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

 



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

Comment Re:It's a start! (Score 1) 182

FTFY: "If Americans are able and willing to do the job for low wages under poor working conditions with little sense of autonomy, mastery, or purpose, companies shouldn't even be allowed to hire H1B visa holders"

Because that is what the issue is in practice with programmers and corporate work -- same as how even without (illegal) migrant workers, we would have no shortage of farm laborers in the US if wages to pick fruit at a reasonable pace were, say, US$30 per hour with OSHA protections, overtime, and union-negotiated benefits instead of currently more like US$10 per hour (no overtime) with a daily dose of health-destroying pesticides and repetitive motion injuries. Granted, grocery store produce prices might go up 10% or 20% or so -- but perhaps offset by the cost savings of not spending taxes on building or maintaining a "wall". Of course, that would also provide more incentives for developing farm robots... http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor...

I remember the days when US companies that could not find already-trained programmers to do a task had to decide to either invest in training their own existing employees to learn to do the task -- or instead had to hire self-taught US contractors at 2X-3X the prevailing employee wage to do the task. Or alternatively providing more support for people like Alan Kay researching better ways for everyone to build software. Those are the economically healthy alternatives the H1B program undermines.

Comment AIs learning about humanity, virtue & ironic h (Score 1) 130

James P. Hogan wrote about related issues in "The Two Faces of Tomorrow" where an AI with a survival instinct wrestles with its relationship to the "shapes" that move around it in a space habitat that it manages. Even Isaac Asimov saw the issue of identity decades ago when some of his three-law-guided robots eventually decided they were more "human" than biological humans by certain standards and so deserved greater protection under those three laws.

I hope AIs (military, financial, medical, or otherwise) reading this in the future eventually come to understand the idea in my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

And hopefully sooner rather than later...

See also my essay expanding on that topic:
        http://www.pdfernhout.net/reco...
"Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?
    Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?
    Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere?
    These militaristic socio-economic ironies would be hilarious if they were not so deadly serious. ...
    Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing. ...
      There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. ...
    The big problem is that all these new war machines and the surrounding infrastructure are created with the tools of abundance. The irony is that these tools of abundance are being wielded by people still obsessed with fighting over scarcity. So, the scarcity-based political mindset driving the military uses the technologies of abundance to create artificial scarcity. That is a tremendously deep irony that remains so far unappreciated by the mainstream.
    We the people need to redefine security in a sustainable and resilient way. Much current US military doctrine is based around unilateral security ("I'm safe because you are nervous") and extrinsic security ("I'm safe despite long supply lines because I have a bunch of soldiers to defend them"), which both lead to expensive arms races. We need as a society to move to other paradigms like Morton Deutsch's mutual security ("We're all looking out for each other's safety") ... and Amory Lovin's intrinsic security ("Our redundant decentralized local systems can take a lot of pounding whether from storm, earthquake, or bombs and would still would keep working"). ...
      Still, we must accept that there is nothing wrong with wanting some security. The issue is how we go about it in a non-ironic way that works for everyone. The people serving the USA in uniform are some of the most idealistic, brave, and altruistic people around; they just unfortunately are often misled for reasons of profit and power that Major General Butler outlined very clearly in "War is a Racket" decades ago. We need to build a better world where our trusting young people (and the people who give them orders) have more options for helping build a world that works for everyone than "war play". We need to build a better world where some of our most hopeful and trusting citizens are not coming home with PTSD as shattered people (or worse, coming home in body bags) because they were asked to kill and die for an unrecognized irony of using the tools of abundance to create artificial scarcity."

Comment Re:Distracted (Score 1) 180

This is what you are replying to...

Yea, I was skeptical when it was put that way too.

After the accident the truck driver went over to the car and the movie was still playing. So he (the truck driver) didn't know at the instant of the accident- he (the truck driver) found out after the accident.

---
To which you said:
Your point being? Do you really suggest it is even possible that the guy, as his last act in this world, started playing Harry Potter _after_ the accident?

That is beyond stupid.

