Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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

Comment Re:Too Happy (Score 3, Interesting) 282

Well... ok. Let's look at the black-lining of this happy puffy cloud.

1. Self-Driving Cars: Truckers and cabbies are all going to lose their job. It'll be a big wave of unemployment for a sector of the populace that was already wasn't doing well. A lot of disenfranchised people with not much to lose is a worry.

2. Clean Energy: (this ones harder... ok, got it). It's a step towards these clean-energy eco-nuts outlawing coal. You'll have to.... (No that doesn't make any sense... AH) The more people that switch to distributed power generation, the less support the power grid will have. It benefits from economy of scale, but chip away at that and have half the populous stop paying, and you have problems for a public utility. The first to go with be mandates for rural electrification. Farmers will be cut off. Without the power lines being subsidized, communication lines won't be able to piggyback. (It's a stretch, but it's something)

3. Virtual and Augmented Reality: You know how kids these days barely look up from their phones? Get ready to have blind-deaf (sadly not mute) meatbags ignoring you with twice the power. Kids wandering into streets chasing their pokemon. If they can overlay their own better reality, they'll disconnect from your reality. Oh, and this.

4. Drones and Flying Cars: With a camera on there, now it's feasible and cost effective to operate a panopticon where the FBI or anyone else with $200 are always watching.
  Flying cars are one of those classic tropes for letdowns. In reality, it's just more expensive to operate a plane. I know a pilot with a shitty commute and there's an airstrip RIGHT next to work, but he still drives simply because he can't justify the cost of a plane. Automate the pilot license requirement, and rich people probably will fly everywhere. Let's hope the budget for road maintenance is still approved.

5. Artificial Intelligence: Remember those truckers? Get ready for whole swaths of office workers to go away. It's not like everyone from HR will get laid off. But none of them will touch paychecks and there will just be two to handle sensitivity training. Generalist doctors, the sort that diagnose you when something is wrong, could probably be replaced by Watson right now. The only barrier is who do you sue when it screws up.

6. Pocket Supercomputers for Everyone: Uhh... something something, company leash you can't run away from, tracking you everywhere, the crushing disappointment that we gave everyone super-computers with the grand sum of human knowledge at their finger tips and the ability to instantly communicate with anyone anywhere (and have the language translated for you) and they only use it to look at pictures of cats.

7. Cryptocurrencies and Blockchains: Yay, a secret money to buy cocaine online with! And as for business-minded uses of blockchain technology... I'm still not sure how that's any different than running a co-opt.

8. High-Quality Online Education: It's been there for a couple decades and people are still pretty stupid and uneducated.

9. Better Food through Science: (This one is also hard) ...I got nothing. Maybe something about soil degradation?

10. Computerized Medicine: Robo surgeons are going to get hacked and then they're going to hack you.

11. A New Space Age: (I could probably find something negative about this, but I really like space. SPAAAAAAAACE!)

Ok, I ran out of steam at the end. Too much pessimism is as bad as too much optimism.

Comment Re:It's not that bad (Score 1) 217

Well that's a fairly reasonable post...

and this fits in well with my support of Trump.

whooooaaaaaaaaa. Well this ought to be interesting.

What I've found is that all of the posts on either side are simple blind insults. Clinton is dirty and corrupt, Trump is a racist and bigot, there's not much else to see here. I've even called out the readership, asking for any *rational* reason to vote for Clinton over Trump (my particular choice - it would work as well the other way). No one has ever put forth a reasonable and rational reason for one candidate over the other(**).

Well Clinton IS corrupt and Trump IS a racist. But alright, here you go buddy.

Reasons to vote for Clinton over Trump.

1) Clinton more or less follows the democrat party platform. Anyone who is historically a democrat or otherwise shares the political views of democrats will more or less agree with her stance on most issues.

