Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:High fat? (Score 1) 244 244

Why do you care how I kill myself, as long as I'm making an informed decision?

The lifetime cost of diabetes is around $85,000, so I suppose you might argue that my poor diet raises your health insurance premiums. The lifetime cost of a single knee replacement is around $130,000, so I would counter that it is 3x more expensive to be an avid runner who wears out both his knees than to be a diabetic.

The cost for diabetes is a lot higher than that, especially when the patient is older and requires home care. Healthy walks or bicycling work as well. And you're assuming someone with diabetes is less likely to require knee replacement surgery or are they more likely to have their limbs amputated? What's the cost for a prosthetic?

Comment: Re:Height increase justifies nothing (Score 1) 409 409

It's inaccurate for most people. If you're tall then it doesn't scale correctly. I'm 6'2", should I weigh 145 pounds? The BMI calculation would say that was normal weight! I'm 225 with a 36" waist, which almost makes me obese. I exercise and try to eat right, most of the time. If I trimmed down to 200 pounds I would still be considered overweight!

Using a bad formula that doesn't take into account body fat% is ridiculous.

.

Comment: Re:Allow me to respond from the perspective of an (Score 1) 614 614

All good, right? No--because of wage creep. Wage creep means that because salaries must always go up for retained employees, labor costs must always go up.

They do not always go up(I wish!). Most companies have a range for each position. When you hit the ceiling for your position, you do not get a raise. Also, even if you are not at the limit, your raise will depend on how close you are to the limit. The ceiling is usually based on what the current market value is for that position in the geographical location you are in. Bonuses are not guaranteed, the company usually has to be doing well, and if it is doing well, why not reward those responsible?

There is additional value in having employees who know the company well and are loyal to the company. They have a vested interest in not just doing their job, but doing it well. But if you treat them as a commodity, they'll treat you like a nameless chump with money. They might do their job, but if they see something that should be fixed, they won't care unless it is their responsibility. A loyal employee will point it out or fix it themselves, even if it wasn't their responsibility. It makes a huge difference, I can tell when loyal employees made a software product. It's the one where software support knows it well and actually help you as opposed to going through a useless checkless!

Comment: Re: Why isn't this illegal again? (Score 1) 614 614

The government is supposed to serve the people, not the corporations. I do not see the point in paying taxes to a government that gives some of it away to other countries, pander to corporations, spend ridiculous amounts of money on military actions across the globe, overpaying congress to make decisions that are not necessarily in favor of the people, paying millions to defend terrorists, etc. Lobbying(aka bribery), has made it easy for corporations to get congress work for them. They should make lobbying illegal along with other types of bribery. And when they want a raise, the people should vote on it. If their pay was dependant on the people being happy, there would be less H1-B visas

There are multiple problems with competing for jobs with H1-Bs. When you start out, you have little experience and no job history. You will probably have to take an entry level job and work your way up, or at least gain experience and history for your next job. H1-B visas can take those jobs and you can't really compete when the company prefers someone they can control more and you can't offer anything more without a job history. This means less opportunities for people starting out and there's nothing they can do to compensate. Later, the H1-Bs will have more experience because they got those entry level jobs and when they move up they will be in a position to increase the number of H1-Bs for their friends.

Another problem is that senior executives will get bonuses for saving the company money, even if the company loses money in the long run. They can go to another company before the losses begin and the next company will hire them based on their short term track record at their previous company(IE: Chainsaw Al). Replacing a large portion of your workforce with unproven employees is a long term risk. If your current work force is competent enough to train their replacements then you are risking long term disaster. You are replacing something that works with something that might work. A percentage of hires do not have the skills they claim to have and I suspect H1-Bs are even more prone to have fabricated skill sets.

When a corporation performs an action that is hurtful and degrading like this, it proves they are sociopathic in nature. You don't want to encourage a corporation to act like a sociopath. Individual sociopaths can be dangerous, but sociopathic corporations are terrifying.

Comment: Re:a phone (Score 1) 237 237

They hired GM Joel Benjamin and other GMs as a consultant. He studied Kasparov's career for Deep Blue. He could play games against it and help tune it against Kasparov.

I'm willing to bet that they took all of his openings and had Deep Blue put some serious time looking for potential novelties(maybe months) and when they were found, a team of GMs would decide if it was good enough to put into Deep Blue's opening database. They basically nullified Kasparov's repertoire. Studying your opponents games before a match is standard OP. Joel and IBM got to prepare against Kasparov, but he did not get to prepare against Deep Blue.

Comment: Re:Who cares about this guy? (Score 1) 237 237

There isn't a smartphone that can take on a GM, especially under those conditions. If he used it for every move, he would probably lose on time, you get close to 3 minutes a move(40 moves/90 minutes, 30 seconds added per move, then 30 minutes sudden death). He would probably use most of that time round-trip, his opponent would get serious time odds against a smartphone! It's not going to come up with anything amazing in 30 seconds.

But, you could setup a powerful server at home to run a chess program like Houdini and access it remotely with your smart phone. You would still have to carefully pick when you used it and memorize multiple lines.

Comment: Re:Humanity is lost (Score 3, Informative) 290 290

With a smart watch you do not have to take your phone out of your pocket every time you want "check the time"/"see who is calling(ignore,answer)"/"check a text, respond to text"/"look at a notification". While raking leaves yesterday, I was able to play music(Google Play radio) from my phone and control it with the watch, if I didn't like the song I used the watch to go to the next song. So much more convenient than pulling the phone out each time. I also use the watch as a trusted device so I don't have to enter a code each time. If I forget the phone, the watch alerts me when I am out of range.

The Apple watch is still stupid. Too expensive and the battery life is short. I get ~7 days out my pebble.

Comment: Re:"Unpowered" Energy ;) (Score 1) 128 128

Gravitational potential energy converted to elastic potential energy which is then reversed. Heat is generated during the process, but probably not as much heat from the normal walking process.

Your argument about adding weight to a system causing it to use more energy would make sense if you were always going uphill. If you are still at ground level that probably isn't true. The Prius is heavier than a normal car(additional weight of battery and electric motor), but it still ends up being more fuel efficient than any other mid-size car.

My issue with using such a device is that walking is great exercise and making it easier would reduce the benefits. It would also make your ankles weaker. I used to love wearing high-tops sneakers until I noticed this problem.

Comment: It depends, chat, phone, sometimes both. (Score 1) 115 115

I can multitask multiple chats, but I can only focus on one phone conversation at a time. If multiple people are involved on a problem then a bridge is used.

Sometimes I will use chat while on the phone to type out the commands they need to use or to communicate a list of servers. I can also share a monitor screen while talking on the phone.

If the problem is non-trivial, then chat by itself is a pain. I can talk and listen while looking at servers, but if I had to communicate via chat only, it would be a continuous interruption.

The problem with meeting rooms is that it is rare that full attention is needed and I can't do real work at the same time in the meeting room.

If it's social and not work related, I prefer in person.

I'm all for computer dating, but I wouldn't want one to marry my sister.

Working...