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

 



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:introduce more STEM....? (Score 4, Interesting) 398

by bluefoxlucid (#49353321) Attached to: Millennial Tech Workers Losing Ground In US

The cognitive disconnect is amazing, isn't it? "Most STEM degree holders don't go into STEM jobs ... How do we get more STEM workers into the market?" You have a market oversupply, and you want to make it worse?

I keep explaining that we need to cut away the entire college education system from the Government's hands. Leave that to the market; leave it to businesses to say, "Fuck! We are paralyzed, because we have to pay $250,000 for a professional, and need more than available to accomplish our business strategies!" Businesses should never be in this position, because their mode of growth gives them more-than-adequate warning about what positions they'll need filled; therefor, they should hire, train, and send to college cheap entrant employees, with preference for the lower-risk but similar-cost investment of hiring an available professional.

People don't believe in this because the mechanism is disconnected. By giving out the ability to go to college on the public dime or on indelible loans, you are enforcing the responsibility onto every individual to educate himself and prepare for the workforce. This means individuals have to make complex market analysis across the whole body of growth of industries and of the needs of those industries, whereas businesses only need to look at their operations and growth and work performance information and cross that with their prediction of their particular market to project the next few years of staffing needs. Projecting staffing needs for more than two years out is a normal business operation; is predicting the complex behavior of the job market a normal human operation?

By creating an institution to provide everyone a path to college education, we are demanding everyone get educated or be ignored by employers. The risks they must take are easily absorbed by the rich, and not so well absorbed by the middle class; the poor have the least ability to make these complex analysis and to handle the consequences of selecting a degree that leads to oversupplied markets with few employment opportunities and many prospective applicants. Meanwhile, the onus of building a workforce is moved off the businesses, who only need stretch out their hands and grasp at the abundant skilled labor, and throw back the pieces they don't like. All power is taken from the individual, and moved to hiring managers and directors and business executives.

The disconnect in this thinking is a powerful tool. It allows us to convince the masses that these education policies are good for them, are important social institutions, that we are helping them. Meanwhile, we not only create a terrible institution of disenfranchisement of the poor and the laborer in general; but also avoid addressing the problem of K-12 education by simply claiming there isn't *enough* education, and thus publicly praise ourselves for remedying the failing education system by sending more people to college when they would have more success in life if we abandoned them to the job market after high school and simply focused on giving them every advantage of education up until then.

I patently despise our current education system. I believe we can do much better; that we can, for little cost, adjust the education system to produce much better results in the general case, churning out an endless supply of geniuses through good educational technique. In theory, we should also be able to address specific challenges in poverty-stricken districts, not satisfying ourselves with a simple general improvement in the education of the poor, but instead acting to bring them even further up to meet with the educational success of the middle class by delivering that same education in a manner more effective for their situation. This would provide much greater academic advantages to our students than extending their state education through college, even if state-supported college education programs didn't have such negative impacts on the job economy.

Comment: Re:Obligatory Discussions (Score 1) 182

by bluefoxlucid (#49346877) Attached to: GNOME 3.16 Released

Sometimes, to go forward, you go back. Thing is, the Program Manager was a modal dialogue containing all windows, and could be minimized; you selected program by opening windows containing icons of programs to select. The Gnome Shell eliminates that modal dialogue and moves the icons to an interface off to the side; the current desktop shrinks into the shell's entire display area, allowing you to move to another desktop containing other windows.

In short, windows are brought inside, rather than moved outside, the working space; nothing is behind the working space, but rather, the UI tools move behind the working space when not in use. Instead of icons of windows, Gnome Shell scales the windows down and displays them in a tiled fashion, providing a broad overview of the current working space.

This contrasts with earlier attempts in which the modal dialogue making up the working space was flattened into the background, creating the desktop. All elements of the modal dialogue were scattered around the screen as decoration, and minimized windows appeared in a task bar as titles rather than icons--just as useless when many windows were opened. The step following that was to make multiple working spaces in the same fashion. Gnome Shell has banished most of this, leaving a clock at the top of the screen, but little else to intrude on the use of the work space.

Comment: Re:Obligatory Discussions (Score 1) 182

by bluefoxlucid (#49345387) Attached to: GNOME 3.16 Released

I don't tap my screen; I remember what application I want, and go directly to it. Rather than Applications:Graphics:Krita, I just type "Kri" and click the Krita icon. I can also drag the Krita icon to a space between desktops, spawning the window there. I can also type "image" and have all the image viewing and editing software appear in front of me.

Rather than a single view of a hierarchical database of applications and operations, I have the ability to declare what I want and have it given to me in the same way that an SQL SELECT statement declares what data I want and how to organize it. This is an improvement, and it is what obsoleted the old Deskbar applet everyone was raving about when Beagle and Tracker were going head-to-head.