2) Trump does not follow the republican party platform. Anyone who is historically a republican or has like-minded views aren't going to necessarily like his plan. Arguably, he's not even really a Republican given his history of jumping parties. And considering how hard he pushed for Clinton in 2008, it's made me seriously consider if it's just a false flag operation. Normally I'd dismiss that sort of hogwash as a conspiracy nutcase. (After consideration, naw, still don't buy it)

3) The sheer amount of crazy that has come out of Trump. Now, this might sound like a baseless insult, and while it IS an insult it's not baseless. He is* an anti-vaxer, a birther, doesn't believe in global warming (and worse, it's all a ruse by the Chinese to kill US manufacturing [DESPITE, US manufacturing growing. The rabbit hole just keeps going and going]), encouraged violence against protesters at his rallies, encouraged espionage from Russia, pretended to be one "Chris Miller" when talking about his divorce in a phone interview, admitted in court to using the name "Chris Miller", and then denied using the name "Chris Miller", and he's advocated for committing war-crimes by suggesting we target the families of terrorists. This list goes on and on.

4) The in-feasibility of his plan to "Build a wall". It's pointless without a patrol, and then why not just have a patrol? (The answer: Money)

5) The pope came out against "Those who build walls". And then Trump bashed the pope.

6) While Clinton's shortcoming are far less than ideal, the ramifications for corruption are a few ambassadors and appointments who don't really deserve it. The culture of corruption is the worse thing, and yeah, that would probably take a hit.

7) And she's a slimy politician who does whatever will get her into power. This is bad, but it also means she knows how to play the political game. As opposed to Carter who was a great guy, but couldn't get much done. I don't think either Clinton or Trump actually want to destroy America. They just have different views about what needs to be done.

8) While it would send a nice message to "the establishment" as some sort of 4 year protest vote, the resulting damage would send so much support towards the establishment that they would never face competition again. It's like calling someone's bluff, you have to have a decent hand yourself.

9) Clinton can smile and play nice with foreign dignitaries. Trump is a little more... Brash.

10) Speaking of foreign affairs, Trump wants to defund/exit NATO and talked about using Nukes again. Coming from the biggest dog in the fight, this is the sort of thing that gets our allies nervous and ruins alliances. While Congress and the courts could probably keep Trump in check for domestic affairs, as long as he doesn't wield the FBI's surveillance like a club, there's little keeping him from screwing up foreign affairs.

11) If you're Mexican or Muslim you're probably going to face less static in the streets if Clinton is elected.

* But of course all that assumes that he actually means what he says (and doubles-down on when people ask if he's really sure about it). He's publicly stated that he uses sarcasm and doesn't mean what he says, sometimes, not that he's gotten specific about it. So how does anyone actually know what his platform is when anything he says could be facetious?

Comment Pft (Score 2) 18

Holy shit. This is annoying as hell.
Their webpage is intentionally vague. You can't find out SHIT about it unless you sign up.

Let me save you some time guys.

What the fuck is IFTTT:

It's a tool to program common tasks within a set group of services when a trigger occurs.
Tasks like: scan everything in /r/books for "sci-fi" and send a summary to an email. Do it daily. Sum up the number of reads your IMDB review got and text it to you at 10pm so you can cry yourself to sleep.

Hey, it's bringing automation scripts to the masses. Most people won't learn Bash scripting, this is sort of like lowering the bar. Unfortunately, it doesn't give them any control and assumes they're on a phone. You hand it access to all the accounts, so it's DAMN scary from a security perspective.

Last I looked, it was very anti-thetical to open source, but if they're allowing third-party scripts, that's a small step in the right direction... And absolutely HORRIFYING from a security perspective.

It's only legit "value-add" over a set of bash scripts people can run, is that it handles the security aspect and handles ALL YOUR PASSWORDS. Which is also the part that smells the most.

I want to see a competitor though: Parse This Bullshit, Then That Bash. PFTBTTB. It carries it's own theme-song.

Comment Re:humanity's largest blunder (Score 1) 323

hmmm. I think you might be a bit off.

