Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Socalim is organized psychopathy (Score 1) 386

Any thought of people doing un-needed busywork is your own fantasy since I certainly never proposed it. Personally, I think it would make a lot more sense to reduce the workweek to accommodate full employment. I also never claimed a utopia, just an improvement over the current situation. You *DO* favor improvement, don't you?

Submission Humans Are More Toxic to Wildlife than Chernobyl->

derekmead writes: The Chernobyl disaster remains the worst nuclear accident in human history, with a death toll that is difficult to tally even decades later. Given the sobering reach of the resulting radiation contamination, you might expect the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone—the 4,200 square kilometers in the immediate vicinity of the explosion—to have suffered serious long-term ecological damage.

Surprisingly, though, a study published today in Current Biology shows that wildlife in the exclusion zone is actually more abundant than it was before the disaster. According to the authors, led by Portsmouth University professor of environmental science Jim Smith, the recovery is due to the removal of the single biggest pressure on wildlife—humans.

Link to Original Source

Comment Re:Socalim is organized psychopathy (Score 1) 386

The topic is the US, friend. Yes, East Elbonia sucks, but then those jobs are often the best available in-country, so there's no easy answers there.

Yes, it is, such as the U.S. corporation that sells the shoes for $200 a pair and refuses to employ a person from the U.S. to make them because they can chain a woman to a bench somewhere else and get it done for slave wages. So the U.S. worker that should be employed isn't and the lady from wherever gets nothing like the real value of her labor.

You don't deserve a job as a reward for breathing.

You may not mind stepping over the bodies of those who didn't get a job, but I have a problem with that. If you are going to make having a job necessary to live, you damn well better have jobs available that actually pay enough to live. Otherwise, they are well justified in defying any law necessary to make that living. Other than the disabled, everyone is capable of doing something useful, but there simply don't seem to be enough jobs available for them to all have one now. That condition will continue to get worse.

As for training, do you suggest they steal the money they need for tuition? Because that's pretty much their only option right now other than do without. Of course, you assume for some reason there will actually be jobs for all of them once they are better trained, but I see no reason to believe that is true. For those that do get employed that way, they will still be paid less than their productivity would justify, just like nearly everyone that does have a job.

Submission Worst Tech Recruiter 'Pickup Lines'

snydeq writes: We've all received them: Trawling emails from tech recruiters looking to lure us away from our current employer, often with a cringe-worthy line or two that makes it seem as if we are being courted by an unwanted pickup artist. From the article: 'The men and women tasked with recruiting tech talent go to great lengths to attract the attention of their targets — (often unsuspecting) tech pros viewed as valuable "gets." While some recruiters prove to be invaluable in improving your career, finding exactly the right words to pique your interest in a new gig, far more seem to stammer, stumble, and elicit exasperated sighs.' What are the best doozies you've received?

Comment Re:Laurels (Score 1) 33

The Nobel prize is 8.000.000 SEK this year or ~960.000 USD. Divided by three that's $320k each. That you are very likely to only get once for a career in research stretching over decades. I suppose you could say it's a whole lot more than nothing, but if you wanted to make money you should have become a NFL quarterback or something.

Comment Re:Break The NDA (Score 1) 366

This is about ethics, not law. I was also referring to allegations of Apple's wrongdoing resulting in Apple punishing the accuser (sort of a vigilante version of SLAPP), but you knew that, didn't you?

Of course, corporate charters are conditional on being in the public interest. Free Speech is in the public interest and so restrictions on it imply that the charter should be revoked. Apple doesn't HAVE to support other's speech but ethically it should not impede it either. They could satisfy that by allowing side-loading.

Comment Re:Break The NDA (Score 1) 366

So you want Apple to sue iFixit in order to get them to submit an application back to Apple to have Apple remove the app from Apple's own store. As a response for violating Apple's developer's program, which already includes terms that Apple can pull apps from the store for violating the agreement.

Yes, that is correct, or at least threaten to sue if iFixit doesn't voluntarily remove the app.

The key here is that Apple shouldn't have the power to arbitrarily disappear an app (which may constitute speech) from a significant portion of all phones for any slight real or imagined. They should either surrender that power by allowing side loading or they should run these things past a judge to provide due process.

Consider, next time it may well be a negative review that gets someone's apps yanked. Or an allegation of wrongdoing. Or perhaps someone supports the "wrong" presidential candidate.

