Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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

Comment Good idea, bad name (Score 4, Insightful) 134

I think the technology is a good idea, but they've picked a terrible name for it. To someone who is uninformed, it makes it sound as though the feature enables automated driving for the vehicle, and while that may be the end goal, it's currently not at that level and may give a false sense of capability. They should refer to it as "Driver Assist" or something that doesn't leave anyone with a false impression of the capabilities of what it does.

Comment Re:Can it beat the doctors (Score 2) 153

Yes, and we already have that. There are people who die every day waiting for a transplant organ. There's a limited amount available so they must be rationed and someone (or a panel of people most likely) has to determine where the limited supply will do the most good. That means skipping the older man in his 70s in favor of a young person with kids or rejecting the person that drank a liver into oblivion in favor of another person. If there's enough livers to go around, those other patients can certainly get treatment.

Get a big disaster and an influx of too many patients at one time and medical staff is going to have to start prioritizing and some people that might otherwise live or going to die because there's a finite amount of doctors and time they can devote. It might be possible to transport some patients to other hospitals, but there's only a limited number of vehicles capable of doing that. Give me a computer system that can make accurate predictions and judgements over a doctor who can only try their best. If the computer system can keep more people alive because it can make those kinds of tough decisions better than a human, you'd be foolish not to use it.

So are you a health care professional then? Because if you're not, you'd probably better get comfortable with rationing or your so-called "death panels" because otherwise you're not doing anything to help the situation from what I can see.

Comment Re:Can it beat the doctors (Score 0) 153

No, healthcare is wasted on patients that are going to die even with treatment. If you have no way to accurately predict that, you have no fair basis for discriminating between two patients. If you can do that with a high degree of accuracy, you don't spend a lot of money on an expensive treatment that will do any good. At some point everyone is going to die, no matter the amount of medical intervention, or do you believe we should just keep people alive no matter the cost until they grow sick of it and ask to die?

Comment Re:Just can the entire guest worker series. (Score 2, Insightful) 539

Also, give holders more flexibility in changing jobs without losing the visa, make the system a path to citizenship, and prevent new visas from being created if previous holders are unemployed. Essentially prevent jobs from using the visa to control workers while suppressing wages or constantly churning through new candidates.

Comment Re:Is more education, better education . . . ? (Score 1) 495

I don't think every generation is getting weaker, or the world wouldn't be getting better. Crime is down, we're reducing pollution, advancing technology and medicine, etc. Maybe that just makes the worst parts of humanity stick out a bit more, but as a whole, we're moving forward. Perfect is never going to happen and things in western democracies are already really good historically speaking, and improving on that is a very slow process rife with missteps to learn from.

Some colleges and/or degrees are shit, but that was always the case. I don't expect some fields to get watered down because of the tenure system. The administration might want to be a degree mill or churn out more students, but cantankerous old tenured professors won't let it happen, and the administration probably doesn't care too much as they get paid whether a student passes or fails so there isn't too much push-back. Ultimately it doesn't matter as long as the rest of the system can correct for it. Eventually the universities that are degree mills get passed over and people start going somewhere else due to the bad reputation. That's why even though some things seem worse, as a whole things are getting better.

There's an old quote about the current generation being disrespectful little shits. I say old because it goes back to Socrates over 2000 years ago.

Comment Re:Can you say "the american way" ? (Score 1) 495

Well TFS says Latino Americans are earning more than their parents. Of course they mostly worked really shit jobs (and some newer immigrants from Central and South America still do) so that their children could work slightly less shit jobs. My ancestors were immigrants so I can't really fault them any more for wanting a better life or to get out of their own country, but I'm not going to pretend that the rampant illegal immigration is a good thing for the U.S. as it hurts unskilled labor the most and they've been suffering the more for longer than anyone else.

The problem is that Europe recovered from WWII and became their own economic powerhouse and the U.S. helped rebuild Japan and prop up Korea, in part because we saw what being harsh dicks to a country did to Germany after WWI and it turns out those countries had a lot of really smart people that could work just as hard or even harder than Americans. The idea of a single income household with a stay-at-home mom was a bubble just waiting to burst.

Economic osmosis always meant the U.S. was going to be knocked down a few pegs. The country could have done a better job investing in the future, but instead it bought cars with fins with fuel efficiency that could better be measured in gallons per mile. This just exacerbated today's problems, but in a lot of ways we're repeating the same mistakes in different ways.

