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


Forgot your password?

Comment: let's think about it (Score 1) 556

by khallow (#48616345) Attached to: Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates
The basic premise is wrong. Automation hasn't prevented new human jobs from being created. They just aren't being created in the developed world, which has for the most part turned into a shitty place to employ people. Check out this report. It states that 1.1 billion jobs have been created since 1980 and projects another 600 million created by 2030.

Maybe the developed world ought to think about how to get a piece of the action rather than muse whether a 4 day work week or a new Soylent Green recipe will help - it won't. If you want employment to have value, then you need to encourage it, not regulate, limit, and penalize it to death. No need to "modestly" speculate how to deal with the human excess of unemployed created by your shitty labor policies when that excess could be doing something useful instead.

Finally, we ought to think about why fake stories like this are so popular.

Comment: Re:I'd expect Fawkes masks to start making stateme (Score 1) 160

We used to have a good health insurance system, good public transport and an excellent mail service, all state financed.

And also a democracy, if I recall correctly. One wonders why the electorate thought it a good idea to vote for those darn ravishers of near perfection.

Comment: Re:I'd expect Fawkes masks to start making stateme (Score 1) 160

You didn't mention raise taxes.

Why should that matter? Without some sort of financial discipline, it'd just be more money flushed down the drain.

This American is tired of the rightards false equivalences.

You're the one making the "rightard" equivalence between lowering spending and raising taxes.

Comment: Re:Quoted from TFA (Score 1) 186

by khallow (#48615003) Attached to: NASA's $349 Million Empty Tower

Yeah, it's hard to see why the article frames this as an indictment of NASA's bureaucracy, given the article explicitly says a senator from Mississippi explicitly forbid them from stopping construction.

They could have always called his bluff, if they cared. The reality is that they were probably buying the senator's vote for other similarly useless spending by NASA.

Comment: Re:This is why (Score 1) 186

by khallow (#48613661) Attached to: NASA's $349 Million Empty Tower

How can NASA spend their budget effeciently when congressional representatives decide what they are allowed and required to work on?

What's the point of the question? If we, say, double the budget for NASA, congressional representatives will still decide what the money gets spent on. Congressional behavior can be changed just as NASA behavior can.

Comment: This is why (Score -1) 186

by khallow (#48608339) Attached to: NASA's $349 Million Empty Tower
When NASA boosters complain about static/slowly declining funding, this is why it happens. This is well over 1% of the agency's annual budget squandered on something that everyone knew was useless. It's not even unusual. The entire manned space program has been useless for quite some time. That's over a quarter of the budget right there.

While the unmanned part of NASA is not quite as inefficient, it still prioritizes the spending of public funds (usually via development of new one-off projects) over the purposes for which those funds are allegedly spent (such as exploration of the Solar System or the study of Earth-side physical systems).

Between the two, that's a great majority of NASA's funding spent in terrible ways for at least four decades.

In that light, I think it reasonable to ask that before we increase NASA's budget, we insure that it spends its present, quite ample funding in a much more efficient way now. No more non sequiturs about how it's unfair that the big boys like the military or Medicare get to do that. Or terrible spin off arguments that totally ignore that most of NASA's spin offs would have happened anyway, the only meaningful difference being that NASA socialized the costs. Or terrible intangible benefit arguments that argue NASA does this really great but vague thing like international cooperation or inspiration, but nothing that we would spend our own money on.

Comment: Re:Duh. (Score 0) 184

by khallow (#48606221) Attached to: Linking Drought and Climate Change: Difficult To Do
Keep in mind that a few rolls also don't confirm that the dice are as loaded as you claim they are. A huge part of the problem is not that the dice are loaded, but a) nobody knows what unbiased dice roll like, and b) nobody has evidence to confirm that the current dice are as loaded as claimed.

And narrative thinking comes much more naturally than statistical thinking.

I notice that once again, we're heavy on "narrative thinking" and light on actual evidence.

Comment: Re:10 years ago on Slashdot (Score 1) 184

by khallow (#48606189) Attached to: Linking Drought and Climate Change: Difficult To Do

Hurricane INTENSITY is projected to increase BY THE END OF THE CENTURY. That has nothing to do with hurricane FREQUENCY which is primarily driven by short term WEATHER patterns.

Right. Hurricane INTENSITY, let us note, is also primarily driven by short term WEATHER patterns. Which makes your observation completely pointless.

"You don't go out and kick a mad dog. If you have a mad dog with rabies, you take a gun and shoot him." -- Pat Robertson, TV Evangelist, about Muammar Kadhafy