Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Union Shop (Score -1) 313

Unions are definitely a 'self solving problem'. Should a union be attempted in my company I would self solve this problem in a heart beat: everybody is fired, effective immediately, I am moving the business somewhere else.

What Musk has done so far in terms of setting up shops in CA to me seems to be a serious lack of judgement, he shouldn't be hiring in CA, he shouldn't even be hiring Americans. He should be hiring people that want to work for his company and that will not attempt to redefine what his business is.

Comment Re:All the above (Score 3, Insightful) 299

It seems like there are two(for broad simplification purposes, there are definitely more or at least cases that mix elements of both) 'styles' of use; one of which is fairly hard to imagine replacing keyboards in; the other much more amenable(already partially done in some cases).

There are the tasks that involve relatively precise symbol manipulation. Programming is probably the most extreme case(human readers might be disgusted by your spelling, grammer, and atrocious taste in formatting; but they are likely to understand what you meant than the compiler or interpreter is); spreadsheet data munging, word processing, and the like are the other big ones. You can substitute something for a keyboard in these cases; but it is generally pretty clunky and you really need a reason to bother. Speech-to-text, say, works; and can be a valuable assistive technology for those who can't type for one reason or another; but it isn't actually all that impressive compared to typing if you have the option of either(both because it is somewhat error prone; because some operations have extremely terse expressions on the keyboard "move right one cell" is expressed with one touch of an arrow key, which is far faster than saying it, and certainly at least as fast as even a specially defined codeword of some sort; and because people, without substantial practice, aren't terribly good at speaking the way they want to write; pauses, 'umm', etc.)

Then there are tasks that can be done by manipulating symbols; but are really about snapping together some primitives the system is already familiar with in one of a reasonably limited number of ways according to what is basically a template provided by the system. Creating a calendar event or starting a phone call are probably reasonably good examples: For a calendar event; you are snapping together one or more items from your contacts(if it's a 'reminder', it just contains you; if it's a meeting or something, it will have additional participants), a date/time, and a location(sometimes just a human-readable description intended for the participants, in company settings often a conference room or the like that is also a specialized type of contact that is known to the system so that room availability tracking works). Placing a phone call is an even simpler case: you are specifying a contact and a known operation to perform against that contact(and possibly an additional detail if the contact has a work, home, and mobile number or the like, in which case the command has to be 'call X at work').

This set of tasks is inherently somewhat limited, because (barring markedly more expert expert systems than we yet enjoy) you can really only perform them if the system already has a template defined; but many of the common cases are really, really common; so it isn't prohibitive to enumerate and support those cases; which reduces the ambiguity involved and makes it easier for a relatively imperfect input mechanism to assemble the correct answer (or at least recognize that it needs to ask you to repeat yourself) because the context automatically excludes the vast majority of possible inputs.

If your plan involves a grim future where computers are basically just for scheduling meetings and asking Alexa to buy things; it becomes much easier to imagine replacing the keyboard; but that is much less about improvements in speech to text or other new input mechanisms than it is about defining down the list of possible activities until you no longer need precision, general purpose input, or other things your alternative input mechanism is bad at.

Comment Re:All the above (Score 1) 299

There might be more enthusiasm for getting rid of keyboards in places that don't use languages built around small alphabets, since they have always relied on a (sometimes fairly dodgy) software layer munging their input into characters; but for anyone using latin, cyrillic, or similarly-sized alphabets, the ability to provide the entire alphabet plus numbers and a bunch of common symbols with just two hands and one modifier key(if you want to do it with one hand, the modifiers get a little more complex, though it is an option) on a piece of hardware that starts at ~$5 if you don't care about quality is pretty hard to beat.

Comment Re: The real problem is (Score 1) 632

Polygamy in practice is actually "polygyny", and it's bad because men have all the power and women are chattel, so of course it leads to a huge imbalance with men hording the women. But polyamory isn't bad, because it's equal: women have as much ability to have multiple partners as men, so you don't get an imbalance.

Comment Re: The real problem is (Score 1) 632

The best guidance, with rare exceptions, comes from the parents.

