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


Forgot your password?

Comment Is it really a big issue? (Score 5, Insightful) 293

Are driverless cars really the big game changer for auto insurance?
I'm in Ontario, Canada and I just don't see how this is going to change things.
We already have 'no-fault' auto insurance, which basically means you buy car insurance to protect yourself and liability.
You don't go around suing the other drivers or anything. When you make a claim, you just deal with your own insurance company.
The rate you pay is still based on your risk.

So, we have driverless cars. You still buy insurance to protect yourself and liability.
Maybe some of the risk metrics change. Like cars with a better record of being driverless get lower rates? But that's no different than rating cars for safety today.

I suppose some countries might need to change how their auto-insurance works. Moving more towards no-fault insurance.
But it's not like the world doesn't have plenty of models to choose from that would better fit the driverless world.
They don't have to reinvent the wheel as far as I can tell.

Comment Re:Telegram (Score 1) 92

It could be ads.

But it could also become a service provider.
A lot of companies are trying to connect with users for legitimate purposes. There's a lot of money to made and saved.

As the article points out, companies could pay a fee to Whatsapp to use the chat feature. Instead of paying to use SMS.

It saves the companies a lot of money rather than trying to build out their own infrastructure and have customers download custom applications.

If they could make it 'secure' there is even more money to be made. I know my bank has started to use secure email in various forms.

Comment Re:Summary insufficient, click through the link. (Score 2) 786

A few things.

1. Bruce is complaining about men not being sensitive in their open source groups. We're not talking apartheid or segregation here. Bruce's complaint is political correctness, so it is incumbent that such a person be politically correct to all.

2. We must insist on political correctness for all. Not just as a matter of speech, but as a mindset. When people buy into a narrative, they don't see any other voices. You can see that completely in Bruce's summary and post. He just buys the narrative that men are insensitive clogs and women are being excluded. Even his solution of teaching boys at a young age on how to be friends with women.

Political correctness for all its flaws (trust me, I'm a very direct person) does force you to think about the other person involved. That in my view is a good thing.

It does however still blind people who just buy into a narrative.

For example, nowhere does Bruce suggest anything that women need to do to be friends with men. Isn't that interesting? Women don't need to learn things that make them good friends for men. Things like being able to joke around, rough play, loyalty...
Nope, the whole thing is about men learning to be friends with women.

That's a pretty offensive position.

I'll operate on either level. I'm inherently a very direct, handle yourself person. But if we're going to engage in this political correct talk, then we should be careful for all involved. Words definitely give insight in how you feel and act towards people.

Comment Re:Summary insufficient, click through the link. (Score 5, Insightful) 786

I understand your intention, but I would urge you to change your mindset to focus less on stereotypes and more on behavior.
I often find this kind of study/summary to be of the greatest irony.

Person complains men are insensitive or make assumptions about women, which is a great irony because that just making an insensitive assumptions about men.

Let me try another example.
You are trying to point out problems within a group. Yet, you have chosen the word 'male' to represent this group.

Suppose we wish to talk about problems in urban Detroit (gangs, single motherhood...)

Would you state the problem in any way as:
Black people are prone to violence and broken families?

No, because that would be so insensitive. You'd probably call that person a bigot.

You'd have to make it more specific. People in poverty, certain urban centers, certain historical background...

I was born in Apartheid South Africa. I know a little more about racial grouping. I also see the reverse now where the groupings and power plays have shifted. It's always tempting, but if you want to be better than a bigot, you have to check yourself and not fall into 'my tribe' thinking.

Now this is always a tricky area as how do you talk about systemic problems without 'grouping' people.

Well as I say, take two minutes and make sure you've tried your best to narrow your group as much as possible. You might not get it perfect, but at least you made the effort and can offend fewer people AND be more accurate.

It's almost pointless to talk about 'black' people as that is such a large group. Neil Degrass Tyson is black. Condoleeza Rice is black. One of the best IOS programmers I know is black. These people bare no resemblance to the image people have when they talk about 'black problems' perpetuated by both bigots and SJW. There are upscale blacks. There are ghetto blacks and every other subgrouping in between.

It's just as pointless to talk about 'white' people. There are rich white folk and downright poor ghetto white folks. You can for example talk about 'white privilege' but you better be careful about it. Tell some poor white kid from a broken home that he has 'white privilege'. Do you have any idea how harmful that is to that person?

