Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:My message to SJW (Score 1) 59

by jawtheshark (#49368729) Attached to: SJWs 15 minutes of fame is almost over.

Or if a man says something to a woman at work and she takes it the wrong way, another lawsuit.

Perhaps that is a cultural problem. I have, in my career, never shunned perverted jokes, sexual innuendos, compliments ("sexy dress today, Jane"), etc. The worst I had was a little talk because on one I made a girl turn totally red and she complained to her superior (Blowjob joke, but damn, if you're kneeling in front of a coworker you're deserving that.). I merely, got a little stern talk about behaving a bit better -not around women- but around uptight PriceWaterHouseCooper consultants.

I have a cute dataminer sitting next to me at work, the rest of us are neckbeard developers and/or sysadmins. Male-jokes get made and she just laughs with us. It is not a problem. Now, it were different, if I'd be touching her inappropriately, but I'm not and I wouldn't want to.

Other example, my sister is a roadie/sound-engineer. That is pretty much a physical job and she is the only female. She handles well and her nickname is "pittbull". A women in these jobs just has to take up the culture, because it's just that: a culture and it's not against women, it's just in good fun. So, yes, she gets teased that she'll be sent in a pink dress to the client to make better sales, but she quips back hard and everything is in good fun.

Sueing? So North-American. Try "forgiving" and "adapting".

Comment: Re:My message to SJW (Score 1) 59

by jawtheshark (#49368695) Attached to: SJWs 15 minutes of fame is almost over.
Read the comment below from Barbara.

It is very simple, you are free to say that -let's say- black people and inferior people. Totally free in my eyes to say that. You'd be an idiot, but freedom allows you to be an idiot.

What you can't do is enforce your beliefs, because that is the actual discrimination.

The laws are there to protect minorities, not from vile speech, but from actual harm. However, even discrimination laws have their limits. Especially regarding to gender, because there *are* actual physical difference between men and women (feminists will never allow this to be true, but it's pretty much scientific fact). So, I can understand that an employer wouldn't hire a female truck driver, because in the event of a flat tire, she wouldn't be able to help herself because changing the tire would be too heavy. Of course, this would depend on the candidate. I know very physically strong women, but that is not how feminists think. That said, they're not battling for women to become truck drivers, but for women to get so called white collar jobs in management.

So, no, discrimination is not equal to political correctness. I am not politically correct, because I'm not afraid to say what I think even if it is contrary to popular beliefs, but I do not discriminate (at least, I try not to... it is apparently impossible not to discriminate at all)

Comment: Re:Not concerned (Score 2) 176

by gmhowell (#49353367) Attached to: German Auto Firms Face Roadblock In Testing Driverless Car Software

I should actually correct myself slightly: Wal-Mart (and others) have some in house drivers and some outsourced.

BTW, in discussions of the transport industry, don't get distracted/lied to by the companies. Some drivers think they are owner operators, when in practice, they aren't. They will lease/buy a truck from (as an example, all of the bigs do this) Schneider. As part of the lease terms, they can only accept loads from Schneider. It should be obvious that the 'owner' is an employee who has assumed much of the risk that the company would usually take on.

ShanghaiBill has a decent reply, but he misses a point: if the automated truck is cheaper, the big companies will drive that change in a heartbeat. The trick is that someone has to be convinced that they will be cheaper. They are unlikely to automatically accept that an automated truck is safer, faster, etc. One area where they are likely to be impressed is the possibility of 24 hour operations, rather than the 10 hour per day (rough) limits of human operated trucks. In addition to (possibly) being cheaper, this will allow faster shipments for more mundane goods (there are already plenty of ways to have fast shipping, but it is cost prohibitive to do for everything) which would offer them a competitive advantage. I suspect this last point will be the thin edge of the wedge.

Comment: Sloppy's One Rule of Robotics (Score 1) 129

by Sloppy (#49338263) Attached to: Do Robots Need Behavioral 'Laws' For Interacting With Other Robots?

My one rule of robotics (and pointed sticks, cars, crackpipes and umbrellas) is this: my stuff ought to perform in accordance with my wishes.

There might be additional laws ("weld here and here, but nowhere else," or "use the rules in /etc/iptables/rules.v4" or "don't shoot at anyone whose IFF transponder returns the correct response") which vary by whatever the specific application is, but these rules aren't as important as The One above.

There are various corollaries that you can infer from the main law, but since they can be derived, they don't need to be laws themselves. (e.g. if my interests conflict with someone else's, then my robot and my umbrella ought to serve my interests at the expense of the other person's interests.)

With regard to harming other robots, that also can be derived. If I desire to kill a knight on a robot horse, then my robot ought to turn them into a pile of bloody gore and shredded circuitboards immediately. OTOH, if I don't desire to kill a robot, then my robot should not do things that incur unnecessary liabilities.

Comment: Re:This is why markets are not a good model for go (Score 5, Informative) 121

by Cyberdyne (#49313937) Attached to: FTC's Internal Memo On Google Teaches Companies a Terrible Lesson

The government should not be constrained by market assumptions, such as that resources are limited because of efficient allocation.

That's not a "market assumption", it's plain old reality: resources are finite, so you need priorities. If a cop pulls someone over for speeding, then sees an armed robbery in progress, or a paramedic is treating someone's sprained ankle then a bystander has a heart attack, do you want them to stick to what they were doing and reject the notion of priorities as being a "market assumption"? I'd rather they focus their efforts on the higher priority, because that gives the best outcomes.

In this case, the FTC had more pressing enforcement jobs, like telemarketing scams, the fight with cellphone companies over ripoff premium services ... they felt putting their resources there made more sense than fighting Google over the order of search results, and I'm not at all sure they were wrong about that.

By coincidence, I was discussing law enforcement priorities at work on Friday (we teach computer forensics for law enforcement, among other things); unlike the world of CSI, real law enforcement doesn't go spending days testing out an obscure theory, or digging into every possible detail of each case: they do enough work on a case to pass it to the next stage, then get on with the next case. No "market" - there just aren't an unlimited number of hours in each forensic caseworker's day.

Receiving a million dollars tax free will make you feel better than being flat broke and having a stomach ache. -- Dolph Sharp, "I'm O.K., You're Not So Hot"

Working...