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


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

Comment Re:Dangerous (Score 1) 300

I'm pretty sure I'd see features like independently powered exit row lighting, emergency exits, inflatable slides/rafts, life vests etc.

In design and engineering you can't make things failure-proof, but you can plan for certain failure-modes. Yeah, if you lose a wing at 10,000 feet or do a nose dive at Mach 2 into the ground nobody is going to survive. But there is plenty of design that goes into an airplane that is aimed at very rare situations like the loss of all engines.

Comment Re:Unfortunately no and I have a reason (Score 1) 336

The Abelson and Sussman textbook, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, uses LISP (actually Scheme). There are quite a few LISP fanatics who passionately feel it is still the best programming language made, citing such reasons as the simplicity of writing an interpreter for it. However, that textbook is pretty difficult. The authors didn't appreciate how hard recursion can be for many students to understand, and LISP and functional programming in general uses recursion so heavily it's the proverbial hammer for every nail of a programming problem.

Well, that's what you get when you beta test your textbook with MIT students. But that said, CLRS is no picnic for people who aren't very good at math, either.

Comment Re: More about eliminating WrongThink (Score 1) 351

How to fail to persuade: "you're just to stupid to understand, but smart people believe X". How to persuade "I understand why you think that way, plenty of smart people would, knowing what you know. Here are some things you don't know, and why they're important".

Interestingly, conservatives seem more likely to use argument #1, whereas liberals prefer argument #2. However, in almost every case I've seen recently, neither style of argument actually persuades anymore, likely because no one is really listening to facts these days.

Sadly, in our current post-truth reality, whoever speaks loudest and most often is the one who wins, and they can lie about anything and everything without consequence.

Comment Re:Analyzing a car purchase over 1 year? (Score 1) 35

True. And the cost/arrest concept is broken too. Would the arrests have been made anyway? Could they have been made another way?

When people have a tool they use it, whether it is the use-case that was supposed to justify the purchase -- and that can be a good thing (because the widget is earning its keep) or a bad thing (using a tool that's overkill, to expensive to operate, or counterproductive). The real question is what did they specifically buy this for? If the cost justification was that it was going to allow them to make x arrests per year, it's probably a failure. If the cost justification is some other kind of scenario that doesn't necessarily happen every year (e.g. the Beltway Sniper), then the question is whether they're using this thing reasonably.

Comment Re: No More Muslims (Score 1) 574

These alt-left stories do nothing but galvanize the other 60% of the country that voted for Trump.

Are you looking to build a fake news story because with those numbers you're off to a good start

Almost 50% of eligible voters in the US did not vote in the 2016 General Election, and Trump captured 46% of those votes which comes to about 23% of all eligible voters.

23% of the country is 160% less than the 60% you claim.

Comment Re:Those who something, something (Score 1) 574

I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. There isn't a single majority Muslim country on the planet that isn't a dictatorship or a theocracy. Majority Muslim countries despise minority religions in their borders. Where is this 'decent Muslim majority' hiding?

The fourth-most populous country in the world, Indonesia, is a republic and is majority Muslim.

Comment Re:Why is this guy still talking (Score 1) 455

The solution to this problem is free education and a basic income. We should start with a grant for 60 credit hours of community college and a basic income at 60% the federal poverty level.

I think you're underestimating both the scope and the magnitude of the problem.

First, consider that the problem we're facing here isn't just going to affect only low-skilled workers. Artificial intelligence, automation and robotics will ultimately impact higher-skilled workers too. It's only a question of time. If IBM's Watson can already diagnose illness better than a physician with a decade of college and on-the-job education under their belt, than even doctors have something to worry about. Don't forget that we're at the point now where nearly 1/3 of all Americans already have at least a bachelor's degree. When the economy itself needs fewer and fewer workers to produce more and more goods and services, a few extra free junior college units isn't going to keep average Americans employed.

Finally, the end-game here is all-too obvious; with an increasing population chasing fewer and fewer jobs, a basic income at 60% of the poverty line isn't going to do anything but ensure grinding poverty in the future, likely for decades to come, as the vast majority of Americans will never be able to find work again.

Overall, after careful consideration of the problem, I think this plan sucks. We as a nation ought to be able to do better than that. A handful of the uber-rich presiding over a nation of hundreds of millions of perpetual beggars is what I would consider a nightmare scenario. It does not have to be this way. I pray that we'll find some way to avoid this kind of apocalyptic scenario. I suspect it will require a great deal of out-of-the-box thinking, and we'll likely have to abandon some of our cherished capitalistic principles.

Comment Re:Why is this guy still talking (Score 1) 455

There may be an inflection point when needs required by new technology can be fulfilled by technology itself, or fewer people due to advances in tech. I think we are seeing the latter already, and it will steadily progress to the former. There is no turning back.

Don't be naive! We can absolutely turn back the clock on technological progress if necessary. If technology is driving humanity off a cliff, humans can and should limit technology. To do anything else is foolish and, in a word, insane.

As I see it, human beings are not lemmings. We are not living out our lives solely to implement technological progress. Therefore, we do not need to commit societal suicide because, "Ooohhhhh, shiny!" Technology is useful insomuch as it benefits society. If technology is not useful, or if it's counterproductive, we can most certainly say, "No."

Slashdot Top Deals

God help those who do not help themselves. -- Wilson Mizner