Comment Re:Guaranteed to put stress on any car? As if. (Score 1) 114

Yeah, I have to agree. Autobahn has very strict rules about not passing someone to their right, and people actually follow them.

Because it's the slower car's job to get out of the left lane so if there's space and they're impatient they'll be sure to blink or honk to get you out of their way. I guess it's a cultural thing, if it's the faster car's job has to find a free lane to pass that system works too. Mixing the systems don't though, if both switch lanes at the same time the result could easily be a crash. And then there's the systems where lanes are fluid or non-existing including but not limited to opposing lanes, if it fits do it and if it doesn't then honk and do it anyway. There are countries the Google car won't touch with a ten foot pole.

Comment Re:So what, nothing new. (Score 1) 114

Highways are very simple, continuous lanes, very little complication, city roads are a whole different story. Non-story.

On the other hand... if you have a bunch of depots in conjunction with the Autobahn, you just pick up/drop off goods at the one closest to you and automated trucks bring it to the depot closest to the destination that could be a much quicker road to implementation than dealing with inner city traffic. Also much easier to map out, assuming you need that. The point is to start somewhere.

Comment Re:Not wasted (Score 2) 172

Back in the real world, The Martian was mastered in 2K and hardly anybody noticed. I have a UHD monitor and using RAW still photos I can tell the difference between a photo natively cropped to 3840x2160 and one that's between downscaled to 1920x1080 and back at my typically sitting distance but you need to watch some fine detail. There's no way I'd see anything past 4K. In theory a person with 20/10 vision (yes, they do exist) sitting in the middle of a large screen cinema should be able to see 7K, but that's only when trying to read one of those eye charts at maximum contrast.

Most of the comparisons you see are not apples-to-apples comparison, they show you one 4K screen and one not-4K screen and surprise surprise the one they want to sell looks much better. I look forward to 4K BluRay though, in addition to resolution with HDR, Rec. 2020 and 10 bit color it will improve contrast, colors and banding All three of those are probably just as noticeable as the change in resolution, though I suspect it'll take a while before we have TVs that can take full advantage of it.

Comment Re:Symbiotic parasite (Score 5, Interesting) 327

The answer you end up with depends on who you think started it, yes some websites took advertising too far and users hated it. But instead of using the sites that had "acceptable" ads and stop using the sites that had "annoying" ads, the solution was to start blocking ads. Now I don't subscribe to the whole "blocking ads is stealing" tripe but obviously the whole point of ads is that people see them. If everybody blocks them, there no point in paying for them and so the sites don't get any funding and the model breaks down. And it was the low-hanging fruit that mostly got hurt, the scummy sites with annoying ads were also the ones who'd most quickly resort to circumvention techniques to shove the ads in your face anyway.

The assumption here is that at least some users will be nice and accept to see som ads, if you're going to do that why not go for a real opt-in system? Tag all the advertising elements on your page with an <div class="ad">(ad goes here)</div>. Publish an advertising policy, like robots.txt Kindly ask ad blockers to replace ads tagged as such with "This website relies on advertising revenue to operate. You are currently blocking ads. Please click here to unblock and support our site."

If you click it, you get a dialog saying:
"This site has requested you to unblock ads. Their advertising policy is as follows:

Banner ads: Yes
Animated ads: No
Ads with sound: No
Interstitial ads: No
Pop-ups: No
Pop-unders: No

[Unblock ads] [Cancel]

You may at any time block ads again by.... (explanation)"

Of course you could have dick ad blockers that just remove the ads, but I think the popular ones could be convinced to play nice. Sites wouldn't have to get on any approval list tied to any particular blocker and everyone would decide for themselves what sites they want to support. No money for just being click bait, users have to actually like you enough to unblock. Not sure it'd work, but if that won't work then "acceptable ads" won't either.

Comment Re:Socalim is organized psychopathy (Score 1) 386

If you think labor is getting 90%, you are living in fantasy land. $5 worth of materials + $0.50 paid to labor becomes a $200 pair of shoes. Do you really think the lady chained to her bench in wherethefuckisthatistan got 90% of the value of her labor? In a properly free market, do you really think the most odious jobs would fetch the lowest pay?

Labor will capture it's fair share when unemployment is actually 0%. That is, everyone who needs or wants a job has one and if you want labor, you have to convince people to prefer you over their current employer. Meanwhile, corporate profits are way up even as wages remain flat.

In any problem, if you find yourself doing an infinite amount of work, the answer may be obtained by inspection.