Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment: Re:The reason is more simple (Score 1) 441 441

That is part of the issue.
1. Price: The 30k price range for most "affordable" electric cars is still a bit too much, for what you get for a car, you are still better off paying 20k for the same type of car and you will probably pay about the same for gas over the live of the car.

2. Range: 100-200 miles isn't that great. Sure it fine for your daily commute, but if you need to take a road trip, it gets riskier. Most gasoline cars get about 450-600 miles to a full tank. The argument get two cars or get a rental isn't that good of one. You want your own car for the most part and the freedom that comes with it.

3. Recharge time: Most people can fill up their tank in under 5 minutes. Charging an electric car can take a lot longer.

4. Fuzzy marketing... What people want to know is how much will it cost them in extra power bill to charge their car, and how much pollution is that worth, they just give you a loosy goosy response. While we know price varies, and if you have solar panels it may get offsetted.... however we would like a state average. Or at least give us some analogy such as running 3 dryers for 8 hours....

5. Limit being the green hippy car. I don't want my car to be a political statement, bumper stickers do that. I just want a good affordable car. I am a Prius owner, because I need to drive 60 miles every day for my commute and Gas gets expensive, I really do hate it when I get treated as a second class driver from SUV and pickup trucks filled with Right Wing bumper stickers. ( I have no bumper stickers on my car) thinking that I am some Liberal just because of the car I drive.

Comment: Re:Outage.. (Score 1, Insightful) 266 266

As with most mistakes, it is part of a system that is faulty and awaiting one simple mistake to escalate.
Any one human can make a mistake. However a good system should have built in methods to protect against this.
Why wasn't their a backup system, why didn't it have have a fail over network/power, why wasn't there proper labeling.

Chances are there was a culture of trying to save money: paying for a redundant system cost twice as much, or more. Having those network guys spend hours cleaning up and reorganizing where they can be working on more profit driven activities.
They are too focused on being agile and quick, that they will let little things slip.

For 99% of the failures and mistakes that happen it is the fault of the system, and not of the person who happened to make mistakes.

Organizations need to prioritize these methods and follow to make sure they are worked. Not just write them down, post them on some intranet and blame people for not following them if it wasn't followed. It needs the full organization to make sure checks are in place.

Comment: Is it purly your mistake. (Score 1) 266 266

I have been part of of a large mistake costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
However most mistakes are part of a chain of events of little mistakes, where they all combine to a big mistake. For example, if someone happen to trip over a plug that unplugged a production server. Then questions on why was the cable was out where it can be tripped, who decided that it wasn't worth the money to put time, to get a better system of cable management...

Normally a person will get fired for a mistake if it was due to intentional misconduct or it happens to get political and needs someone to blame, however if it happens you need to be sure that you put the blame back on the system (not an individual), then you will need to follow up to fix the system so it doesn't happen again.

Most of the most expensive mistakes, are often due to a huge chain of events. A good system should be in place to stop a simple mistake from escalate into big ones.

Comment: Re:Hillary Clinton says: (Score 1) 225 225

The fact that a person did their job to the best of their abilities and succeeded, has no say in politics.
Facts are there so they can be twisted to show how evil they are or ignored. We can't have an actual human being in the office, ones who have good and bad movements in their life. They will somehow be completely virtuous while having the drive, ambition, thick skin and aggression to make it threw the political system.

Comment: Re: Snowden deserves asylum; Assange doesn't (Score 2) 133 133

I think it is Assange's Ego which is keeping him locked away. Not big brother who is SOOO INTERESTED in getting him.
For the most part America Assange isn't the bad guy, just a jerk to happens to hate America. Manning was the person that the US really wanted, Manning was the one who stole classified data and gave it Assange.

The crime they are trying to get him for in neutral Sweden is for rape. Why would any government give asylum to an individual who is hiding from a crime that is more or less universally not tolerated. He thinks the FBI, CIA, MI5, KGB.... are all after him. Because of his involvement he may be under watch, but in the grand scheme of things he is such a small fry that it isn't really worth such effort.

Comment: Re:alogrithms aren't racist (Score 4, Interesting) 349 349

I followed the link and looked at the photos. I could see how it would make that mistake.
1. The Color balance was off: What we call black people are actually just a richer brown. the color balance gave their color more of a real Black/Gray color, the natural color of a Gorilla.

