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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Easy as 1-2-3 (Score 2, Interesting) 269

by emagery (#49334807) Attached to: Developers and the Fear of Apple
Yep, yep, sorry... Apple (as an organization) has consistently delivered hardware that we could count on, met or surpassed our needs (and alternative vendors), etc... then again, we haven't had any trouble with them when delivering apps for googleplay and ios side by side (re, the article), but they're not centric to our organization's offerings just yet, either.

Comment: Re:Why Force Your Children to Live in the Past? (Score 3, Insightful) 734

by emagery (#49195881) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Should I Let My Kids Become American Citizens?
Exactly; when what you get back is so much more valuable, it is worth it. Still, as an American, it is easy to get cynical about taxes when they've been redirected to burden the poor and working classes the most, let the rich off scott free, buy very little medical care, roads that are usually in disrepair, bridges that are falling into rivers in rush hour traffic, law enforcement that's losing its war with its own conscience, a bloated and demonstrably less-than-effective military, etc etc etc. We've grown accustomed to getting much less than we pay for.

Comment: suffice it to say (Score 1) 795

by emagery (#47964659) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything
Science is a methodology bent on correcting itself; Anything you like can go in the front of the process.. a hunch, an observation, a bit of math, some statistics suggesting a previously unknown pattern, etc. The process, done correctly anyways, will whittle away at it until the truth remains. As NDT suggested, science is not a noun, but a verb.

Comment: Re:Beyond what humans can do (Score 2, Insightful) 708

by emagery (#47765197) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report
Do you really have so little concept as to the scale of human damage? A single average-sized car puts out 4.75 metric TONS of carbon every year (and about 2-3 years worth during its construction and a little bit more during its destruction.) At last check there were more cars in the use being operated than there are drivers... and that's just one country... whilst this amount is being dwarfed by carbon emissions tied up in industrial agriculture (local/natural agriculture trends toward carbon neutral to negative, but can only sustain modest populations the likes of which we haven't seen on earth for over a century.) The fact that YOUR individual contribution to the damage done is a drop in the bucket does nothing to deny the fact that you are not the only person on earth... it's a tiny place in the grand scheme of things and we've overrun the place and are spending carbon, water, and oxygen like there's no tomorrow... which is no longer a mathematically implausible scenario as a result. The world's WORST extinction level event was also a climate change one, and we've reach the same levels at 40000x the speed... if life couldn't cope at that snail's pace (~1000000 years of constant hawaii-style volcanic carbon farting, killing off some 95% of all life) why do you think it (or we) will fare any better doing the equivalent of flying this jet into a brick wall?

Comment: re: 'unreliability' (Score 4, Interesting) 189

by emagery (#47565811) Attached to: An Accidental Wikipedia Hoax
then again, a joke update written about something as obscure as jumping spiders by a coworker some years ago was found and removed within HOURS of its posting. Wikipedia still, due to the competitive nature of its maintenance, beats out well established entities such as encyclopædia brittanica, et cetera.

Comment: A shift in economic metrics (Score 5, Interesting) 509

by emagery (#47459585) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Future-Proof Jobs?
At some point, I don't see the world being able to avoid a paradigm shift in how we measure careers, labor, etc... we have invested in and achieved so much in terms of automation, ai, etc, and yet we refuse to distribute the high efficiency benefits of these things to the very masses who brought them about and are being displaced by them. If it takes less labor, per person, to make the world work, then it truly should take less labor, period... not the same (or, as things have been going lately) more labor by the few still employed while those at the top of the economic food chain rake in the entire difference just for themselves. In the end, our current path is resource wasteful in a time when we can't afford it, and all for the actual benefit of very few people. It's an untenable and unsustainable practice that's going to have to change, and I don't see us regressing to old technologies just to reestablish old careers when we already have (and simply aren't properly dispersing) much better.

To the landlord belongs the doorknobs.

Working...