<sarcasm>Good thing you did research and didn't just use one web site to have an opinion.</sarcasm>
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
a whole bunch of non-scientists who know very little about cancer other than what they read on the web will automatically talk about terrible corporations putting profits above everything else, and automatically act like sheep and believe WHO.
At least have the decency to wait until some real facts actually come out to post an opinion.
And we could also stop accidental death by automobile by banning all cars except those the government gives permission to drive. Don't stop there, but a stop to DUI deaths by banning alcohol AND cars.
100% of the population should not have to give things up for the irresponsible or bad decisions of a very small minority. Or do you only think that if it affects people other than yourself??? As long as you don't have to do anything you don't want to do, it's OK to force other people.
It is not irresponsible to have a loaded gun that is unlocked in a house, guns never shoot anyone by themselves. It can be irresponsible in some instances.
On the other hand, a gun in a locked safe is useless for home defense if no one knows the combination. And there are many news stories of responsible children stopping threats in a home because they knew where their parent's guns were. So, what's the use of locking it up to prevent suicide if we don't also make it illegal for anyone under the age of 18 (21??) to know the combination.
The only irresponsible people that I see here are those that think they can create one rule for everyone and think there won't be unintended consequences that might actually be worse. And expect the government to somehow enforce it.
He deserved far more, too bad he didn't get it. Self-appointed saviors/vigalantes like this idiot, Snowden, and Assange get exactly what they deserve. Sadly, they also attract a significant number of sheep who worship their every word.
There are also comments on society in Harlequin romance novels. And comic books, And Broadway plays. And probably every other genre of every media every used.
I'd ask you what your point is, but obviously, there isn't one that isn't forced. And apparently irrelevant.
So which is it
I sure as hell don't want the first batch to be driven without someone behind the wheel for a few years. And that person needs a regular driver's license and the ability to take over if anything either fails or the car can't cope with a situation.
As someone who just drove over 2,000 miles, some of it in snow, I would love to have some of the tech that self-driving cars are making available. But 100% door-to-door service with 100% accuracy?? I just don't see it happening anytime soon. The GPS I used sent me the wrong way twice, and I just updated the maps before I left. Once was not a big deal, it just picked a route that wasn't as efficient. The second failure took me to a non-existent gas station which appeared on the map to be in the middle of a corn field.
We do need regulations. Or do you really want to see a bunch of people killed by an automated car, and the heavy-and of the law come down then.
There is no overriding reason to rush these to market, the percentage of the population that really needs them is very small. For the rest of us, they are just a convenience factor. It's possible they could lower traffic accident rates. Or it's possible that they could increase them since in the beginning, only a very small percentage are going to be automated, so they will have to deal with the millions of bad drivers out there.
I do have one prediction though
The reality is that many people enjoy smoking. I smoke cigars 3-4 times a week. It's very relaxing to sit outside and read with a cigar instead of being glued to the TV. Sure
And don't give me all the bullshit about increased medical costs. If you weren't such a hypocrite, you'd also want ban marathon running and dozens of extreme athletic practices that drive up your medical costs. Then motorcycle riding. And cars.
The problem is, those that want it banned don't smoke, so it doesn't affect them. They are just self-righteous, selfish, useless idiots. They have no problem with taking things away from other people but would fight tooth and nail if the government took something away from them 'for their own good'.
Why would any senior developer/architect need to know the specifics of encryption? That is a specific skill, not a general one. And, if they need to know the specifics, it's a Google search away. Yes
Stop looking for specific skills and start looking for smart people. Your questions might find someone very skilled in what you need now, but what about next year when something new and improved comes along??
Someone who is smart can learn what you want them to know in a couple of days, encryption just isn't that difficult. Especially if you already know it and can sit down and go over it in the 30 minutes it will take for them to get the basics. Instead of looking for short-term solutions, look for long-term employees, people that are self-motivated to learn new things, and capable of learning new things.