Realize that electronic waste has more gold in it than gold ore. We're more knowledgeable about refining gold out of rock than breaking down old motherboards into copper and gold, but that's just some R&D away. It's not an insurmountable problem by far.

As for scattering our resources, landfills are more like concentrated masses of previously unusable resources. (With a lot of crap that still isn't usable in there). Imagine a landfill that existed prior to aluminium recycling. It'd be a gold-mine (ba-dum-tsh)!

But yeah, we should recycle aluminium whenever we can. It recycles great.

Comment Re:By whose budget? (Score 1) 323

Who decides what resources we're allowed to use?

Right now we mostly use a system of allowances based on your contributions to society as determined by society. They can only give you as much as they have. The placeholder for "resources" is called "money". The system is called "capitalism". It's not pure capitalism as the top actors get to decide the money->resources exchange, as well as the typical taxation process to keep the infrastructure up and running. Oh, and keeping the jackboots off our necks. (Quite a bit goes towards that last bit actually.) Furthermore, there are some resources that are restricted; you can't build a condo in Yellowstone and you can't play with nukes. And the EPA is attempting to account for externalizes that you inflict upon others without paying for it by the way of pollution laws and carbon tax.

It's certainly not perfect, but it's better than other attempts. At least it's not a controlled economy with price fixing.

Focus on things that can be objectively measured like global average temperature, emissions and aerosols in the atmosphere, and things like that.

Sounds great.

Let's add how many resources have been consumed. I'm pretty sure they know how many barrels of oil have been pumped and burned. Or how much lumber has been made.

And then let's add them all together for an overall metric of "How we doing?"

Comment Re:Keep on insulting, it's all you got (Score 1) 424

Lemme see:

"they don't sen their best. They are [thieves, crooks, scum] and rapists.... And some, I assume, are good people"

And

"Climate change is a conspiracy by the Chinese to move manufacturing overseas".

How did I do?

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Eh... Fairly close. I skipped over the filler. And I knew I didn't get it exactly right in the middle. Oh man, that pause between rapists and good people though.

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

ok, I got the structure of this one all wrong. He didn't it a conspiracy by name. Damnit, and I missed the detail that he called out global warming instead of climate change. Which is even sadder as global warming is easier to prove. But the gist is mostly the same.

Are you going to try and claim these things didn't come from him? That it's some sort of media ruse? Listen, Cilnton isn't a great choice. She's a pretty stereotypical slimy politician. Privacy will take it in the pants. And Snowden might get disappeared. But Trump is sheer crazy, and I'm not sure congress and the courts could keep him from doing too much harm for 4 years. And I don't think trying to push for Bernie is viable at this stage.

Comment Re: The irony is... (Score 1) 280

Military craft are supposed to be EM shielded against this little guy, but I'm not really sure how much real-world testing this has really been put through. It's not the sort of thing you find in the third-world nations we kick around. And of course we don't stir up shit with real developed nations, we all have nukes and the rest of the military is really just for show.

But an EM pulse wouldn't "jam" the computers. It would fry them. You could say "permanently jammed", I guess.

Comment Re:If I was President... (Or King!) (Score 1) 264

Soooo... You have 8 times as much income as that other guy.... And after taxes you'd have 5-7 times as much as that other guy. And you've got your panties in a twist over this?

If that guy can get by on one widget, and you've got SEVEN times as much.... how much do you care if you don't have 8?

Surely if you look at that it is obvious that a progressive tax system acts as a disincentive for me to work longer.

That's the MAGIC of capitalism. If you want more, you have to work more.

You are STILL incentiveized to work longer and make more money. There are diminishing returns, but there ARE returns. And the bulk of people are greedy little monsters that'll chase after that. Because no matter how much they have, they'll see someone with more than themselves and they'll want it.

You can either say people are greedy and they'll work for more regardless of the diminishing returns, or that people aren't that greedy and shouldn't care about the taxes since they've already got plenty to cover their needs.

Comment Re:If I was President... (Or King!) (Score 1) 264

Wow. I can't believe someone would try to argue about tax rates when they don't know the difference between marginal tax rates and effective tax rates.