Now ponder your choice of groups. You chose to group humans into two of the biggest groups possible. Male and Female.

And you make grand stereotypes about both, lumping in everyone. You insult anyone who identifies with either being male or female. You insult the female who prefers direct talk or believes she should fight the fight. You insult the male who prefers social grace.

Did it ever occur to you that many men get turned off by poor social behavior?

Perhaps the issue is less that of men vs women, but of people who lack social grace.

I would also imagine with all the tools available in the open source world, it might be interesting to find out why other open source cultures haven't developed. Or maybe they have? I haven't studied it. I'm generally just a deep user, as opposed to an active contributor, but I generally find people quite helpful. There are some assholes, but I've also had some very good conversations and help from a lot of people. Every open source project is started by someone.

Basically, take two minutes.
Check your groupings.
Even if you go in depth with nuance in the research, check your summary. Just do the black test. Change the 'bad' group to 'black' and see how it reads.

How does this read to you Bruce:
How did we ever get a community where a vocal minority of males behave in the most boorish, misogynistic, objectifying manner toward women?

How did we ever get a community where a vocal minority of blacks behave in the most boorish, misogynistic, objectifying manner toward women?

Even masked with the words minority, it still stings doesn't it? No matter how your phrase it, it stings a little doesn't it.

So for someone complaining about insensitive men ... you might want to check yourself.

Comment Re:Seattle taxpayers (Score 1) 111

Artificial scarcity is what it is all about these days.
Even in Canada, where I am.

This is all done to encourage transit or high density development. Not that those aren't worthy goals, but I'd prefer they actually tried doing things in a positive manner but you know... proper planning, building good transit... instead of making life so miserable, people are forced to change their ways.

They're also doing tolling here, and mandating density... all the while... not much new transit. Oh they keep saying it's coming.

Ah well... misery loves company!

Comment Re:Lack of regulation is not a bug... (Score 1) 123

It is kind of interesting from a political angle.

Progressivism as a movement came up on both the left and the right under the basic premise.

We are in a more complex age so we need a more powerful government to manage it.

It sounds great, but in reality, the very process of institution building creates complexities that make the complex environment too difficult to manage.

They push big unions and big tie in with industry. These relationships become entrenched with special interests that become difficult to change. They create powerful bureaucracies to deeply regulate industry and then again special interest become a problem to update the regulations.

It's just one of life's interesting things.

I'm not wise enough to know if the 'free market' will be better or we can manage society better via progressivism/socialism. but in this progressive age, the problems it has are just full of irony at every level.

I'm in Ontario Canada and we have very powerful big governments today. But they're so powerful, they can't even implement a wage freeze for their already well paid public sector workers. Let that sink in. You want the power to control society and regulate it, but you can't even get a wage freeze though. Something a pizza store owner can do.

Comment Re:Unions (Score 1) 349

Similarly, the whole... we can turn societies into unions and think equality will come about is equally ridiculous.

I'm in Canada. If you manage to get into a well connected union, your life might be good. Maybe teachers, police officers, public sector workers...

But other unions get trampled.

If you want some grand irony.
I'm in big union Ontario. Guess what job is actually prohibited by law from forming a union?

Perhaps the most vulnerable of all workers.. farm workers.

There are many child dreams. I have no idea what the answer is.
You might say individual bargaining is a pipe dream. From where I sit in Canada, unions present the same problem as some workers will belong to unions that are exposed to the free market, areas where people want cheap goods (farm)... and they will lack protections. Meanwhile those that belong to powerful unions get to rip off society at the tax payer's dime.

Comment Re:Don't judge us by this place (Score 1) 760

I'd venture to guess, part of the reason small-c democrats became republicans is all these Democrats calling people rubes, rednecks, idiots, bigot, racist...

That may be qualities of some, just as some Democrats might be elitist communists. But that is sadly what happens when ideologies become so polarizing.

People ultimately drift to where they feel they belong. If you make your side so unwelcoming to the other side, the division is going to occur.

Comment Re:What is DevOps anyway ? (Score 1) 166

I agree with most of what you said, except that organizationally from a business standpoint, unless there is a group for it, it is not being funded.

Yes, most developers have had to do DevOps at some point.
I've tuned databases, written scripts to automate environments and databases...