That's bullshit. A huge number of parents in the US are in poverty, 1 in 6 last I heard, precisely because of the bad choices they made which you list (not getting an education, getting pregnant very early, etc.), These parents are not going to provide "the best guidance" for their kids, nor are many other parents who are basically idiots who get their "news" from Alex Jones and the like.

Families relying on daycare and babysitters is likely quite dangerous to society.

Right, but there's no way around it unless you want to relegate women to second-class citizen status like they had before, unless you dump the idea of monogamy. Two people, each with a job, just don't have time to watch over young kids all day: you can't be in two places at once.

Did you ever think why monogamy was not the norm in pre-industrial societies? Perhaps it was this lack of family structure that kept them from advancing.

They weren't "held back" from advancing. They had a better quality of life. They only adopted agriculture because they were forced to, by a lack of resources. Archeological evidence proves this: pre-agriculture humans were as tall as people are now, but when they adopted agriculture, they lost a full foot in height. It's taken this long to get it back, thanks to better medicine, nutrition standards and knowledge, and food availability. They didn't have monogamy because they didn't need it. They adopted it mainly because of the concept of land ownership and inheritance: men wanted to pass their property to their own progeny, not some other guy's. In a society where people live communally, there's no such concern and if your woman gets pregnant with another guy, it's not a big deal because the kids are raised by the village anyway. That's how it was in Hawaii just a few hundred years ago, before Europeans made contact with them. It probably helped a lot that they didn't have any STDs.

Comment We know why (Score -1) 212

China is going to be first in everything, every new technology, strategy, development, that is because China moved on from a crazy insane inhuman collectivist/socialist/communist ideology to a more or less a free market capitalist system, so over the last 50 years China was on the correct trajectory towards a freerer individual and thus more opportunity, fair human relations that are much less centtalized with less government control where it matters (business and individual property). Because of this China grew its manufacturing capabilities, its capital and as a consequence its capacity for research and development all while growing a larger and larger class of well off people who are now interested in a cleaner environment.

Comment Re: The real problem is (Score 3, Insightful) 632

Having multiple sexual partners messes with people's minds. We have a need to pair up.

Citation needed. Lots of pre-industrial societies did not have monogamous relationships as the norm. Lots of people today do just fine without restricting themselves to a single partner. The only real reason to push monogamy and marriage is as an attempt to create a stable environment for children to grow up in, and even that doesn't work well because raising kids is a lot of work; it worked out better for parents when they had help from extended family, something you don't see so much now which is why we have "day care" and babysitters. People who aren't having kids, or have gotten past that age (e.g. their kids have grown up and moved out) really have no good reason to stay in monogamous relationships. It's just something society pushes on us because of old-fashioned and obsolete morality and religion.

Comment (Score 2, Insightful) 303

Thank you, this is exactly correct. I've always liked that I can read Wikipedia articles on scientific things like this and not get the dumbed-down version. I might not understand it all, and I might quit partway through, but that's OK because the first paragraph usually tells me the high points at a layman's level.

Wikipedia just needs to make sure the first part of the article (and also maybe first paragraphs in major sections) is readable by laymen, and then people who want more detail can continue reading.

Comment Re:Chromebook is Intel, not ARM. (Score 1) 182

The fact that the inmates don't run the asylum when it comes to updates on the ChromeOS side is kind of refreshing. Compared to Android, support periods are relatively long and basically identical across vendors(so is the OS itself, given the lack of vendor shitware). Plus, despite being much more tightly standardized and controlled, the option to kick a device into dev mode is also standardized; no 'oh, the Verizon model has a locked bootloader' stuff.

I can see the argument that little more than browser isn't really enough to work with, hence the adoption of Android applications; but the competence and sanity of the OS part of things is a vast difference from the clusterfuck that is Android.

And, if Intel offends you, you can get one of the ARM-based Chromebooks(Samsung did some Exynos-based ones, more recently Rockchip seems to be the SoC of choice). They are largely indistinguishable in operation.

Comment Re:How can they tell if a rock is a "tool"? (Score 1) 74

I ain't no anthropologist, but:
1. If you find stones away from where they would have been quarried or carried by water.
2. If you find animal/human remains on the stones.
3. If you find stone marks on animal/human remains.
4. If you find the quarry.
5. You find them in trash piles.

Slashdot Top Deals

In computing, the mean time to failure keeps getting shorter.