Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Pay them market value (Score 2) 199

The fact they were working at CMU suggests they were already paying them market value.

The fact they aren't working there anymore suggest they weren't.

Depends on your definition of market value. If they went to multiple companies I'd say CMU was paying below, but the fact they all went to Uber suggests that Uber paid well above market value to make sure they accepted the offers.

What I think actually happened is that Uber treated the Robotics Engineering Center as a startup with a set of internal working relationships and expertise that they wanted. Since they couldn't actually buy the Center they just hired away all the researchers.

So the employees rather than shareholders, managers or the CEO got a fat paycheck for being good at their jobs. That's communism!

I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing but it's different from how we usually evaluate market value for employees.

Comment: Re:Pay them market value (Score 2) 199

How loathsome that CMU will have to pay their researchers MARKET VALUE to keep them!

The fact they were working at CMU suggests they were already paying them market value.

What I think actually happened is that Uber treated the Robotics Engineering Center as a startup with a set of internal working relationships and expertise that they wanted. Since they couldn't actually buy the Center they just hired away all the researchers.

Comment: Re:Tesla Is Good For All (Score 1) 347

you are aware that affordability is sort of a huge part of mass market appeal, right? When I go out shopping for a new car, Tesla is not on the radar as it doesn't appeal to me because it costs way too much. Similar to how Ferrari doesn't really appeal to me, awesome products, but way too expensive.


Tesla costs too much because the tech is new and somewhat experimental, but if rich people keep buying them the tech will mature and costs will come down until it's mass market.

Ferrari is different in that it's a luxury brand, so it will always be good quality but more expensive. I'm sure it drives technology forward as well, particularly is design and manufacturing, but maybe not to the extent of a Tesla.

Comment: Re:Tesla Is Good For All (Score 1, Redundant) 347

I don't agree at all. Until one of his products becomes a mass market conusmer item and not a niche play, then I'll come to your opinion. But so far none of his products have shown any mass market appeal and can't even compete in their niche without government subsidies.

So it goes for virtually any new product.

That's one thing the rich are actually good for, buying the sometimes dubious new inventions and supporting product development until things are mature enough for mass market.

Comment: Re:So the concept of Putlerbot sockpuppet is true! (Score 1) 182

by quantaman (#49806239) Attached to: Professional Internet Troll Sues Her Former Employer

I thought that Putin most likely would not waste money on such nonsense, but I did find the comments humorous.

But now I am starting to think that these... "people" aren't just utterly delusional Internet users from Russia, but actual, paid-for, managed and directed sockpuppets.

I think it's a bit of both.

There are wildly delusional advocates for almost any position, I don't see why Russian foreign policy would be any different. Especially when you consider that Russia does have some legitimate grievances against the West (I get why people wanted the NATO expansion, but expanding an anti-Russia alliance into the former USSR was more than a bit provocative).

At the end of the day Russians are just like anyone else, and they'll be willing to swallow a boat-load of BS so they can cheer for Russia. Some of them will go online and undergo crazy rationalizations on comment boards to convince people why Russia is in the right. They're largely following the same pool of newspapers, blogs, and pundits, so they'll all repeat the same arguments and crazy theories.

I have no idea how to differentiate these people from the actual trolls.

Comment: Re:$15/month for one channel? (Score 1) 39

by quantaman (#49804041) Attached to: Android, Chromecast To Get HBO Now

Sure, it's HBO, and sure they have some stellar in-house programming; but it's one channel. People who are dumping their $60/month (and up!) cable TV plans aren't likely to pay $15 for one channel. Heck, Netflix is under $10. Even the old baboons that run Hulu don't try to charge that much for Plus...

If you're on Comcast's lowest tier TV-included package - "Internet Plus" - HBO is a free add-on. Right now we're paying ~ $70/month total for internet plus Cable TV (The TV channels include HD and are basically a throw-in, it's how Comcast tries to hide how many of its customers don't want cable TV anymore). I can't imagine paying $15 for any single channel.

Maybe, though I'm guessing a lot of people only watch shows from 3-4 channels on a regular basis and watch only a very small amount of programming for the rest. HBO is a very exclusive channel, but even if you did that for all those 3-4 channels you'd pay $45-$60 for almost all the programming you get currently, but commercial free and on-demand with a back catalog.

Comment: Re:wrong (Score 1) 384

by Magius_AR (#49778089) Attached to: What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?

Just about everyone? No one likes the complexity of the tax system, but very very few people support the flat tax when they understand the ramifications.

What ramifications? Are you assuming that the only possible flat-tax that could pass is a vanilla regressive tax with no prebate? FairTax (which I believe is the most widely supported flat tax proposal) accounts for the regressive nature of flat taxes in its model.

Comment: Re:Only Two Futures? (Score 1) 609

by Magius_AR (#49778021) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

Paul's belief in creationism I believe is also tied to his views on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. If he is president when a bill comes across his desk to legislate things like that, I don't think he's going to represent my views.

Except that he already proved otherwise. In votes. For 30 years. He's going to leave it to the states, where it belongs, his own opinions on the issue be damned. Doesn't it mean anything to you that despite being staunchly pro-life and likely anti-same-sex-marriage as well, he won't actually support federal legislation to try to force those beliefs upon voters? That means a great deal to me and makes me respect him as a politician. I'm tired of people that try to legislate based on their view of what the world should be rather than based on what our system of governance is + what their constituents want.

