Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Balance is the key (Score 1) 319

by quintessencesluglord (#49380101) Attached to: Why America's Obsession With STEM Education Is Dangerous

It's deeper than that though.

Previously you had science majors complaining about taking humanities courses (and vice versa) since it wasn't necessary to their field, and with the exponential increase in the cost of education, there was some justification that having a broad classical humanities education as a basis for further studies was not cost effective. Welcome to the birth of diploma mills and the loss of normalization that EVERY college graduate should be competent in both science and the humanities.

Further, the standards for education plummeted, and recent graduates are less capable in nearly every measure, and worse, they are too dumb to know what they do not know. This leads to arrogance and an over-inflated sense of worth.

http://fortune.com/2015/03/10/...

That should give everyone a moment of pause. It's not just STEM, it across the board that capability is falling behind.

And especially as Millennials are the most educated (and most in debit) generation ever, it's clear that education policy is failing, there is bloat across the board in education, and worst of all, kids don't even have recess anymore. That's fucked up.

Focusing on STEM won't decrease the cost of education (where curiously, online courses generally cost more than traditional instruction. Where's the cost savings that technology was suppose to bring?), won't making education more rigorous, nor is it the only area where the US is hurting: the skilled trades are also lacking qualified applicants.

It is damnable that in this Age of the Internet, where information is more available than it has ever been before, people are getting stupider, and education resembles indoctrination more than having the framework to be autodidactic after college.

Comment: Re:Hopefully this gows (Score 3, Informative) 166

by quintessencesluglord (#49371441) Attached to: At the Track With Formula E, the First e-Racing Series

Yup, there has been absolutely no advancement in tires since 1979.

Also- 79 Lotus 480hp

2014 Mercedes 750hp

So yes, a turboed Mercedes with current tires and over 30% more horsepower can run a whole 15 seconds faster than a NA Lotus on bias ply tires.

Any other mysteries of the universe I can illuminate for you?

Comment: Re:Hopefully this gows (Score 1) 166

by quintessencesluglord (#49369295) Attached to: At the Track With Formula E, the First e-Racing Series

>Williams FW15C was going to render the skill of the driver almost redundant

Completely disagree, as the same argument has been made about any deviation from the front engine RWD layout in racing would diminish driver skill as a factor. Nope, it just means a different set of skills are also in play, and how well a car corresponds to the driver (as it has always been) is more varied.

Especially with electronic nannies, it may elevate the capabilities of mediocre drivers, but at the extremes, it is difficult to qualify. Are you really going to argue that your average driver with electronic assist is quicker than a racing driver without?

It's just another technological advancement banished from racing for nothing more than "reasons".

Comment: Re:Hopefully this gows (Score 1) 166

by quintessencesluglord (#49369217) Attached to: At the Track With Formula E, the First e-Racing Series

All sound and fury, and signifying squat, as the reason ground effects were banned was because Ferrari couldn't figure out how to make them work and lobbied to make it so. Nothing like being completely dominated by less money for "safety concerns" to become a trope.

Not to mention other racing series, like the apparently technologically superior IndyCar, use them without having mass carnage on the tarmac, and in fact requiring flat bottoms like F1 leads crashes that killed a spectator recently at Nürburgring.

Comment: Re:Hopefully this gows (Score 3) 166

by quintessencesluglord (#49369109) Attached to: At the Track With Formula E, the First e-Racing Series

Formula 1 jumped the shark when they disallowed ground effects. When THE most significant car ever produced for F1 (the Lotus 79) is illegal, you've made it more about money instead of innovation, which has defined F1 from the 80s on. How does it feel to be running 30 year old technology, grandpa?

Everyone knows electric cars are the future (which F1 even begrudgingly admits by requiring hybrids), and instead of meeting that future head on like Formula E, F1 totters along, and will contribute nothing to the future of racing.

That, sir, is old and busted.

Comment: Re:This is why markets are not a good model for go (Score 1) 121

That gets dicey, from everything to perpetual war (thank god the last depression reeled in our Middle East adventures) to reexamining drug laws after 40 years of paying for prisons for the drug war. If it weren't for market assumptions, that madness might have never ended.

Besides, this is the same lie that was told regarding the lack of prosecution for the banking scandals, while accepting million dollar fines for billion dollar frauds, yet there is absolutely no problem in finding the 2.7 million per prisoner to keep Guantanamo open. It's handing waving away the problem, as that is much more media friendly than a simple fuck you, we'll do what we want.

Comment: Do not pass go (Score 1) 760

I had contemplated a system like this to make the judiciary more equitable (other ideas include collecting all money to be spent on a court case to be divided equally between the parties- you are spending money for the decision, not to increase your chances of winning), and ultimately had to discard it as it seemed to favor increased lawlessness among the poor (if you have essentially no money, you can commit crimes with impunity as there is little cost). You could make up a hybrid system of an equal chance at paying a percentage of income or a fine, but I don't think it would work that well.

I lean more towards doing away with fines altogether (no more making law enforcement a part of tax collection) and making all penalties jail time or community service. Would be a good reason to get revenue generating laws off the books, and the imposition on both the poor and rich are about equal. And if the deed isn't serious enough to deserve some time in jail, it probably shouldn't be enforced anyway.