2. The Angle of the shot. The tilted Angle makes it appeared that they are not upright but slouching in.

3. They were making unnatural facial features for humans. They were making funny faces at the camera.

4. The dark hue of the gentleman who was behind shirt, combined with the ladies hair style, makes it seem the body with much broader shoulder.

I expect the combination of a lot of factors created the wrong choice. But computer decision making, while getting good, isn't perfect, but it is often better then not having it because then it wouldn't be possible to catalog the millions of images. We need to accept that computers make mistakes and there should be a way to fix them when they are found.

Many of our derogatory comments come from the fact that we find similarities with something else, so it come to reason that a computer may make an actual mistake that will reinforce such derogatory meaning.

Comment: Re:Makes sense. (Score 4, Insightful) 261 261

You are implying that ones political stance is an indicator of their intelligence?

There is a huge group of people who's opinion is based on what the party says, I am a loyal Democrat/Republican so my stance will match what they say. There is no attention of the detail of the message nor any attempt to challenge the notion brought up. So the Democrats say Global Warming is a problem, people will blindly follow. If the Democrats say GMO foods are bad, they will blindly follow. Intelligence isn't the issue, it is just the current polarized nature of the two party system which will normally make one side right and the other wrong (assuming one side is right)

Now the Democrats vs Government view on funding. Democrats prefer more of a blanket funding in scientists, So Scientists who are funded via the Democrats policies have invested interests in that party, so they are making a living off of researching climate science due to Democrats funding, so they will be friendly to that party, and in turn that party will listen to their studies. The Republicans will more likely fund Military or Energy science. Where there is less science and more engineering. Thus you will find a lot more Right winged engineers. As their main means of living is due to Republican policy. So the Republicans will more likely push ideas of a new Military Technology or Energy Extraction technology.

It is interesting on how your political views change depending on where you are living and who is controlling your purse strings.
Now they are crazies on both sides. You got the Leftist hippie type who wants to change everything to match their utopian vision where everyone is all happy because they follow one idea of a perfect life. Then you got the Far Right densest who thinks we should go back to the "Leave it to Beaver" life style, that he fondly remembers as a child (too young to realize the pressures of the world). These guys can often get into the House or Representatives thus get enough media attention to direct "The I have to do what the party says" people.


Comment: College != Jobs (Score 3) 132 132

The problem in the US is the impression You go to School then you go to College with the college degree you can get a good job.
The marketing for the the For Profit takes advantage of this, and tries to make a Job focuses curriculum. But because employers are expecting a college degree, there is a bunch of other classes and stuff that is needed to take, which overall doesn't help out that much.
The traditional colleges, may have their marketing team say this will get you a good job, once you get into the school it is the impression "College is for learning, not job training"

The real solution is to give a better status of vocational training. So someone who wants a job in a particular field can get job training for that field. It isn't necessary for a Computer Science Degree to be a programmer. Also a Computer Science Degree shouldn't need to focus so much on programming, but more on the abstract concepts, that we normally wont get to until grad school.

College should be for learning. We should have a better quality and more positive few towards vocational schools for the Job training.

Comment: Re:adjective choice (Score 1) 132 132

That is a general argument against most not-for-profit organizations. Because they NFP do seem to spend a lot of time and resources towards collecting money, and investing their "Excess Revenue" into sources where they can bring in more revenue.

For Not for profits do have to deal with being under a fine tooth comb and do not enjoy the same freedoms a for-profit will.

Comment: Re: Assumptions are the mother of all ... (Score 1) 169 169

So you may had good reasons to stick with Windows 7. My place at work is using Windows 7, the UI change to windows 8 would cause way too much issues. Also we just migrated a few years to windows 7. And there was a huge compatibility issues that needed to be address... I do expect it is much easier to go from Windows 7 to Windows 10, as this time we didn't jump from a 32bit OS to a 64 bit.

Comment: Re:Assumptions are the mother of all ... (Score 1) 169 169

I expect it is more from the Small business white box community. Yes they still exist. So they save money by getting Windows 7 Licenses and upgrading to Windows 10 by the time they sell their PC's.
I expect technically this would be against some agreement with Microsoft. But these guys are such small fries. The the cost of investing and fighting for it is more then then small pocket change these companies have for profit. If it were a Dell, HP or Lenovo doing this, that would be a different story all together.

When someone says "I want a programming language in which I need only say what I wish done," give him a lollipop.