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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:five to seven years? (Score 1) 121

"Operating lifetime was estimated at five to seven years per satellite."

Doesn't that seem like a really sort span of time to have to send something into space? That means in like any given year you could be replacing 20% of your satellites? I guess perhaps with the idea that technology would be advancing so a 30 year old satellite might not really support current technology... Anyway still seems a bit crazy...

And, if he says it will cost $20B that also implies $4B / year in replacement costs... I'm sure he is betting on the tech improving (cheaper and longer lifespan) as they move to scale. On that, he's probably right.

Comment Re:testing...for.. (Score 1) 228

The question about jobs misses the more important point: all of this is nonsense. For instance, in the summary they say:

Job selection on the basis of certain desirable genetic characteristics is already common in the military and sports.

No, it's not. Job selection based on presented traits is common in the military and sports (e.g. small jockeys, tall basketball players, etc.), not based on genetic characteristics. Sure, there are genetics behind those traits, but no one is using them directly to make decisions.

Here is an idea... find a kid that tests genetically well for the traits you are seeking, let's say height and other physical traits for basketball as our example... Maybe in China. :) Now, don't use those to *hire* the person. Instead, have their parents sign an exclusivity contract or a real option - i.e. they WON'T go to work for any other team/entity or the contracting entity has an option to exercise. Some monetary payment is made for the option or an ongoing payment of some level. The contract and related future obligations becomes void if some tragedy occurs that ruins the future physical desirability (hit by a car and injured, for example).

Now, you haven't used genetic information in a hiring decision, merely as the basis for a real future option and/or exclusivity.

There, no laws broken. :)

Comment Re:Holy flamebait batman! (Score 1) 917

The bigger problem with this article though is that it really doesn't belong here. This is not a technology issue, or even a science issue. This is an economics issue, and a monetary issue. The jobs aren't going away because people here are being replaced by better technology, the jobs are going away here because people are being replaced by workers in other countries who can work for less.

Except that MIT and President Obama would both disagree with you... https://www.wired.com/2016/10/...

Comment Re:Paid for being President (Score 1) 435

“It's very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”

That was a cute joke, but Clintons have certainly beaten Trump to it. Unless you think, Bill and Hillary Clinton receiving hundreds of thousand of dollars per speech can be explained by anything other than his past presidency and, more importantly, the "inevitability" of her future one.

Having left the White house "dead broke" by their own admission, the couple are now worth tens of millions of dollars. What exactly have they sold in 15 years, that is that valuable?

That original quote is totally misunderstood... Trump said the first candidate to "run" and make money on it. I.e. - make money on RUNNING, not having anything to do with winning. Remember that once donors and the party started picking up the tabs he jacked up the rates on the offices and rooms in his own properties they were using? And now he plans to launch a TV network, etc? He doesn't need to win. He is saying he will be the first one to run, lose, cost the Republican party their shot at succeeding after Obama AND make off like a bandit anyway.

I'm amazed more people don't see through it all.

Comment Re: Great (Score 1) 689

Sorry... To quote you:

There are always many "gold digging" women around stars. They let him do it because they don't mind it, because that's how they dig their gold. They know it and he knows it.

You said that if he had said "boss" you would have agreed with me but because he said "star" you saw it differently, per the above quote?

I don't care what role he has, had, will have or what role any other guy has, had or will have. Presuming women will accept sexual contact without prior approval and also acting on that presumption is simply wrong. At best, the guy is "correct in his assumption", which still doesn't excuse the action or the "climate" such actions promote.

Comment Re: Great (Score 1) 689

I grabbed one from your list, because 1969 sounded odd... Here's the first thing I found: http://www.snopes.com/bill-cli...

So I grabbed the first one and found this NPR background: http://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/...

Confusing, at best. She has both claimed it did happen and specifically claimed it did not happen. If it did happen as the accusation suggests, that is terrible. However, with the amount of $$ being thrown around to falsify stuff about the Clintons for 30 years, we really need evidence.

You know, a tape of Clinton bragging about how he can assault women unsolicited and get away with it would be great. Oh wait, we only have that from Trump.

Regardless, it is also worth re-iterating that Bill isn't the opposing candidate here. The biggest claims against Hillary (again, mostly unproven) are that she was antagonistic toward the accusers of her husband and that she stood by him throughout all these incidents. Should she have divorced Bill? Probably, in my opinion. But for many people divorce isn't even an option, especially in religious circles.

Again, what we are talking about here and now is a candidate who wants to be President who has been on tape saying he could sexually assault women and get away with it AND then defending that on TV saying "its just locker room talk" and "you hear it all the time". That just compounds a misunderstanding or mistake about sexual assault with a complete endorsement that its a normal part of society and everyone should just be ok with it.

Comment Re: Great (Score 1) 689

Seriously? Read the transcript.

Trump: ... I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Unidentified voice: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.


That is not a woman "jumping on him", that is him grabbing women unsolicited and bragging about how he can get away with it. As for the "boss" thing, there have been numerous other complaints about his role as the "boss" on the Apprentice. So much so that they won't even release those for scrutiny.

http://www.latimes.com/politic...

Comment Re: Great (Score 1) 689

The "we" in the sarcastic commentary was referring to misogynistic and abusive men.

I think far more men are guilty of using power over women to get away with sexual assault than just billionaire tv stars, yes.

We have a wealth of reports from all sorts of workplaces, schools, military, college campuses, etc. And that is despite the fact that many cases are never reported at all (often due to fear, humiliation or possible retaliation).

Comment Re: Great (Score 1) 689

Trump said he did those things to women WITHOUT their permission, not that they let (your emphasis) him do it. All he said about their action was that he could get away with it (i.e. they wouldn't accuse him or call him out) because of his powerful position.

That is sexual abuse.

I think calling Bill/Hillary (a husband/wife pair) a "tag team" when it comes to extra-marital affairs shows a deep misunderstanding of marriage.

The affair with Lewinski was consensual, btw, unless you aren't believing Monica herself?

http://www.vanityfair.com/news...

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 689

How can you defined the monster?

Trumps comments were crude but not even necessarily about real things.

Meanwhile Hillary laughed about a very real rapist of a 12 year old she got off scott free. Meanwhile Hillary destroyed the lives of MANY women that Bill Clinton raped, and enabled his behavior to sleep with a lot of other under-aged women.

How can you defend someone who acts so horribly against REAL women and be so adamantly against someone using just words? As a male feminist I am aghast that you can even consider it.

I'm not sure how you feel about Snopes and their research ability these days (or when they disagree with you)... But: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-... As for Bill's transgressions, he isn't running is he? I believe you are saying she should have either 1) divorced him or 2) been sympathetic to the women he had affairs with?

Slashdot Top Deals

I have never seen anything fill up a vacuum so fast and still suck. -- Rob Pike, on X.

Working...