Comment: Re:Obligatory Discussions (Score 0, Flamebait) 182

by bluefoxlucid (#49344625) Attached to: GNOME 3.16 Released

I dunno, Gnome 2 and KDE feel like Windows 3.1 when you've used Gnome 3. A blunt desktop, some virtual desktops to move around, menus or start menus... the usual.

Then you pull out Gnome 3, and suddenly you can tap Winkey or point the mouse at the top left corner, and you get a view of all the windows on your current desktop. You can start typing "DVD burner" or "Images" or "Firefox", and it brings up Thoggin or Gimp or some Web browsers, that you then click on. You can drag your windows to other desktops; you can drag your windows between desktops to spawn new desktops. You have infinite desktops just by opening a window on the empty desktop at the end.

I hold complaints about Gnome 3's alt-tab behavior. Beyond that, it's thrown out all this navigation through bullshit menus and cluttered windows scattered across a dozen desktops in favor of straight out opening the applications you want and scanning through your open windows across all desktops. It gets out of your way and lets you use the computer, instead of fucking around with the UI.

Comment: Re:How is this new? (Score 2) 172

That won't happen. Ketchup is a non-newtonian fluid: its viscosity changes with shear force, and so it refuses to flow until adequate force is applied. That's why ketchup doesn't leave the bottle with gentle force, but spurts out when squeezed. It will retain its shape just fine until forced out.

Heinz will collapse as a company and be bought by Kraft or something stupid while Hunts goes on to advertise to housewives that they can get that last squirt with their bottle.

Comment: Re:Every good deed (Score 1) 149

by bluefoxlucid (#49320909) Attached to: Obama To Announce $240M In New Pledges For STEM Education

Without public funding and guaranteed loans to get people into college: Gotta hire a good, hard-working entrant, train them, educate them, move them up.

With public funding and guaranteed loans to get people into college: Cash crop of cheap labor. Lots of risk on individuals (waste 4 years without job on education, possibly get oversupplied degree), the poor are least able to handle this risk, followed closely by the disenfranchised (anyone often passed over in the local culture, e.g. blacks or women).

Tax-funded college and government-guaranteed student loans benefit hiring businesses at the expense of the individual. This is hard to grasp because it looks like money and education and other tangible goods are being handed to the individual, while the market effects are more abstract and difficult to understand without having a huge amount of knowledge in the area.

Comment: Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. (Score 2) 149

by bluefoxlucid (#49320789) Attached to: Obama To Announce $240M In New Pledges For STEM Education

This does very little to put us on a footing for a post-scarcity society. And we are assuredly on that path right now

No we're not. We have to solve the energy crisis first. That requires a dyson sphere, which will provide 13,000 trillion times the energy we use today.

Molybdenum and Cesium are so rare we make them using inefficient, energy-heavy nuclear fusion. We have the ability to literally turn lead into gold, or dog shit into gold, or gold into platinum, or piss into Strontium-90; it's really fucking expensive, more expensive than just mining a brick of gold, so we don't. It's expensive because of the massive amount of energy required.

With thousands of trillions of times the energy available, we could turn anything into anything else. Automation would be a drop in the bucket: those machines are powered by a minimal amount of energy, but they'd be built with material we made dumping in billion of times as much energy to just turn sand into steel. We'd mine asteroids by turning base materials into fuel oils and hydrogen gas, then converting garbage silica rock and other bullshit that's not nickel-iron into nickel-iron, or oil, or gold, or palladium; we wouldn't need to find a high-ore-content rock to bring down.

That's post-scarcity. So much automated, so much that can just be done by magic, we don't need people doing anything. We'd have multi-level structures running hydroponic gardens for farms, rather than large swaths of arable land; it would take immense amounts of energy and material, but all that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the full power of the sun itself.

Comment: Re:It has an acronym , so it will fail. (Score 1) 149

by bluefoxlucid (#49320703) Attached to: Obama To Announce $240M In New Pledges For STEM Education

It's a hand-out to our slave masters.

The push to educate everyone has come from the Government's great support arm. It uses taxpayer money or Federal guaranteed loans and cultural pressure, both decoupled from risk requirements that stop banks from handing out tons of free money, to get everyone to go to college and get a degree.

This strategy churns out piles of cheap labor, freeing businesses from the social responsibility of building a workforce. Without these public efforts, most students wouldn't be able to go it on their own; businesses would have to hire good, solid entrants and send them to school on the company dime, taking the risk of training them. Businesses are good at minimizing that risk, and so would build a well-tuned, highly-selected workforce with little economic loss. Individuals have to assess an opaque market of both business demand and the state of business demand and candidate availability in several years; they take huge personal risks simply not present when a business does it.

This cheap labor costs businesses little in salary, even less in training risk (training useless individuals), thus displacing their responsibility onto the individual. It puts risks most easily handled by the rich and impossible to handle by the poor onto the individual, disadvantaging those who are less-advantaged or who will have more difficulty getting a job anyway (e.g. minorities in more racist communities). It's bad for the individual, but good for business.

Professional wrestling: ballet for the common man.

Working...