those bullet points are heavily summarized.

Comment: Re:C is not what people think it means (Score 1) 226 226

There is no need to complicate the scenario. This is what typically happens when people describe this stuff which is great for explaining the theory but they sometimes forget to mention what happens in practice.

Here is what they often forget to mention:
1) I want to make a journey I measure as 100LY. I accelerate then decelerate at 1g for equal amounts of time to stop at my destination.
2) A bunch strange perceptual shit happens..
3) The journey takes less than 100 Y for me.

QED.

Comment: Re: faster than light never violates Relativity (Score 1) 226 226

I never said it was easy at all. I said that it was not theoretically impossible at all in practical terms. Also that the the above simplification leads people who don't understand the theory to assume it is impossible.

This is a huge difference which you are wilfully ignoring in your desperation to construct a straw man to burn at the stake.

Just because you cannot understand something, does not mean it is rubbish.

Comment: Re:faster than light never violates Relativity (Score 1) 226 226

This is a gross oversimplification and has been misleading people for decades.

When communicating velocity for practical purposes we always do so in terms of relative velocity with a common frame of reference. We do this because to do otherwise is utterly ridiculous.

It is perfectly "legal" to travel at relative velocities faster than C - even if your starting relative velocities were zero. Now I understand and I assume you know: as you accelerate towards C, wierd things happen to the frames of reference of the traveller and external observer. But this really is irrelevant for practical purposes.

The important point is that to YOUR OWN measurements as taken BEFORE the trip, you travelled faster than the speed of light. This is the common and practical frame of reference that we would use to communicate our velocity. i.e. This was 100 LY away and I covered it in this amount of my time so I travelled at...

THAT, my friend, is what counts here for practical purposes of travel - as opposed to the esoteric world of the theory.

What many here are suggesting (practically speaking) is metaphorically akin to taking a velocity reading of your own body while sprinting on a supersonic jet and concluding you are travelling 6 km/hr as relative to the jet.

And it is a stupid thing to tell the average person because they fail to see the value in jet travel (durrr...I could never run to Paris!). (which is what has happened with space travel)

Comment: Re:C is not what people think it means (Score 1) 226 226

And likewise you can make anything relative to anything else and make it seem like that comparison is somehow more important.

The important point is that to an independent "observer" and to YOUR OWN measurements as taken BEFORE the trip, you travelled faster than the speed of light.

THAT, my friend, is what counts here for practical purposes.

What you are suggesting (practically speaking) is metaphorically akin to taking a velocity reading of your own body while seated on a supersonic jet and concluding you are travelling 0 km/hr because you are not moving relative to the jet.

And it is a stupid thing to tell the average person because they fail to see the value in jet travel. (which is what has happened with space travel)

Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself.

Working...