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


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Play stupid games, win stupid prizes (Score 1) 95

The whole bonus system is counter-productive for performance by its very nature. Think about it: most bonuses are tied to short term performance and goals on a quarterly or yearly basis. So by their very design they encourage the CEO to make whatever changes possible to meet that target, no matter what it does to the company 2 years or 5 years or 10 years down the line, because chances are he/she won't be in charge at that time.

These studies have been done numerous times in different countries with similar results and people and companies should start to wake up to this: if you don't want the guy to come in, fire 30 % of the staff to cut the costs for a temporary boost in profit that then backfires in a year, then don't explicitly make these types of deals that guide them towards such solutions. Change the timescale: pay bonuses retroactively if the company is doing better after 5 years, or in decade. The guy doesn't need to commit himself to work there for that long; if he knows he'll get a sum of money in 5 years if the company is still doing great then, he will be encouraged to make his decisions on that timescale, and not just think about the next 4 months.

Comment Re: Er (Score 2) 212

We honestly need to expect a certain level of competency from people.

No. We honestly need to expect a certain level of competency from ENGINEERS. People are allowed to be stupid. Way back in the days of the first air-brakes, they used air pressure to apply the brakes. What happened when the system failed and air pressure was lost? The brakes failed. Nowadays you design a system where you need air pressure to REMOVE the brake. Now if your system fails, the brakes are applied - orders of magnitude safer than no brakes. Electrical devices are grounded. Commercial jets can fly with only a single engine. Etc.

Fail safes are necessary because the universe and people don't always co-operate. So when the shit hits the fan, you try to kill as few people as possible. Just hacking something together and throwing it out to the public isn't good enough - that's irresponsible design. If a guy kills himself with your product you need to be able to show that he went to extreme lengths to do so.

Comment Re: Er (Score 2) 212

I can see how the car could fail to see the rig since it sits high off the ground and might appear to be clear, especially when the trailer color is gray.

No higher off the ground from the side than it is from the back. I still think their algos needed serious amounts of work before being released. It's 2016 not 1916, there are consumer safety laws now, you can't get away with "it's your own damned fault, you were doing it wrong" anymore. Not as much, anyway. Yeah I know the driver has a big role in the blame game, but if you were allowed to get away with that then nothing would have safety features. Got caught in the industrial machinery? His fault for being a dumbass and putting his hand there... doesn't fly anymore.

And hiding under a technicality "oh he clicked an agreement and agreed to become a tester for our experimental software". OK. How many hours of training did he receive? What do you mean, none? The state rests.

Comment Re: Er (Score 3, Insightful) 212

and slows or stops if the vehicle in front of you decelerates.

But not, apparently, if a brick wall suddenly appears in front of you. Yes I agree that "autopilot" is a horrendous choice of name because "auto" and "automatic" imply autonomy, no matter how many clickthrough EULA's you shove in front of someone. I'm all in favor of Tesla but Musk should have realized that people can be really, really, REALLY stupid and this system needed to be idiot-tested a lot more before being released. I don't think an EULA or even a signed contract will save him when people have died.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 2) 91

But you're assuming - or THEY are assuming - that every place that bitcoin came from is from a wallet in a country subject to their silly law. What can they do if the trail is from a wallet that was created in Panama, for example? Prove that Panama to me is an illegitimate transaction AND that I actually own the wallet in Panama. Trivial to set up with VPN's and/or friends/relatives who are actually outside your country. Again, politicians fail to realize that their laws are limited by geography whereas the internet knows no borders.

Comment Re:One unsaid goal is to ease confiscation (Score 2) 91

You bet. Because every year we have more and more restrictive bank regulations (to the point where it's now difficult to move your own damned money around from account to account or asset to asset), yet there are more drugs, more laundering and there is more terrorism. Makes you think those laws were never intended to go after criminals in the first place.

Slashdot Top Deals

"When in doubt, print 'em out." -- Karl's Programming Proverb 0x7