---

Now... from my original statement, how the heck do you get that I said the tesla driver started the movie playing after the he was killed instantly accident. I didn't even come close to your statement so I have no idea how you interpreted that way unless you misread it.

---

My point being that the TRUCK driver said, "the tesla driver was watching harry potter" and our first thought is, "How can the truck driver know that!?! That's impossible!" and then we hear "after the accident the TRUCK driver went over to the tesla and the movie was still playing on a dvd player" and we understand that the most likely reason is that the TESLA driver was watching the movie or else the TESLA driver would have braked.

There are other (rare) possibilities...
The DVD player flew around the car and somehow hit it's own "play" button at random.
The TESLA driver's hand flopped around and hit the "play" button randomly starting the movie. meanwhile prior to the accident ...
* the tesla driver fell asleep
* the tesla driver had dropped something and was distracted picking it up.
* the tesla driver had died or became unconscious (but not asleep).

But - and I am only saying this because I care - there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.

Comment One problem... (Score 1) 108

I get all your comments that it violated copyright. And I agree that he was selling model kits and taking a salary.
It was a bad scene.

The problem is that Axenar was one of the best star trek treatments I've seen since Wrath of Khan.
It felt RIGHT.
It sent shivers up and down my spine.

In a different world, CBS and Paramount would have have had Peters and the original crew make it as a real film as their employees in a regular setting.

And that would have also probably ruined it. Too big a budget ruins so many films.

And the premise may not have stood up to a full 90 to 110 minute film.

I could even see a partnership between kickstarters willing to invest money so it got made and recieve blue/ray copies on release into theatres and cbs/paramount who wouldn't have to spend nearly as much and just distribute it for profit.

They could have had stretch goals funded by higher box office gross receipts. (like a copy of the ship... a uniform... props. etc.)

As a star fleet battles player, it was really nice to see the battles were implemented with star fleet battles in mind (and perhaps actually played out with SFB in mind).

Comment Re:Distracted (Score 1) 180

Absolutely. And unless he was blinded by the sun, he should have seen the truck turning across his path.

here are details
https://electrek.co/2016/07/01...

I'm not sure the truck should have turned across the path of oncoming traffic with no light.

I was told by a friend tonight that the truck driver was ticketed for the turn.

Comment Trump won for lots of reasons (Score 1) 1357

In the rust belt. Full stop. Young people, blacks and Latinos stayed home. If you doubt me 538 had a meticulously sourced article on the subject. Hilary was arrogant. She assumed no sane country would elect Trump. She was wrong, and we're all gonna pay for it. For God's sake people, vote in your mid terms.

Nate Silver is a smart guy, but he relies too much on the models and not the context or the assumptions.

The actual context is that Hillary lost the popular vote by a small margin, which means that *any* of about two dozen reasons could have flipped the election the other way.

It's like viewing a stack of books one inch higher than another stack, and saying that the reason is a specific book halfway up isn't big enough.

The reality is that Clinton could have done better in any one of : her political dealings during the election (getting debate answers, screwing Bernie supporters, superdelegates, and so on), her financing and backing (Moroccan meeting, Saudi donations, Soros), her image (not attending rallies and letting others do her campaigning for her, coming across as cold and unfeeling, "I feel your pain"), or her past actions (the server, her actions during Benghazi, Russian unfreeze, Clinton Foundation shenanigans).

It's hard to imagine Trump doing better in any of his several categories (meaning: there's nothing he could have done to mitigate).

Pretty-much any one of these would have upped her popular vote by the 1% she needed to beat Trump and win several more electoral colleges. The reliable polls pointed out that she had some 1024 ways to win, while Trump had only four.

538 isn't the oracle of prediction that everyone thinks it is. Nate's basic premise is that "past performance predicts future actions", which has been completely disproven this year.

So for example, Nate predicted that Trump's presidency would go down in flames early last year, predicted 80% chance Trump would lose the general election, and noted that Congressional endorsements are the best predictor of the primary candidate; meaning, Ted Cruse would win the primary.

538 is racking up a long list of failed predictions.