The tax bracket you're in is the marginal rate. That's how much you pay in taxes for additional money you make from that point on. You're ALSO in the all the lower tax brackets and paying those rates for those sums of income.

The top bracket had marginal tax rate of the 1940's and 50's was 90-some percent. And they paid it, for the war effort. Soooo, yeah, people WILL pay it, if need be.

Comment Re:If I was President... (Or King!) (Score 1) 264

Why not? Do you honestly think I'd do a WORSE job than either Trump or Clinton?

Worse than Hilary, if this is your plan.

You're assuming the Federal Government needs to stay its current size. I'd fix that

Yeah, so far you'd expand it a lot: You'd have it take over healthcare, run an active military campaign to "secure the border", and called $30 Billion "chump change". Disarming nuclear capabilities kind of makes it smaller. Otherwise you haven't actually stated how you'd make it any smaller. I mean, if you plan on axing the bulk of the military, that's a pretty major change you probably want to tell people about.

And dear god, your sense of economics is laughable. You're really comparing the wall construction to the great wall of china? That took centuries to build.

48 million Americans live in "food insecure household"

Wow. That's terrible. If only we had a number of programs to feed them.... Like 61% of those 48 million partake of. The rest have some sort of trouble taking the hand out.

speaking of which

better mental health systems will go a ways towards fixing some of that...

Truth.

Meh, people aren't going to stop caring about their fellow human beings over it, what it will do is remove a ton of fraud and cheating... Non-Profits live in society, they need to help pay for it...

You fucking monster. Sure, they might still care. But the organizations will have a hell of a lot less cash to help.

Stop giving bottled water to people crossing the border and shoot them instead...

You fucking monster. You want to abolish the death penalty, but shoot people on US soil without any trial or identification. Sweet Jesus, have you thought this one through at all? You're telling me I can grab a motherfucker, drive down to Arizona, push him into this no-man's-zone, and have my buddy in the national guard gun him down without any other due-process? You're gonna need TWO walls on either side of that clusterfuck.

you would not be walking free if I was King... If you believe in jihad, then your beliefs are not compatible with civilization...

Let's say the guy giving the talk was a believer in Jihad, and was giving talks to the mosques around the US about how it's supposed to be non-violent. Typically you only "put down the dog" when people perform an illegal activity. Or did you want to outlaw a religion or something?

Are you proposing some sort of thought-crime?

If you're raped, then getting an abortion during the first three months shouldn't be hard...

Sure. Probably not. But it happened. Now what? Is it illegal?

If an unborn child is 6 months old and is at risk of killing the mother, I'm ok with that...

You fucking monster. How about if the child is given a 10% chance of living? Yeah, this shit gets tricky doesn't it?

Have you been lawfully released? Did you serve your time?

I have the same problem with sex offender registration, that shit is stupid... If you can't trust the person released, why are they OUT OF PRISON?

Because they were lawfully released after having served their time. That doesn't mean JACK SHIT for trusting them with a gun. Right now, we DON'T trust them with a gun. You're proposing that we just don't release people because "we don't trust them".

I don't want ANYONE to have nuclear weapons, including governments!

Yeah, they're scary. But so far they've kept the prats from going at it. And frankly, you can't disarm them. It would require you to not only be king of the world, but an omniscient GOD. It'd be too easy for one player to just keep a few secretly and POOF, next conflict they just declare their military superiority. And countries can just go MAKE one if they have access to the ore. A lot of nuclear power plants use fuel that can be refined into weapons. I too would like to see an arms reduction. But we'll never get rid of them.

Hey, it's great you want to give more power to the people in some regards and to get the rich to actually start paying taxes and abolish the death penalty. But you dip into murderous frenzy and disregard the rule of law a little too easy for my tastes. And your economic sense would probably make us go broke. I wouldn't vote for you to be king.

Slashdot Top Deals

Things equal to nothing else are equal to each other.

Working...