Comment: Re:This isn't a question (Score 1) 622

by quantaman (#49760485) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage

There are exactly 0 valid reasons why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to get married, that's it, zero reasons, as in absolutely none.

I happened to be in Ireland the day before the vote and asked several of the No campaigners why they thought gay marriage should be banned. They ranged from adoption scenarios that already existed, a weird insistence that equality meant two things were IDENTICAL making gay marriage a contradiction, and the innovative approach of comparing gay marriage to global warming (because even though no one has had any problems so far that doesn't mean things won't go bad in the future for unknown reasons).

In short every argument was absolutely terrible and I had an absolute blast listening to them.


ESA Satellite Shows Sudden Ice Loss In Southern Antarctic Peninsula 268

Posted by Soulskill
from the uber-for-ice-cubes dept.
ddelmonte tips news that the ESA's CryoSat spacecraft has detected a sharp increase in the rate at which ice is being lost in a previously stable section of Antarctica. In 2009, glaciers at the Southern Antarctic Peninsula began rapidly shedding ice into the ocean, at a rate of roughly 60 cubic kilometers per year (abstract). From the ESA's press release: This makes the region one of the largest contributors to sea-level rise in Antarctica, having added about 300 cubic km of water into the ocean in the past six years. Some glaciers along the coastal expanse are currently lowering by as much as four m each year. Prior to 2009, the 750 km-long Southern Antarctic Peninsula showed no signs of change. ... The ice loss in the region is so large that it has even caused small changes in Earth’s gravity field, detected by NASA’s GRACE mission. Climate models show that the sudden change cannot be explained by changes in snowfall or air temperature. Instead, the team attributes the rapid ice loss to warming oceans.

Comment: Re:anti-terorism experts or idiots (Score 1) 214

The article labels them "anti-terrorism experts" but the mere fact that they even considered this long enough for there to have been a written record belies that title and proves instead that they are "anti-terrorism idiots".

They were idiots if they acted on those suspicions and started spying on Comic Con or individual geeks, but to have never researched them at all would have been stupider by far.

Geeks are a major cultural force and a lot of those shows have their own utopian ideology mixed in, the 20th century is basically a story of different ideologies fighting it out, Democracy, Communism, Fascism, etc. Almost certainly nothing sinister would ever emerge from Trekkies, but when you have a national law enforcement agency those threats that almost certainly won't happen can be worth checking out.


Energy Dept. Wants Big Wind Energy Technology In All 50 US States 256

Posted by Soulskill
from the any-way-the-wind-blows dept.
coondoggie writes: Bigger wind turbines and towers are just part of what the U.S. needs in order to more effectively use wind energy in all 50 states.That was the thrust of a wind energy call-to-arms report called "Enabling Wind Power nationwide" issued this week by the Department of Energy. They detail new technology that can reach higher into the sky to capture more energy and more powerful turbines to generate more gigawatts. These new turbines are 110-140 meters tall, with blades 60 meters long. The Energy Department forecasts strong, steady growth of wind power across the country, both on land and off shore.

Comment: Re:Men's Rights morons (Score 1) 776

I think an unbiased system would be female skewed since mothers tend to be more dedicated than fathers but I don't know if the system is in fact unbiased.

You talk about an unbiased system while in the same breath making an incredibly biased statement. Interesting.

So sex differences only exist when they benefit men?

That mothers would be more invested in their offspring is easily predicted by that fact that they have a massive biological investments in their offspring that men lack, it's one of those things that I'll simply cite as obvious.

But the strength difference between men and women is pretty drastic

And irrelevant. Abuse isn't about who's stronger, it's about....abusing your partner. You could be a 400 lbs benchpressing linebacker, but it's not going to protect you from being hit with a frying pan while you're sleeping. There's also the heavy societal condition that men should never hit women, even if it's in self-defense.

Unless you bring a weapon into the equation strength becomes relevant because it creates a power imbalance. I don't deny that female physical abuse exists, it might even be at similar levels to male abuse, but I'm very skeptical that it's as harmful.

Comment: Re:Men's Rights morons (Score 1) 776

Men's rights and white power groups and other groups that "fight" for the rights of an already empowered majority exist only because they choose to ignore history.

There are no such thing as "group" rights. If a man is denied custody of his children during a divorce procedure, that isn't some how okay because his grandmother was denied a job.

I think an unbiased system would be female skewed since mothers tend to be more dedicated than fathers but I don't know if the system is in fact unbiased. (And yes, I'm sure there exists seemingly unjust anecdotes on both sides).

Whining about a movie is silly, but MRAs have some valid points about discrimination against men in family law. For instance, most domestic violence laws are written as if men are the sole abusers, when most DV is actually perpetrated by women. In California, the police can only arrest the "dominant" (physically stronger) partner, regardless of who was the initiator or the aggressor. So a woman can attack her husband, and he goes to jail.

Disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie.

Is that an actual policy or are you making a generalization.

Certainly DV by women exists, perhaps it's even the case that incidents the could be classified as DV are more commonly done by women.

But the strength difference between men and women is pretty drastic, I have little doubt that the most severe abuse is overwhelmingly committed by men.

BYTE editors are people who separate the wheat from the chaff, and then carefully print the chaff.