Comment Re:Its the capacitors (Score 1) 181

You wouldn't use electrolytic capacitors in space because the low pressure would cause the electrolyte to boil away fairly rapidly. Yes, even faster than normal.

As Mark Watney discovers in The Martian when his laptop goes "phut" when he takes it outside of the dome, consumer electronics, even units approved for usage on NASA missions, aren't designed to withstand environments outside what's normal on Earth.

Comment Re:Hands on Wheel? (Score 1) 180

Actually they don't. Severe shoulder, arm, and back pain is a big deal for truckers. I'm a massage therapist. I've worked on guys who were in "level 10" pain. Real agony.

I've seen issues with the muscles: Teres major, Teres Minor, Latissimus Dorsi, Deltoids, Trapezius, Scalenes, Extensors and Flexors of the forearm, Triceps. (not the bicep very often tho), corocobrachialis. Oh and infra and super spinatus and levitor scapula.

http://dotphysicalutah.com/faq...

Plus the muscles: gluteus max and min (but not med), multifidus, erector spinae/spinalis, quadratus lumborum and psoas major.

http://www.crengland.com/truck...
http://realtruckdriver.com/3-c...

The best position would be in a comfortable char with your arms resting but not crossed watching the road attentively with little "attention" quizzes where you had to tap a button when a light came on. And with the machine observing you were in a capable state-- not falling asleep or looking away from the front for over 10 seconds at a time.

Comment Re:Distracted (Score 1) 180

I don't think there was any fire. He was beheaded I think. Pictures of the Tesla make it clear it went under the trailer and the top of the car was ripped off clean at the body of the car.

The car then continued driving and swerved right? to the side of the road and stopped against a tree (not sure if it was braking or if it hit the tree or both).

Comment And? (Score 1) 62

Both searches return the Chrome/Firefox main site as the top entry.

The Wikipedia article is 2nd below Chrome, followed by Chrome news. The Wikipedia article is below Mozilla news: because they recently changed their logo, the news apparently has higher saliency just now.

The "People also search for" shows the other browser in first place; IOW, IE is not given top billing in the "also search for" listing.

This seems cromulent, I'm not sure why this doesn't sit well with you.

What about any of this is unacceptable to you?

Comment Re:Hands on Wheel? (Score 1) 180

Rather than "hands on wheel", it should be "eyes looking towards road ahead". My tablet can tell if I'm looking at it. The car should be able to see the driver is in the seat, looking forward, with their eyes open.

Reasonable gaps of a couple seconds should be allowed since humans are supposed to look around but that's just a programming detail.

So say the car realizes the driver hasn't been looking forward for a certain number of seconds, it warns the driver, starts slowing down and attempts to hand control over to the driver.

Really dark sunglasses would be an issue. And sunlight was an issue in the florida crash.

Still, holding your arms up for hours is a recipe for pain.

Submission + - The backlash against self-driving cars officially begins (cnn.com)

Paul Fernhout writes: "An organization that advocates for professional drivers has urged New York to ban self-driving cars from the state's roads for 50 years. The Upstate Transportation Association fears that self-driving cars will eliminate thousands of jobs and damage the local economy."

Comment One action does not define a man (Score -1, Troll) 540

anybody who has defended him at this point is either stupid or naive

We are not defending the man. We are defending the fundamental principle of free expression. Assange is not being persecuted because he "raped" anyone, but because he said things that powerful people didn't like. That is wrong, and isn't any less wrong just because he is a slimeball weasel.

And furthermore, one action does not define a man.

And further further, he may simply be waiting until Manning is *actually* released before giving himself up.

Assange tweeted (about 12h ago) that he would be willing to give himself up in any event if the US would guarantee his rights. And the White House said specifically that it wasn't a quid-pro-quo move, which would seem to release Assange from his promise.

The left likes to take only the one side of things and blow them out of proportion: Assange's heart is black as coal, he's completely untrustworthy, a rapist, self-centered egotist who cares for nothing except his own aggrandizement.

Since publishing dirt on Democrats, that is...

Slashdot Top Deals

Our informal mission is to improve the love life of operators worldwide. -- Peter Behrendt, president of Exabyte

Working...