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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Incentive to Work Harder? (Score 1) 482

by enigma32 (#49487779) Attached to: Seattle CEO Cuts $1 Million Salary To $70K, Raises Employee Salaries

Try looking at the changes in the lives of people living in the parts of the world I cited over the past 40 years and then tell me that the growing GDP has not improved the lives of almost everyone there.

I've been to rural China, and I've been to cities all over that part of the world. The folks in the cities, who have taken advantage of (and been a part of) the growth in GDP, have much better lives-- and are thankful for that!

Go see the world a bit, then come back and talk like an intelligent person.

Comment: Re:Incentive to Work Harder? (Score 1) 482

by enigma32 (#49487577) Attached to: Seattle CEO Cuts $1 Million Salary To $70K, Raises Employee Salaries

You obviously have a dangerously skewed world-view. Have you seen first-hand how people work in other countries?

I've traveled pretty extensively, and let me tell you-- Asians (specifically the "Oriental" variety) work *much* harder than most Americans. That's why their economies have done so well over the past N years.
Europeans are even lazier than Americans for the most part. That's why their economies, well, don't do so well. (There are exceptions, of course.)

What type of distorted conception of "work" and "output" and "good economy" could make you think that working "too hard" is *bad* for the economy?

Comment: Why.... (Score 2) 191

Why.... is this government completely inept?
This would totally work. Except for WiFi, 433mhz industrial radios (easily available), CBs, ham radios, family band radios (from walmart, target, etc.), never mind anyone who was really serious about whatever they wanted to do and went through the effort of acquiring wireless communication gear not so commonly available.

This is a fine example of how DHS is *reactionary* and a complete waste of my tax dollars.

Comment: Re:Great article. (Score 1) 215

by enigma32 (#49399631) Attached to: The Dystopian Lake Filled By the World's Tech Sludge

That's all well and good, but we don't [yet] live in the world where everyone is *choosing* to make that clean factory, although the vast majority of Americans seem to think that all of these technologies come from it.
At least you accept and understand the situation. My point is that the vast majority of people don't, and that's why I'm glad to see an article like this.

Comment: Re:Nice strawman (Score 1) 215

by enigma32 (#49399603) Attached to: The Dystopian Lake Filled By the World's Tech Sludge

I've found such people exist primarily in the imaginations of the people who complain about them.

Not so. While I'm a nuclear power proponent, I have nothing against wind and solar power. I even like them in concept. However, I've never seen a single reference to a study of the effects of windmills on regional wind patterns, massive areas of solar panels on regional temperature/wind/etc., let alone manufacturing of these things. Are they issues? Perhaps not. Maybe even "probably not". But the "green" community doesn't even entertain the possibility that they could be problems. It's just as bad as the hard-headed idiots that don't see issues with continuing heavy fossil-fuel use.

yes, [the Prius] is greener than your pickup

Nice try there. I actually use two-wheel transportation (motorized and otherwise).
I'm not saying the Prius is necessarily bad. But as we seem to be heading inexorably in the direction of battery/electric transportation, is that really the best option? Alternatives such as Hydrogen (Toyota seems to be making progress there) have their trade-offs as well, but perhaps it is better in the long run to stay technology-neutral as this technology takes root rather than building a huge infrastructure for battery/electric cars? Again, I don't know the answer, but I don't think the vast majority of people even consider the question. That's the problem.
Incidentally, the articles you linked to didn't have references to much supporting independent research. The KPBS article linked to research conducted by the "Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership", and the Car Connection article compares a Prius to a HUMMER-- How would you even think that is relevant to my point? Thank god it's more green than a hummer! I never would have imagined that!
The HowStuffWorks article is based on a single, albeit reputable, paper, and points to another paper from the same laboratory which concluded that plug-in hybrids could emit 10% more greenhouse gases than some conventional vehicles (according to the HowStuffWorks summary).
So as much as you obviously buy into this stuff pretty easily, I would caution you and others to use a more critical eye before just assuming you know the answer. Is the Prius better than every conventional vehicle on the road? Perhaps. But your understanding of the answer is based entirely on a single paper that has been hyped up by a single website. (I won't consider the KPBS and Car Connection articles to be part of your argument, because they are non-sequiturs.)

when my two years with AT&T was up I got a new contract that gave me a break for using my old phone

Indeed (though was that because you were no longer making subsidy payments or because AT&T loves the environment?).
It's not the carriers that need to make the change though. People need to make better use of what they have rather than buying the fancy new gadget because it is cooler than theirs. You and I have overcome that. Most people haven't.

