Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Here's my suggestion, if YT happens to see it (Score 2) 148

1: Never, ever, allow or in any way provide for "autoplay" on any individual youtube video, embedded or on-site. It's 100% user-hostile. No youtube video should ever, ever play in any wise unless the user actively clicks that triangle icon. No autostart, no hover-start, no timing start. Only if the user specifically says start, or, in the case of a playlist, if the user clearly and unequivocally and in a fully informed manner says to play the playlist.

2: If the user hits that "play" icon, put up a yes / no dialog that says "Would you like to view an ad on [insert concise description of ad's nature here]

3a: If user indicates yes, play the ad, still allowing for cancel, then play the video

3b: If user indicates no, just play the video.

4: Never EVER cover any part of the actual video with advertising interference such as banners, pop-ups, and so on.

I give Google / Youtube my permission to describe my plan, which I gift to them without reservation of any rights to income, as both "theirs" and "not being evil."

Thank you.

Comment Re:Shade, eh? (Score 2) 118

I assume that you think OS X is somehow superior to other OSs.

No.OS X plus the applications I am using form a computing ecosystem that is superior to anything I might plop down on my desk that would be fundamentally unable to perform the same tasks unless I put out a great deal of money, time and energy that is absolutely not necessary in any way, shape or form. Adding extra pixels won't do any of that.

I never could get used to its special keys (especially command and option) as well as the odd keyboard layout (no backspace???).

My keyboard has dedicated backspace and delete, which OS X understands perfectly well. Among many other amenities. I have no idea what you're talking about. Is this some kind of historical reference? As for not being able to get used to command and option... not relevant to me in any way. I have no problem with them. Or with switching back and forth when I'm working with Windows and Linux keyboards.

I'm much more comfortable with Linux and its applications. I gave up on Apple hardware and have now adopted Chromebooks (with Crouton Linux) for all my work. Much nicer user experience and better software options.


Comment Shade, eh? (Score 4, Insightful) 118

The computer seller throws some shade at Apple by saying, "The HiDPI displays that ship on the laptops have 3.1 million more pixels than Apple's 'Retina' displays

You can't "throw shade" at Apple over hardware capabilities in any meaningful way unless you can run OS X / macOS and its applications. Otherwise, you're in the position of a cruise ship boasting that it has roll stabilization in order to try and "shade" a luxury hotel. Pomegranates and kumquats. Irrelevant.

And I say that as a very unhappy Apple hardware user.

Comment The question is WHY don't they care (Score 4, Insightful) 179

If you've managed groups of people you would know that for every motivated and hard working person out there there is a malingerer who wants a paycheck but doesn't really want to do any work.

While this is true, the reality is that the person's co-workers are quite capable of spotting this without any manager's help. If they are empowered to do something about it, they can.

I don't know if you've had the pleasure of dealing with fraudulent worker's comp claims. I have.

Yes, so have I. I've also seen companies that go out of their way to duck valid worker's comp claims. Either way, this isn't a task for group managers to deal with. Worker's comp, at least in IT, is about the health and welfare of the individual. The essence of management, as typically constituted, is to steer the group in the direction of the desired goals. Health and welfare really ought to be dealt with elsewhere in the structure than the group management (assuming that management is actually required, which may or may not be the case, depending on many factors.)

McDonald's [...] Pay is low, the work is tiring and boring, and your co-workers are rarely bright and motivated. [...] And that's ok as long as you know what to expect from them and build the business accordingly.

No, it's not okay. It's almost a perfect example of worker exploitation. They should be paid enough and work allocated in such a way as to make the job a pleasure to do. By low-balling benefits, pay and tasking, providing no reasonable breaks, and seeing to it that there is very little opportunity or reason to dedicate one's self to doing a good job, management inherently takes on the role of exploiter in order to make things work "anyway." And it shows -- how may times have customers seen the patty slopped halfway onto the bun, the condiments in a ridiculous pile on some small fraction of the patty, the orders missing something or containing something that wasn't ordered? That's a direct consequence of making people suffer in their jobs. Not of the job being inherently difficult.

Now, you can (and many do) argue that in order to keep that hamburger at a dollar, you have to exploit the workforce. The problem, as I see it, is that large numbers of citizens are earning so little as to make it so that an increase of a few dollars a day in meal costs represent a significant, even critical, impact on their overall income. This, while McDonald's executives earn millions of dollars per year.

We are never going to fix this unless we restrict the highly unbalanced upwards flow of money into the hands of those who hold the controlling reins of these organizations. In other words, owners, CEOs and yes, managers. This will probably happen, but only because these upscale jobs will be automated out of existence. Otherwise, greed, hubris and a blatant disregard for worker welfare will continue to make jobs such as fast food jobs your basic employee's nightmare.

Comment Re:Ray Kurzweil (Score 1) 84

All kinds of foods are fortified with all kinds of vitamins

The fact that a particular tofu manufacturer may fortify their product with B12 is only because they know that a lot of their market is vegan. Not all vegans eat tofu, or will pay attention to whether their brand does or does not fortify. Not all eat cereal either (the main "multivitamin-fortified" food that people consume), and a serving of a typical fortified cereal only provides about a quarter of your RDA anyway. Lots of other foods are fortified by specific nutrients, but rarely B12.

Comment Re:Strange (Score 1) 184

A person who doesn't even understand the concept of splitting up paragraphs is in no grounds for criticizing someone else as being "unintelligible". Likewise, starting off a debate by accusing the other side of "psychosis"... well, I'll not comment about what that says about you.

