Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Not until the laws are changed (Score 3, Informative) 57

Any employee taking this option is a fool. They would be voluntarily giving up the (sometimes meager) benefits of being defined as a full time employee under US law. Great for Amazon, terrible for the employee.

Under 32 hours and the law would say no benefits are required. Amazon is actually giving them a straight ratio of benefits instead of dropping them to part-time. It's the opposite of a dickish move, as far as the law is concerned (and Amazon is showing that the law need not dictate when businesses are competing for employees).

There are probably many parents who will jump at this kind of opportunity (plus others who want to start a business, do more volunteering, or just have more leisure time).

Comment Re:Speed or density? (Score 1) 117

Or cheaper. We've been hearing about SSD under 30 cents a GB "real soon now" for, what, five years now? At ten cents it replaces hard drives in all small capacities. The slope still puts that many years out.

Maybe 3DXpoint will depress the NAND prices for existing fab utilization next year. Here's hoping.

Comment Re:Red Box is Cheap (Score 1) 280

It's one of many, many examples where the cost of getting the product to customers is not really related to the price of the product. With online viewing of more current movies (Neflix doesn't usually have Redbox's movies available on instant-play), you're really paying extra for the convenience, and they price it that way. People who can afford high-speed internet can afford to pay more for watching movies online, so that's how they're charged. People who use Redbox are usually in a lower socioeconomic stratus (hence you usually see Redboxes at Walmart), so prices are lower there.

Comment Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 651

"I consider them as alpha predators, just as I wrote, an opinion shared by many. If you domake a distinction between super predators and alpha predators, it is usually based on whether you define it as what a human does without the technology, we have developed, or with it." Without technology we are actually pretty low on the food chain altogether. That would mean no rocks, pointy sticks, or traps.

Indeed. But tell me, exactly how many humans are out there today, competing against other animals with only their bare hands? Making force amplifying tools is such an inherent part of what we do, that your completly unarmed human doesn't exist - at leaast as far as I know.

There are numerous predators in every climate on Earth that could kill us in that case. For that matter most large prey creatures could. We aren't particularly strong, we have no claws, and no teeth.

Which is why to me the argument over alpha predation is silly. Silly to the point that when a human is caught by another predator like a bear or lion, it makes worlwide news. One person out of 7 some billion. Because being completely unarmed is an unnatural state for humans. We have so many tools at our disposal.

We don't even reproduce quickly enough to have the advantage of being disposable individually and numbers.

That's because we traded off the make a million of us per female, and hope some survive, for our big brains and ability to use them. You don't produce intelligent beings by using teh reproduction strategy of locusts or coral.

Without tool usage and organization aka technology the only advantage we really have is that in almost every other species being our size would indicate something far stronger than we are so predators would be inclined to go after what they think would be easier prey but I think that advantage would quickly disappear as predators discovered how weak and easy prey we are (without tools).

But the tools are as integral a part of humanity as every other physical aspect. Few adult humans would, if set in a wilderness situation, not start immediately to build devices in order to survive, to catch food and defend ourselves. I certainly would. I'd start with caveman stuff and work my way upwards.

For the rest. Has it ever occurred to you that I am not ignorant and that I simply disagree with the common assessment and find it to be ignorant and dated?

That's because your assessment is just wrong. You take the ultimate end of living things, and make the process that degernerate them and return their building blocks to nature the alpha predators. This not only turns the concept of predation inside out, but also classifies scavenging as predation. It's pointless, because now that a worm is considered an alpha predator, an actual predator must be reclassified as something else, because predators do not gain their nutrients that way.

That your definition of death may simply be a bit unimaginative in my assessment?

After conversing with you, I can understand that you have a hellava lot more imagination than 99.9 percent of the human race. Imagining things does not make them correct.

This concept is old, it views the world on a very macro scale and further arrogantly assumes that macro is more important than micro simply because we've largely dominated macro.

That's because there are both macro and micro scales. I have no idea why you would consider classification of two different scalse as arrogance. It's a way to classifiy things. It was developed in way of explaining the world and how it operates.

Who are we to assume that being beneath (too small for) somethings notice makes one less significant than being above (too large for) somethings notice?

We're the people who make up the classification systems. One is limited by their viewpoint. If a blowfly that lays eggs on a corpse to generate maggots that eat the corpses and return the elements they are compsed of to the earth wishes, they can come up with a classification method. Its all good.

Eating is nothing more than breaking down the components of a thing and if a thing is not broken down that thing is not truely dead as it may well be possible to revive it.

Holy shit!

at least it likely would be without the organisms you assess as being at the bottom of the food chain eating them first. To say they are not killing those creatures, including humans, is akin to saying you aren't killing if you take the life of someone who is unconcious or could survive with medical attention. These organisms are doing just that and it is they who deal the true death blow and they do it to eat which is predatory.

Ohhhhhhkay, I'll just note that once a living organism dies, it reaches a point where it really cannot be revived, and before any organisms get to it to start decomposing. As the organs fail, toxins are produced that render them incapable of supporting life. This is not some sort of process where the soul just leaves a nice corpse, just waiting to pop another soul into it.

Regardless, you acn always edit the Wikipedia pages and argue with people in the field. This has just gone a little weird for my taste. This is starting to resemble a Family Guy situation where the dog and Stewie are stoned and talk about strange shit..... And here we go! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Comment Re: Congrats Linus (Score 1) 100

Likely, for Linux to be good, it needs to be good. How Linus is, and how he operates, determine to a large extent what Linux is. In other worlds, you need to encourage Linus to keep being himself to preserve Linux - he can't be some other politically correct moron and still achieve what he did. Just like Steve Jobs, Einstein and many ither geniuses, just learn to accept that you cannot get it both, and for good reason. Btw, I really like how Linus leads, a lot. Should be worth 75 Hardvard case studies if not more.

This should be at +5 and quickly! The innovators of great note are not wired for political correctness.

Comment Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 651

Hence why I said the only way to end it is to change the layout so the overlords have only barely more wealth and power than the underdogs - in that layout, they can't abuse their power because there isn't enough of it.

I have to agree with the analysis.

One of the ironies of life, is that I hear people speak of longing to go back to the 1950's. The contradiction is that they would not find their pecuniary condition to their liking, as the top tier wasn't as widely separated from the average Joe.

And in principle, I don't care how much money a person makes, in practice, this isn't the way to do it, because our present system has geared itself to award psychopathy.

A perfect example is the Epi-pen debacle. After Mylan raised it's epipen prices by 400 percent, and awarded its Psychopath in Chief Heather Bresch a 671 percent comp package raise in 2015, there was a bit of a revolt. A simple inexpensive device to manufacture, but a lifesaving device for some people, that raise and reward for it starts to resemble a shakedown more than the free market. So Ms Bresch can join the Martin Shkreli hall of shame.

Apparently they have reached their acceptance limit - and strangely enough, are forcing the steer toward a healthcare system more in line with civilized countries.

Regardless, their stock is taking a beating. I have a call into my people to divest in them - if I have any stock in them. Looks like others are doing the same.

This sort of seems like a roundabout reply, but it shows what some folks will do when the system gives them too much money and power.

Slashdot Top Deals

Natural laws have no pity.

Working...