Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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:Good Luck (Score 2) 206

by ShanghaiBill (#49357901) Attached to: Amazon Requires Non-Compete Agreements.. For Warehouse Workers

I would say that threat of being sued ...

Except Amazon hasn't actually threatened anyone. No rational person would believe, in light of complete absence of evidence to the contrary, that the intent of this clause is to prevent someone from working as a cashier at Walmart. Preemptively suing Amazon because there is an infinitesimal chance that they might sue you, is not going to get very far. The judge should throw the case out and order you to reimburse Amazon for their legal expense. We have enough frivolous nonsense in our courts.

Comment: Re:When it works. (Score 1) 180

by ShanghaiBill (#49357777) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Makes Some Code Particularly Good?

If it has gotten through "design reviews, code reviews, standards, pair programming, etc..." and doesn't work when it gets to test, you have a problem.

... and your problem is a completely broken development process. Code should be tested as it is written. You should never waste time reviewing code that has not passed unit tests, functional tests, regression tests, etc. Hallway usability testing should be done even before the design review.

Testing is an integral part of every development step, not something you tack on the end.

Comment: Re:Good Luck (Score 1) 206

by ShanghaiBill (#49357671) Attached to: Amazon Requires Non-Compete Agreements.. For Warehouse Workers

Yeah and like in most cases Amazon would pay out what amounts to 10s of dollars per person while having raked in billions in revenue.

More likely they would pay out $0 to all zero of the plaintiffs that actually have a case.

It'd be a slap on the wrist at best.

Even a "slap on the wrist" would be excessive, since there isn't any evidence that they have done anything wrong. It is not a crime to be big, and nobody should be fined just because they can afford it.

Comment: Re:Good Luck (Score 3, Insightful) 206

by ShanghaiBill (#49357367) Attached to: Amazon Requires Non-Compete Agreements.. For Warehouse Workers

Just one lawyer needs to see the "class action" possibilities; those won't cost the workers

Yup. All the lawyer has to do is find all zero of the warehouse workers that were actually sued or damaged in any way.

I realize that we are all supposed to be outraged, and equate this to the blood of the workers being used to lubricate the machinery of capitalism. But this is just some standard legal boilerplate, that nobody noticed before, because it has no actual real world consequences.

 

Comment: Re:Ummmm ... duh? (Score 1) 296

by ShanghaiBill (#49357059) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

I'm saying no human endeavor can be made 100% safe

... which is about as useful as saying that the sky is blue. That nothing is 100% safe is already obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.

You seem to implying that "one in a million" is basically the same as "one in a trillion" because either is "not perfect". There are more than 100,000 flights per day. So "one in a million" is once every ten days. "One is a trillion" is once every 27,000 years.

Comment: Re:Ummmm ... duh? (Score 1) 296

by ShanghaiBill (#49356093) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

Pilots dont take craps?

Much less frequently than they urinate, and even less frequently with proper planning, like pooping before the flight and avoiding foods likely to cause gastrointestinal problems. For instance, military rations (MREs) containing beans, are specifically marked as "not for pre-flight use".

I have flown dozens of trans-Pacific, trans-Atlantic, and trans-continental flights. I had to urinate on all of them. I don't recall ever needing to crap inflight.

If a $10 pilot urinal solves 90% of the problem, it shouldn't be rejected just because it isn't a 100% solution.

Comment: Re:You are missing the obvious point! (Score 1) 315

That would depend on the demand for the product, the price elasticity of that demand, and the cost of expansion wouldn't it?

In practice, no. New technology almost never is applicable to only a single product. It allows many products to be made more efficiently, and allows new products to be made that didn't even exist before. So there is a broad advance in demand for labor that can employ that technology.

Another was to see that this is true, is to open your eyes and look at the real world. Countries with high productivity are uniformly prosperous. Countries with low productivity are uniformly poor. Higher productivity not only results in higher living standards, but it is the ONLY thing that results in higher living standards. To claim that it causes poverty, is not only profoundly ignorant or economic theory, but also indicates an astoundingly weak grip on reality.

Comment: Re:Ummmm ... duh? (Score 1) 296

by ShanghaiBill (#49355521) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

And, of course, we can construct the scenario in which the co-pilot and one of the cabin crew conspires

If the probability of a suicidal crew member is one in a million, then the probably of two is one in a trillion. That is close enough to zero that it doesn't matter. The plane would be more likely to be hit by a meteor.

There's really no way you can 100% prevent this kind of thing.

No rational person is expecting 100% perfection. But there are about a half dozen incidents that appear to be intentional crashes by the flight crew. So these incidents are roughly as common as terrorism. We are spending billions to keep terrorists from crashing planes. We are spending $0 to keep pilots from crashing planes. That is not sensible.

Comment: Re:Ummmm ... duh? (Score 1) 296

by ShanghaiBill (#49355471) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

Of course, now when the pilot has to take a leak there is one less cabin crew

There are several simple solutions:
1. Do what the military does: use a portable urinal.
2. Do what many countries do, including America: Require another member of the crew to wait in the cockpit until the pilot returns.

Option #1 costs $10, which is way cheaper than replacing an aircraft.
Because of this incident, option #2 is likely to be much more widely adopted. New Zealand announced yesterday that this will now be their policy.
 

Comment: Re:You are missing the obvious point! (Score 3, Insightful) 315

Greater productivity per worker means less demand for workers.

No it doesn't. It means more demand. Read up on Jevon's Paradox. As a resource (including labor) is used more efficiently, demand for it goes up, not down, because of greater opportunities. It would only go down if the Lump of Labor Fallacy wasn't a fallacy.

If you owned a factory, and you had a way to make your workers ten times more productive, would you fire 90% of them? Or would you realize that your profit per worker was now ten times higher, and expand your factory and hire more workers?

more productive workforce means worse-paid workforce.

That explains why high productivity like America, Western Europe, and Japan, are mired in poverty, while countries like Somalia, Liberia, and Afghanistan, which avoided the "productivity catastrophe" are prospering. Whatever.

Comment: Re:Disincentivized (Score 1) 362

by ShanghaiBill (#49351689) Attached to: Millennial Tech Workers Losing Ground In US

"what's the difference between reference counting and garbage collection".

I know enough to answer that question, but I also know enough to understand that it is not an important thing to know. 99% of programmers do not need to know the difference, and the 1% that do, can learn it when it comes up.

"Be *excellent* to each other." -- Bill, or Ted, in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure

Working...