Comment: Re:Necissary, not sufficient. (Score 2) 99

Not that I doubt specifically, but here's my problem:

If what you say is true, we wouldn't have the problems with the patent system that we have now. It should be mostly self-regulatory, with less trivialness since companies have an interest in each other's patents. This is clearly not the case, and as you can point to Apple or Microsoft, I can point to drug and agricultural companies that effectively pursue perpetual patents. Not all patents are created equal, and if you hold the keys to a cash cow, or a DNA sequence, that alone is worth more than any benefit from cross licensing. Prilosec earned over a billion dollars yearly while its patent was active. Now it earns about $300 million. And that's just one drug.

Not to mention you already stated patent has only been extended through treaty, and yet here we are with another treaty in the wings which no one wants to disclose the terms of, and would all but put any patent reform out of the reach of the courts or congress.

That should give everyone a moment of pause.

Comment: Re:Necissary, not sufficient. (Score 1) 99

You're not even a little bit fearful that "patent reform" isn't doublespeak for bringing patents more inline with copyrights or some such nonsense?

Call me paranoid, but with the secrecy of TPP still lingering in the wings, I don't really trust Congress to approach this sanely, We may have a sudden outbreak of common sense, but I trust that more to come from the courts than lawmakers at this point.

Sad but true.

Comment: Re:never again (Score 3, Informative) 64

Or after a decade of neglect, releasing Space Hulk 3rd edition, only to release 4th edition 5 years later, but making the sets incompatible, and offering no way for people who supported them with the 3rd edition to upgrade, making it orphaned to expansions.

Fuck them to the bowels of hell. Such arrogance to their customers.

Don't even get me started with what they did with Blood Bowl.

Ugh!

Comment: Re:They worked out an algorithm to define genre (Score 3, Interesting) 57

But it's not just popularity; it's relationships, and still the data used is flawed.

        Last FM genre tags aren't the most comprehensive (hence music nerds can get into endless debates about whether a band represents this genre or that genre), and it also assumes influence comes within the realm of popular music, and not less popular forms that get co-opted into pop music, and how those less popular lineages developed (as the trope goes, someone like the Sex Pistols never sold many albums, but what albums they did sell ended up in the hands of people who started more popular bands).

        More importantly, this study shows the flaws with quantitative vs. qualitative analysis; using the less descriptive measure as definitive just because it is supposedly "objective", and basically ignoring all other data that doesn't fit the model. They've proved they can measure what they set out to measure, nothing more. This has been most egregious in the soft sciences, like psychology, that tries so very hard to quantify data in an attempt at being definitive, and end up making absurd associations as that isn't the most useful analysis of the data on hand. Some music historians would have been able to point out the obvious flaws (like the progression of the Beatles throughout their history. Twist and Shout is miles away from Revolution #9).

Comment: Re:Colour me apprehensive. (Score 1) 94

No, actually my complaint with Prometheus was that it was poor storytelling across the board. It seemed to purposely tell half a story in an attempt to hide this under the guise of interpretation, or possibly a Prometheus Mark II.

It may be I am like those naysayers that panned Blade Runner upon release, and only some time after have come to see its true merit, but I don't think so. At least with Blade Runner there were reasons to view it multiple times, and that definitely can't be said for Prometheus.

Comment: Re:Human Life (Score 1) 218

by quintessencesluglord (#39010421) Attached to: Boiling Down the Meaning of Life

Compared to life imprisonment it costs the same (or sometimes even more) and has the same outcome of preventing recidivism (re-offending).

Not really.

The costs of the death penalty are externally elevated. The cost of a bullet is quite cheap.

As far as re-offending-

The murder is not kept in perfect isolation (cruel and unusual), and has the opportunity to re-offend with what are essentially other wards of the state (not to mention prison guards). Anyone who has been around prisons knows there is far more crime in prison than outside.

So what do you do with a person with a life sentence who rapes/kills another prisoner? You have already invoked the worst punishment your scenario allows, and it has failed.

And what of the safety of the other prisoners? Is the state not obliged to keep them safe from further crime? The death penalty ends all future recidivism from this individual permanently.

(It should be noted I generally oppose the death penalty, but as a practical matter understand that it is, and should be, a method of last resort).

Oh, and the conflating with abortion? Pure ideological claptrap.

Comment: Re:Very easy explanation (Score 1) 383

by quintessencesluglord (#34515952) Attached to: Angles On Anonymous

But one of the problems is more conventional means of protest are equally liable to garner negative publicity.

Either you are carted off to freespeech zones which are equivalent to no protest at all, or some instigator turns the whole event into a riot, garnering the derision of the public.

Even commenting to your congressman is pointless if the one topic that drew the largest public disapproval is passed anyway (bailouts).

So what options do you have left?

I'm just pleased that there are enough folks paying attention to do something like this rather than the apathy that marks most of the public. I am frightened to death that most of them aren’t old enough to vote.

Be sociable. Speak to the person next to you in the unemployment line tomorrow.

Working...