. 1. Your understanding of why water is required for LAWKI is wrong. It's principle properties (as far as LAWKI is concerned) are thought to be A. hydrogen bonding and B. solvency.

1) The presence of water inside a cell does not require that a wet external environment was the source of the hydrogen in said water.

2) There are countless solvents in the universe. Out of sheer coincidence over the past two days I've been reading papers on the solvency properties of ionic liquids and carbon disulfide (the latter being common naturally). The studied possibilities of cyanide chemistry on Titan use methane as a solvent. Ammonia is also common in the universe and is an excellent solvent. (if you want to argue against methane and ammonia because they're not polar, you're going to have to defend the concept that solvents must be polar - which in the studied case for Titan, they absolutely don't have to be in order to create some spectacularly complex cyanide chemistry). Carbon dioxide is a superb solvent in its supercritical state. There are lots and lots of common natural compounds that are excellent solvents in widely varying environments. Not environments that LAWKI would survive in, but that's because LAWKI is evolved to the conditions of Earth, utilizing molecules that are stable on Earth conditions for its life processes.

2. The Drake Equation. I'd speculate that if you sat down and studied the equation *critically*, that you'd see it has major flaws, the most serious (imho) is the assumption that each of its terms can be reduced to numerical values and that each term is independent of the others.

Which can be resolved by combining terms. Feel free to present your alternative (many people have); each form nonetheless invariably projects massive numbers of civilizations.

3. The Fermi Paradox also has serious problems. Let's say that interstellar travel is technically impossible

A premise I'll gladly accept.

- that there's no propulsion technology which can transport viable (sufficiently complex) intelligent life across interstellar distances. Then there is no "paradox"

Except that there still is, because even if a civilization evolved only 1% earlier than ours did (a very tiny margin!), it's 138 million years old, and can thus be expected to have been long moving out at relativistic speeds in all directions. The Milky Way's diameter is only 100-180k light years. Even Andromeda is only 2,5 million light years away. Even civilizations having advanced to the point of interstellar travel just a mere 1% earlier than we've reached our current state should be arriving from all over the local group - let alone ones that developed 5%, 15%, 50%, etc earlier. The fact that life tends to spring up wherever there's water is not consistent with the observed emptiness of the universe.

Cosmological distances help keep is apart, but it is also a requirement that life be very rare.

Another problem can be seen if I use the same reasoning to claim that every square meter of the Earth's surface must have been "visited"

The more appropriate comparison, since we're talking about beings that reproduce, and over timescales representing countless generations, is to claim that every square meter of Earth's surface must have been visited by bacteria. And golly gee, it has. Even ignoring the point that bacteria don't have intelligence to guide them.

Finally, you should account for the stupidity of any group of fans of any meme. The *experts* (hopefully, the people who have enough of a background and have carefully thought about the problem of detecting extraterrestrial life, which would include careful and thorough study of the scientific literature) would, I believe, strongly disagree with your assertion that they claim water = life.

There is no broad agreement among scientists about the topic. So your trying to assert that "experts think X" is simply wrong, for whatever value of X you wish to choose. There are some scientists who are very keen on the concept of life being found wherever there's water, and just as many opposed.

LAWKI requires the presence of liquid water

More specifically, LAWKI has evolved to require the presence of liquid water. We know absolutely nothing about what form it was when it began.

Liquid water doesn't require the presence of life.

Tell that to the large numbers of scientists working at NASA who assert otherwise. They've even used "follow the water" as the official name of several campaigns' search for life on other planets. The "follow the water" concept is that wherever water has existed in the liquid state, life is likely to arise. This is a concept I am very much against.

There's so little we know about abiogenesis, that talking about it is practically useless

Exactly my point. Yet so many people - and I'm not entirely sure whether you're among them - keep acting as if LAWKI in its current state must inherently represent the same sort of biological processes as in its earliest state, with the same sort of needs. And the "follow the water" crowd further asserts that wherever water exists, life is likely to arise - as if we have any bloody clue about what conditions led to the first successful hypercycles on Earth.

I note that while I hold out some hope we will discover planets in our local neighborhood (say 500 light years from Earth) which have spectroscopic indications that life might exist, it is almost certain that there is no way for life to be detected at "cosmological" distances

I was very clearly and explicitly referring to other species engaging in interstellar travel. Something that's pretty much a given for any species that's been around even a fraction of a percent longer than we have. How you interpreted the term "encountering" as "detecting" is beyond me.

Another obvious "solution" to the Fermi Paradox, is that IF intelligence must evolve in social emotional animals, then it will inevitably produce a species which will cause it's own extinction

Extinction becomes difficult once you become a multiplanetary species, and almost impossible once you become an interstellar species. Some, some may well find a way to kill all of themselves before reaching that point (although total extinction is a tall order). But if you're in the "follow the water" crowd there should be life evolving at almost every star, often multiple planets per star. Unless you're talking a probability of extinction on the order of 99,99999999999999999999999%, that explanation doesn't cut it.

The assumption that intelligence is a benefit for the long-term survival (say on scales of hundreds of thousands to millions of years) has exactly zero evidence to support it. If it were such a great thing, it would probably already have developed *here* and we'd be covered in scales (or have 6 legs).

I can't even make out what you're trying to argue. Intelligence did evolve here. On many different lines (birds are quite intelligent, cephlapods, other mammals, etc).

If by intelligence you mean sentience, it did evolve here too. Are you trying to assert that it should have evolved instantly with the first life? Since when does evolution work that way?

Slashdot Top Deals

This is a good time to punt work.