Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:I've said this and I'll say this again. (Score 1) 242

There's a certain novelty of "doing what you love" that's at best a modern invention (much the way "childhood" is).

It used to be that to be a useful part of society, you did the job you were suited for, were apprenticed into by way of parentage, or whatever other circumstance led you there. You accepted that you did a thing, and didn't worry about it being your "dream job", because that's not what drove people back then.

Now, I'm not saying "work/life balance" isn't something that shouldn't enter into consideration when you take a job. It most certainly is, and, in fact, should be protected by your employer, not actively fought for by you. It's just that there's a certain amount of dark amusement I get out of the people that made the concept a meme. It's just that most people don't have such a breadth of historical context when it comes to things like work, marriage and religion that they almost talk about things as if they'd always been the way these people claim they are.

In fact, "work/life balance" is an invention of an age of, if not arrested development, then the idea that people should be entitled to have the life that they want (including getting the big promotion while shouting "work/life balance!" at the very same colleagues that put in extra hours day after day), whether or not those prospects are realistic.

Comment Re:One set to create the problem, one set to solve (Score 1) 80

To play devil's advocate here: suppose you have a new incentive to grow a new group in your company. Would you want dedicated employees to help it grow, or would you prefer people working on established projects maybe, possibly working on your pet project when they have a few minutes when they're not distracted with something they know has traction?

Comment Re:Everyone's taking this so seriously (Score 1) 518

Oh, I know all about Pastafarianism. I rather appreciate it. I still think her point is off-base, though.

Unless she's walking around with a colander on her head all the time, or more to the point, driving, I'm sorry, but this comes off as more slacktivist douchebaggery than demonstration of fallacy.

Comment Re:Gamble? (Score 2) 137

Which is why I think we need to get out of this "does everything best/only need one" mindset and get back to having a few different models of aircraft that are reliable, dominate their particular role, and are affordable enough that we can actually USE them. If we want a stealth plane make it invisible and stupid fast so it can do its job and then GTFO if it's spotted. If we want an air superiority fighter make it fast, extremely maneuverable, and give it an ECM suite that would make Ghost in the Shell jealous. If we want ground support make it tough enough to soak ground fire while wrecking people's shit. If we want a bomber for use after air superiority is established make it tough, give it the fighter's ECM suite and a wing of escorts, and give it enough carrying capacity to schlep over the entire bomb factory if it needs to.

Comment Re:Quicker (Score 1) 488

That's a rather simplistic way of looking at it.

Running away can allow you to gather, take a few breaths, re-group and figure out how to attack the problem in the long-term, not gear up for short-term survival (kill this guy, hope there aren't five more behind him...)

Not that this necessarily happens, mind you (I'm typically on the wrong side of the immigration debate among my ultra-liberal friends in the United States), but running away is sometimes a better answer than staying and fighting, or worse, staying, surrendering and possibly dying or, even worse than that, joining up with the other side because even though you're part of the atrocity, at least you're safe.

Comment Re:Gamble? (Score 1) 137

It's a little different on the ground but largely because the fight's asymmetrical in both training and technology. A lot of the less educated insurgents think our guys are literal demons because they just don't understand body armor or how advanced our med tech is. Similarly our tanks basically no-sell old soviet era handheld antitank weaponry.

That's why they try to stick to ambushes, potshots, and IEDs. Rigging up a bunch of old bombs makes an explosion big enough to blow up anything and it comes as a suckerpunch. With the way advanced materials are going I don't think it's unrealistic to expect that in a decade or two you'll basically have two tiers of capability: Advanced nations that can put out soldiers armed and armored to the point they're basically the main character of a 90s FPS, and less developed nations that need to rely on even more extreme guerilla tactics to take out the first group of guys.

Comment Re:He's Right (Score 1) 378

The backlash tends to come from people who generally backlash against hardcore pessimism. That is to say, the one guy that's determined to spoil the party by slagging on the quality of the beer in the keg. He's not wrong, and ultimately people will just keep partying no matter how awful the beer is.

Same thing with people in general: we're on a feel-good mission to blah-blah about human potential and the exceptionalism of man, but as a whole, we've got our limits. We're stupid, self-centered, and set unrealistic expectations for ourselves. That's why despite the fact that we keep returning to the prospect of colonizing space, we can barely colonize the planet we originated on without killing each other for stupid reasons, and then barely act beyond tsk-tsking, changing profile pictures and stroking that middle finger upward to reach that hashtag when it happens.

So, I tend to agree. We'll get to space via proxy in the conceivable future, and as fast as technology advances, we may see colonization in space well beyond the capacity for the human brain to process advancement at present, but looking around at the world now, it's hard to believe we'll get out of our own way to do it.

I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.