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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Yet, no Sc[r]apbook (Score 1) 7

Hmm... Does that sound like a feature I would want to help pay for? The answer may surprise me. I think it sounds like a "Maybe" or even a "Yes" if the description was fleshed out a little bit. However I can also see where it belongs in an optional category for people who want it... Seems to me like the real cost would be quite large, but for an "ancient" and kind of fundamental reason: The HTTP links only go one way. That means there's no easy way for Scrapbook to know the target webpage has changed...

So ancient that my memory is fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure the original design of the WWW was supposed to involve bidirectional links. At least as an option.

But mostly Firefox updates these years just seem to be annoying stuff that I would not offer money for. It feels like there is a constant stream of annoying pitches for new features I don't want or need and almost nothing that actually improves my "browser experience". When did they add that "Open All in Tabs" thing? Must have been years ago. I use that feature about once a day to avoid the <Ctrl> key. But I wouldn't have chipped in ten bucks for it...

Comment Re:No. [Trains can't win?] (Score 1) 144

Because there is no way car companies and airlines would ever allow it.

California tried and Elon Musk came in with a bucket of money and discredited transportation ideas and shut it all down. In fairness he also had help from airline CEO.

Like most things transportation problems are social problems in disguise.

Quoted against the censor trolls, though I actually regard it as a rather weak FP. More of a fundamental economic problem that America is not dense enough for trains to be profitable.

Maybe I need a disclaimer of some sort? I stopped driving when I was less than half of my current age. Quite happy with walking and local trains. Rather rare that I ride in a bus, car, long-distance train, ship, or airplane (in order of decreasing frequency) and I don't like any of 'em.

Comment Re:Stop now [and just give up] (Score 1) 107

That's why I said it was such a big IF. It is pretty clear that long-range forecasts are not possible, so the solution approach along these lines would involve continuous interventions based on short-range forecasts--and the main threat would be that you might push the system into a non-recoverable state. Perhaps helpful to compare it to fly-by-wire fighter planes with negative dynamic stability? Yes, you can keep such a plane under control, but the corrections and adjustments have to happen quickly, sometimes too quickly for a human pilot to do anything helpful if something bad happened...

Comment Re:Stop now [and just give up] (Score 1) 107

Actually that's my initial reaction, too, but I do think there might be some kind of solution. On third thought I'm sure this is not it, but...

If (and that's actually a huge IF) we were able to model the atmosphere well enough, then I think we might be able to intervene in a sane way. My own favorite fantasy solution would be large arrays of orbital mirrors rotated as needed to control the solar energy reaching the earth. Take a bit off the sides here, add some extra crops there...

Time for a joke? We could use the mirrors to FINALLY get rid of DST. And if we had that atmospheric model we could do it without the adverse side effects...

Comment Re:Wanna stop layoffs? (Score 1) 61

Provocative FP, but I think you're mostly wrong and lacking in the kind of insight that will lead towards any solution. Most obviously, the Democrats are not going to solve anything. I think we are actually in a situation where too much change has become a key problem, so controlling and even limiting the changes are crucial. I sort of hate to say it, but I think the Amish may have it right when they consider newfangled ideas carefully before adopting them. (The Amish religious stuff mostly seems bogus, however...)

As regards the monopoly problem, I think the best solution approach might be a progressive tax on profits where higher degrees of monopolization result in higher taxes on the associated profits. The "natural" path to higher retained earnings would then be for the monopolist to divide itself into honest competitors. Three metrics (plus your ideas) could be used to detect the monopoly: (1) Limited customer choice and too few meaningful options, (2) Inability of wannabe competitors to enter the monopoly niche, and (3) Lack of alternative employment options for people working in the niche. But "We can't get there from here." Certainly there are no politicians who are trying to lead in such a direction.

Returning to this story I think the actual key is in the deltas. Yes, Amazon does need engineers, but profit maximization calls for keeping ONLY the engineers who can produce the highest rates of profit increase. All less productive engineers are just slowing things down. The delusion that Amazon is now suffering from is an idea that AI (and related IT) can be used to replicate the work of the delta-maximizers all over the place.

The reality is different and I expect to be amused by the implosion--even though I will also probably suffer from some of the collateral damage.

Slashdot Top Deals

The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness. -- John Muir

Working...