It really is a job in itself in any complex environment. It took me out of my comfort zone as I got into managing databases, replications, restores, virtual machines...

There is definitely a need for a develop with operations focus. Hence DevOps. Like I said, unless there is a group/title for it, business is clueless about it.

So it is a good thing.

Comment Re:Uhm, greed? (Score 2) 117

Actually EMR are shit because of the government... and yes, corporations. I'm in Canada. EMR are still shitty here.

I worked in the field and got out as soon as I could. It's a whole stinking mess.

The number one problem is that everyone (government, insurance, scientists...) main concern is easy categorization. It's just a freakin hard problem to solve. If you thought tech standards are hard to create, just imagine EMR.

Really, if we look at it from a use-case patient perspective.
What would work is simply this:
1. A container to hold doctors notes in image/pdf/something format
2. A medical history of things you'd need to know if you end up in the ER. Current medications/allergies...

That would have been an amazing starting point. Instead everyone wants to go the big bang approach. The government bureaucrats want to be able to talk about data and attach costs to everything no different than insurance companies.

Security is shit but overengineered. Oh they want to have all these access levels for different people and privacy commission... but what does it all boil down to in the end?

EMR industry should exist. It is slowly improving in Canada. I'm finally starting to see blood tests... being sent electronically and what not. They really should have gradually went electronic instead of thinking it was going to be a big bang solve everything approach.

Comment Re:I don't think... (Score 4, Interesting) 411

I think there is a certain nature of movements.

Originally the pioneers are normally more 'consistent and true'.
However, as a movement becomes more general, it is going to get people belonging to it just as another other group.

For example, I left my faith of Islam. It's a huge deal. I was highly religious in my youth. It's not to my benefit in that sense. Loss of community support. Ostracized... But my brain is such that, once it sees it, it can't go back. It's been a real mental struggle fought with philosophy, identity, social belonging, truth, rationality...

Now, eventually, the agnostic/athiest movement will become the norm among Muslims, the same as it has in the West with Christianity (Bible Belt aside). And you will have people attaching itself to that agnostic/athiest label just because it is their team. They 'new athiests' will likely not be any less prone to irrationality/total nonsense than anyone else.

Let me give a little software example.
The originators of Agile were really well versed in Agile. They saw all the problems of Waterfall. Came up with a new ideology and set of practices. They probably used it to create some really good software.

But as it became a movement, a lot more people just joined into it. They don't get the intellectual aspects of Agile. They just attach onto it as a movement. It gets all the bad aspects that come with any movement. Scrum becomes the most important part. Just as say not eating pork becomes the main part of Islam. It becomes a sense of identity and belonging no different than anything else.

So while I think there are varying stages to movements and at certain times, a particular movement might be 'more true or consistent', I have a general belief that overtime, every movement becomes prone to non-sense as it becomes generally accepted.

Comment Re:As technology enables... ??? (Score 1) 258

It's not just corporations.

I'm in Canada. The average person is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Yeah, corporation suck, but it's not like governments are much better. They only take care of their own (those in government).
I'm in Ontario. We're not in the best economic shape right now to say the least.

So if you're a government in tough times and you have some money to spend. You might think they spend it on those without. The poor. The displaced workers... but they don't. They never seem to have money for this.

But public sector unions, teachers, police officers... the money just flows.

Oh sure, corporations as the mantra goes might look after the one percent.
Government, only looks after the top 10-20% (Which public sector unions are in the Canada) or other special interest groups.

So I don't rant about corporations because as a private sector worker, I don't see government giving a rats ass about me.

They're just too happy to enlarge themselves, then smile to me the private sector workers talking about free trade and blah blah blah.

It doesn't matter what government it is. Liberal, conservative, NDP.

They just don't give a crap about private sector workers.

Comment Re:he should know better (Score 1) 319

On the contrary. Societal attitudes to free speech do matter.
Only in some kind of pure libertarian world would what you say be the end all. But we don't live in that world.

You can't just deny someone's business because you don't want it.
We live in a world where anti-discrimination is a big thing and is regulated. We live in a world where the channels of speech (Internet, tv, newspaper, movies...) are all considered outlets of speech and validly should not discriminate.

Slashdot Top Deals

Save a little money each month and at the end of the year you'll be surprised at how little you have. -- Ernest Haskins