In this case I'm pretty sure you've done a good job of following your sig to great detail, seeing as how you haven't provided much useful data.

Comment: Great article. (Score 0) 215

by enigma32 (#49398845) Attached to: The Dystopian Lake Filled By the World's Tech Sludge

I've always been concerned about people who can't see the negative side of all the "green", modern technologies today.

I buy a new phone about every 3 years, when my previous one is worn out. Most people do this every year or two. What a waste.
The motors and battery (which needs to be replaced every X years) for your new Prius are not so great for the environment. Sure, it makes you feel good to not fill up at the gas pump, but what is the true environmental cost of that car?
Same goes for windmills, etc. Are they really better for the environment than, say, nuclear power?
This article shows what you're missing when you sign that lease, or buy that new iPhone.

I'm glad someone out there is forcing us to look at the downside of all of the technology we use. Kudos to them for doing it.

Comment: Re:Way too many humanities majors (Score 1) 397

by enigma32 (#49381181) Attached to: Why America's Obsession With STEM Education Is Dangerous

I have a Design BFA degree from a major 4-year school, and I am back in school for Electrical Engineering (having studied that prior to art originally).
I am a software engineer and have been for years.

The design degree was complete bullshit. 90% of the time my work was being "critiqued" I could give a completely ridiculous explanation and it would be more acceptable than a well thought-out answer from the analytical side of my mind.
Art History != Art.

Thus far I've found I haven't learned anything useful in either program.

Comment: Re:Way too many humanities majors (Score 1) 397

by enigma32 (#49380487) Attached to: Why America's Obsession With STEM Education Is Dangerous

That's all well and good, but which do you think we are more lacking in the world?
a) Engineers with "perspective" on the world and people around them ...or...
b) non-engineers with highly critical thinking skills?

Surely this is obvious.
For most engineers worth their salt, humanities exposure happens on their own time and in good measure. I can't say the same for non-engineers I work with, who receive little to no exposure to actual critical thinking of any variety.

Comment: Re:Wish he would create Galt's Gulch (Score 1) 441

by enigma32 (#48657831) Attached to: How Venture Capitalist Peter Thiel Plans To Live 120 Years

Yes! This!

It's frequently all too obvious that people critical of ideas that originated (or were perpetuated by) that woman have absolutely no understanding of the ideas and frequently haven't even read the books.

Love that phrasing, btw: "I'd like to work on mine and it would be nice if you would get out of the way".

Comment: Re:And who will collect the trash? (Score 1) 441

by enigma32 (#48656369) Attached to: How Venture Capitalist Peter Thiel Plans To Live 120 Years

You either have extremely poor reading comprehension skills or are just an idiot. Either way I'll take the bait.

Socialism does not fail because it "has made most of society's lives better". It failed because it DID NOT do that, and worse, always seems to result in an oppressive regime with the only goal of keeping itself in power.
That is a failure. Don't you get frustrated when you can't do anything to fix whatever lousy situation you happen to be in? Now imagine it were legislated specifically so that you were unable to.

Next time try reading what I wrote, instead of twisting it to fit your bigoted, uneducated, and perhaps brainwashed view about opponents of socialism.

To be fair, there could be an example of an amazingly successful government (perhaps beaten into the ground by the evil freedom lovers somewhere in the world) that I'm unaware of, so please give me an example of a thriving socialist paradise where everyone is happy living out their lives for everyone else's benefit, since they're unable to influence their own lives through their own effort.

I'm waiting.

Comment: Re:And who will collect the trash? (Score 2, Interesting) 441

by enigma32 (#48655131) Attached to: How Venture Capitalist Peter Thiel Plans To Live 120 Years

Not at all. But civilization doesn't have to always be the bureaucratic mess it is today, as perpetuated by the established "liberal" and "conservative" (that is, entirely anti-freedom and advancement of society on both sides) incumbents.

Socialism in particular fails because the only motivation inherent in the system is to improve the lives of others. The cool thing about making a society more democratic and less restrictive (that is, moving toward the libertarian sense of what a government should be) is that it makes it really obvious how you can benefit from the self-improvements of others, and how they can benefit from your own self-improvement at no cost to yourself.

Why does everyone always think that a libertarian ideal is completely geared around making money? It doesn't have to be. My ideal would be as much humanist as libertarian, and I expect that's more of what is being talked about with the "seasteading" project as well, since it seems to come from the Randian vision of how to define a model person.

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!

Working...