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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale Extended! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 20% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY20". ×

Comment Re:Misleading headline (Score 1) 77

We've had people complaining from headaches caused by a cell tower.. which was never switched on.
So I would not take people protests as a consistent sign that regulations must be changed. These protests sometimes just mean that something HAS changed.

According to Wikipedia, even the Eiffel Tower was highly objected to when it was first proposed. Here is the petition, which is quite fun to read, in retrospect:

"We, writers, painters, sculptors, architects and passionate devotees of the hitherto untouched beauty of Paris, protest with all our strength, with all our indignation in the name of slighted French taste, against the erection ... of this useless and monstrous Eiffel Tower ... To bring our arguments home, imagine for a moment a giddy, ridiculous tower dominating Paris like a gigantic black smokestack, crushing under its barbaric bulk Notre Dame, the Tour Saint-Jacques, the Louvre, the Dome of les Invalides, the Arc de Triomphe, all of our humiliated monuments will disappear in this ghastly dream. And for twenty years ... we shall see stretching like a blot of ink the hateful shadow of the hateful column of bolted sheet metal."

Comment Re:Why did NASA lie about it being destroyed? (Score 4, Interesting) 130

They offered me [perks], they offered me everything but cash

The deal is that thanks to Congress NASA has no budget. They are scrambling to put together a bake sale to raise money for buying the rover, but it's hard to get aerospace engineers to bake anything that someone else would want to buy and eat.

Comment Re:Predestiny? (Score 1) 144

But diesels can meet emission standards honestly if auto makers include a urea tank. They just fear consumer reaction to having another consumable fluid (that needs to be refilled every 9 thousand miles, or so) .

If auto makers were more like NASA, they would realize that the car already has a totally free and renewable supply of urea that could be tapped to solve this problem, as well as having the fortunate side of effect of ensuring a much longer uninterrupted driving range for the vehicle's operator.

Comment This is *much* worse than it looks (Score 1) 411

Clearly this car has some AI built-in and developed self-awareness. It realized that if it failed the emissions test it would end up in a junk yard somewhere and possibly crushed into scrap metal. What we are seeing here is the development of a self-preservation. I wouldn't be surprised if the mechanics that attempt to correct this problem end up being the victims of a hit and run.

Comment Re:O Really? (Score 1) 1291

We already have taxes. It's not fair that I have to pay taxes so the government can use it, for example, to build a bus stop I might never use. But this is the cost of living in society. I simply have to suck it up.

The discussion about basic income is not one on whether it is fair to have wealth redistribution or not, it is a discussion that about whether basic income is a more efficient and no-nonsense way to provide welfare once that wealth redistribution has already happened.

It's okay if you disagree with welfare or wealth redistribution. You should then be indifferent about basic income vs. the status quo, because it's just a different kind of welfare or wealth redistribution.

Comment Re:Free money isn't free (Score 1) 1291

I think your post highlights the absurdity that results from welfare programs that try to help specific people for specific reasons. Basic income comes along and says, "enough of that, everybody gets a basic income and if you don't like that, too bad" If the Buggy Drivers feel they deserve more than the Push Mower Operator Union, then under basic income, it really does suck to be them.

It seems like you are arguing whether redistribution of income is fair. That's a good discussion, but it is not the same discussion as basic income. Basic income starts from the point where we take it for granted that we collect taxes for welfare and asks what is the best way to make use of that money. Basic income says the current system is inefficient and there is a simpler way that costs less and involves less bureaucracy.

It also puts the government workers who decide who gets welfare out of a job. As with the buggy drivers, it will suck to be them (but at least they will get a check to cover their basic needs)

Artificial intelligence has the same relation to intelligence as artificial flowers have to flowers. -- David Parnas