--- or ---
You need a better job description that specifies specific skills you want. And the balls to ask a few questions at the beginning of an interview, and then show them the door right away if they don't have what you specified in your request for applicants.
It's not the getting old part. It's the last part. Time passes, things change. Those unwilling to learn will be left behind.
I'm 55 and don't have a problem digging in and learning new shit. I gave up COBOL a couple of decades ago. Could still write it if I had to, but I didn't hang onto it like the last piece of chocolate cake.
In 2025, everyone whining about how hard Linux is will be regarded the same as COBOL programmers are today.
And stuck working on old shit that nobody else wants to touch.
Make of that what you will. And when you tell me I am at fault because I am unwilling or incapable of hurdling that learning curve, I will throw back in your face that a good product is also defined by usability considerations.
When Linux was less 'usable', it was simpler.
Increased usability means more scripts and automation, meaning more things are abstracted.
You can't have it both ways.
I know what the real problem is. I stepped away from Linux/UNIX for about 5 years because of a new job (Went from a Sun/Unix/Oracle shop to a Windows/SQLServer shop). When I got back to Linux, I didn't understand a lot of things, it had changed so much. It took a while to dig into it.
It just took a little effort. And enough intelligence to actually read scripts and Google things I didn't understand.
If you don't get it
I am not opposed to reducing pollution to a level where I can safely walk outside and breath, and fish are reasonably safe to eat.
I am opposed to reducing pollution to zero and getting rid of all the modern niceties that cause it
Everything in between is up for discussion and probably has multiple supporters and detractors somewhere.
I'll wager that almost no one disagrees that reducing pollution is a good thing.
The discussion is how much are we willing to pay or give up for how big a reduction.
Which is supported by the prior Slashdot post about how scientists and the general public are often at opposite sides of things. Those that took the poll need to reconcile their numbers with the numbers from the other poll that said most people don't believe in human-caused global warming. I find it hard to believe that if most people don't believe in it, they would only vote for politicians that supported it
So you would rather shaft all non-solar users by forcing the electric companies to not pay wholesale for solar providers (like they do when they buy power from other power companies) or pay retail and at least ask those using solar to help pay for the grid they are using to connect with. Thus raising non-solar rates.
So you would rather force everyone to pay more for a car than the savings in the fuel economy??
So you would rather put a burden on the poor who can't afford to fix their cars or buy newer ones??
Another 'as long as I'm not required to give up anything' argument. Thanks for helping prove the point of the prior post.
Have you ever spoken to farmers?? The half dozen farmers I've talked with all say the same thing (I grew up in a small, rural community), most of them were older than 60 and had been farmers for decades. They don't have the time, money, or resources to collect, process, and store seeds, they always buy them. These guys LOVE GMO crops because of the increased yields and predictability.
It may be an extremely small sample and anecdotal, but it makes a lot of sense. I recall having small gardens growing up, and we always bought seeds every year. Plus, farmers want consistent crops every year and better yields if they can, they don't want some wild child of something they started growing 10 years ago when Monsanto has created a new product that makes more money for them.
I would think a sterile plant would be a good thing for modern farmers, who want's corn stalks popping up in a soy bean field. Farmers rotate their crops, I used to remember scenes like this growing up. I don't see them as often now.
In Japan they have something called "first errand". Young school children, say 5 or 6, are given a simple task to do such as go to the local shop and buy a specific item, then bring it home. The school organizes this and gets the parents to come in and help by watching the children from a distance. Adults are not allowed to help the children unless they get into serious difficulty.
By that age, many Japanese children are already walking home on their own. Granted, Japan is much safer than a few parts of the US, but even so it demonstrates how in the west we treat children as far less capable than they actually are. It's not just respnsibilities and safety either, they consider children's emotions to be genuine and to be respected, rather than trivialized and ignored or even punished like the west does.
Other than that, I agree with the concept 100%.