Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Bull (Score 2) 444

If it really is a meritocracy based program, say on IQ scores or some other marker of brighter than your average bear students, then unless the measures of brightness are not applied evenly or the measures themselves are somehow racist the complaint has no basis. It is not at all correct to claim that because fewer Caucasian than Asian folks on average have a particular GPA or because some Jewish sub-population has on average a 15 points greater IQ that the measure itself is racist. There is nothing in reality that says all particular groups should have a proportionally exactly the same incidence of gifted students. So to simply count percentages of different groups present and claim racism and bias if they aren't perfect by the general population is absurd.

Comment I doubt it (Score 0) 29

Medical devices really get put through a very very anal (no pun intended, eww) process before receiving regulatory approval. While I am not claiming that processi s perfect they are some of the safest and most tamper and foolproof devices produced. So I conclude this article is basically FUD.

Comment some people.. (Score 1) 207

Some people are to stupid and much tor fragile to be let out of the house. What is next? Telling people it is illegal to end a friendship online? Whoever thinks such is reasonable really needs to get a life. And yes, I will unfriend any among my social networks who I find out think that this is reasonable. Life is too short to put up with nitwits.

Comment Re:Argue the economics all you want, doesn't matte (Score 1) 1291

How can it possibly be "good economics" to take money from some effectively by government force to give to others or to further debase the currency or increase the already stupendous national debt? Anyone who things that can be good economics is an idiot.

Comment Re:We need this. (Score 1) 1291

Employers don't abuse employees generally just for the hell of it now. Employers are there at all to offer any jobs because they need people to help them build something at a rate both parties can afford and still have the company have more income than what was spent (that is stay in business). If you raise the cost per employee too much then they use less employees or close their doors.

People can just walk away right now. Most people if they have their salary coming anyway will not come to work no matter how reasonable the employer may be. Who do you expect to pay for this part? It is against the law to fire people for getting pregnant or complaining about sexual harassment.

Comment No such thing (Score 2) 1291

There is no such thing as "free money". There is money that was taken from someone else by politicians with people with guns backing their play that they may give some of to you after taking their cut and paying all those needed to take that money. And you pay for all those middlemen. You pay again for the reduced productivity of those that produce more value than they consume.

Or the government just prints more and more money and gives you that. That is "free" right. Ask Zimbabwe what happens when the money printing press runs free. You get hit with all money being worth less and less. You get hit again with higher prices over time. And again if you happen to have any savings or fixed payments incoming that are now effectively reduced.

I have never seen one Guaranteed Income scheme that bothered to count its full costs, or talk honesty about who footed the bill how both directly and indirectly.

Comment Not applicable (Score 1) 26

The Internet of Things is about sensors everywhere and to a more limited extent actuators. But actuators are relatively few compared to sensors. Fine grained sensors are out at the edge here there is no normal wireless connectivity and are quite a challenge to innovate, power and scale out at very low cost. The next challenging is gathering the edge information at highly distributed small systems that may be more wireless/internet connected in some form. While you could hack to corrupt data feeds flowing up the question is what would be the significant payoff to make it worth it at all? You corrupt the out on the farm soil sensors so the watering systems give too much or too little water? Not so easy to get away with and no payoff beyond malice and an ego trip.

Automated and even driverless cars are not IoT. They will be no easier and likely a great deal harder to hack than your average MS box.

Really, I would expect hackers worth the name to be thinking of cool things to do with the accelerating technology not ways that it will mess up or to mess things up.

Please don't play into FUD coming out of groups that fear for their current business models in the age of driverless cars and trucks. You are being played.

Comment Sour grapes idiot (Score 1) 259

One click is brilliant. Amazon has changed the face of finding stuff you want, seeing what its popularity and rep is and buying it and getting it delivered to your door. Anyone that thinks they can do better is very welcome to try. I love Amazon and am very glad they are there.

Comment Give me a break (Score 1) 698

It says you have the right to bear arms, period. What did you think it only meant the cap and ball muskets, pistols and swords and knives of the era it was written in? The right to self defense grows out the the fundamental right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. How do you have the right to your own life if you have no right to defend it.

Comment no lobotomy (Score 1) 227

Increasingly with current not to mention future technological advances our devices are extensions and augmentations of our brain more and more directly. So expecting a person to not have those devices or have them turned off is effectively asking them to do a partial lobotomy and to decrease their effectiveness. This is increasingly going to be seen as an old fashioned and quite short sighted affront and rightly so.

Comment wrong question (Score 1) 654

If you work almost all day at a computer and have little more desired/needed interaction with people than you could comfortably do by phone or online then why the hell are you being required to commute in the first place? That is the most important question.

Next, the price of public transit is not the issue. Not being able to get around on my own schedule is an issue. And in my case I have a handicap which while not quite bad enough to put me in a wheelchair does preclude standing around waiting for transport or walking much at all at the endpoints.

Third, public transit is only per passenger/mile economical when nearly full. To satisfy more flexible schedule it has to run a great deal of the time at far less than its environment and $$ cost break even point.

So no, I wouldn't take it, generally speaking, even if it was free.

Now if we had self driving little pods that would optionally join/leave trains of such when optimal for the journey then I could see the point modulo the first and most important question of whether the trip makes any real sense in the first place.

Comment Re:Scarcity (Score 1) 503

The needs are actually rather bounded. It is desires that are unbounded. We can meet all the former as a matter of course without too much trouble as far as technology goes. Resources are not scarce, especially when we are not bound to this one rock and continuously invent/find new resources even upon it. Most resources we use today outside of things like fossil fuels are not destroyed but cycled to freaking landfill. There is are many fortunes to be made if we can figure out how to take advantage of that. We are not yeast mold in a sugar solution. Yeast most does not think and innovate. Open your mind.

Comment Re:Trekonomy works on the Enterprise. Nowhere else (Score 1) 503

What for if we can meet everyone's needs and many of their desires with a trivial fraction of total productive capacity? The question of whether we have a job for all these people will or at least can become completely irrelevant. The notion that you can only receive if you contribute is a notion rather mired in scarcity thinking. Yes, it will be a HUGE challenge to get beyond scarcity thinking from the individual level and throughout society. But the problem of eliminating scarcity is quite solvable at the technological level. The social and psychological and institutional level is something else again.

A committee is a group that keeps the minutes and loses hours. -- Milton Berle