Comment Re:Is more education, better education . . . ? (Score 1, Interesting) 495

I don't think college got any better or worse, it is primary and secondary education that seem far worse. At some point it became less and less acceptable to tell anyone they sucked or needed to get their shit together because it wouldn't fly. I think there are a larger number (there were always people like this, just fewer of them) of young people today who are completely incapable of coping with failure because they've never been challenged or had to face adversity. The system just rolled over for them and let them through no matter how poorly they did.

It's not just idiots (but there are still plenty of those) either, but also smart kids who just can't handle a challenge because everything got so dumbed down they've never had to rise above a really low bar. Eventually they hit college or the real world and suddenly find life turned up side down. Big fish in little ponds being suddenly lost in an ocean and there's no ribbon for trying your best if your best isn't good enough. Because it became unacceptable to hold anyone back, everyone ended up being held back.

Big education gets paid either way, so its surprising that they care as much as they do, but I suspect some of that comes down to enough people who want to be good educators working around the system. Some professors don't care much about that, but they might do some cutting edge research and cultivate the next generation of research professors so I suppose there's value there. Regardless, it's a mess in that some fields are so competitive in terms of available jobs that it makes little sense for some more expensive universities to have those programs because unless those students are already wealthy they shouldn't expect to be able to pay off the cost of their education for decades with current job prospects in those fields.

I don't think college is primarily to blame, and to some degree it's always been more of what you make of it than anything else, but I suspect they're starting to eat the shit sandwich that's been pushed through the education system and are probably passing the buck a little themselves. It probably varies by university and program though as colleges were always a bit of chaotic fiefdom and tenured faculty could always tell idiotic administrators to go piss up a rope when necessary. Maybe degrees did get watered down, but it probably isn't anywhere as much as people would like to think. Maybe you just work a company that can only attract C-level college talent and all the highly motivated 4.0 students aren't bothering to apply or interview there.

Comment Re:Automated Post (Score 1) 409

The flip side of automation and improvements in manufacturing and technology is that goods and services become less expensive because costly human labor is no longer required. It may be that as time goes on it becomes possible for society to support a larger and larger percentage of the population that doesn't do anything or is incapable of contributing any value simply because the cost to so is being driven downward by the same forces that are removing people from the labor pool.

It's probably preferable to just pay these people to stay home and not bother the rest of society instead of having to pay people to deal with the results of criminal behavior because there's little sense in paying just as much money to solve a problem using one approach that involves creating a bunch of jobs to do busy work that wouldn't be necessary under a completely different approach.

The only real issue is asking the people who fall into the group of inability to add value not to reproduce or to only reproduce below replacement rate. It's basic human nature to want to pass on one's genes, no matter how useless or detrimental society might view them. Would someone be content to live knowing that or could they be persuaded not to have children or have fewer? I question whether it would work since there are so many religious people who think they need to be fruitful and multiply.

Comment Re:Mystery solved (Score 1) 133

The presence or absence of the Y chromosome (or specifically one very small part of it, the SRY gene) determines biological sex. Gender (the perception of which sex the self should be) is heavily correlated with biological sex, but it appears as though it can deviate from the typical pattern as a result of events during fetal development. Most of the gender-related stuff you see on places like tumblr these days is pure bullshit that has no scientific basis, but transgenderism is something that has been studied and scientists may have identified parts of the brain that are responsible for gender.

Comment Re:the smell of E-6 in the morning (Score 1) 213

Is it really worth it to pay $10 extra and several days wait for 36 shots, just to that broadcast to others that I still use film?

When everyone can be a photographer, some people need to find a way to set themselves apart. To show everyone that they're serious, or talk about how the physical process preserves blah blah blah. For some people it's about being quaint or nostalgic more than the finished product, maybe out of some desire to feel as though they've accomplished something and not necessarily a narcissistic desire for attention. I wonder if in another decade or so more people will be into pottery and making their own bowls and mugs just so they can feel like they don't have to rely on the 3D printer to do it all for them.

Comment Re: Australian "conservatives" don't understand (Score 5, Informative) 160

It stands to reason since the countries that put words like "democratic" or "people's republic" in the names of their countries tend to be authoritarian dictatorships that we shouldn't simply trust that a country with the word "socialist" in it is some kind of utopia for workers. However, the authoritarian aspect of a country should be removed from their economic policies. The Nazis were far from socialist and their economic policy something that changed though out their reign. Early on their 25-point plan contained a lot of points that have more in common with communist or socialist positions such as nationalizing industries, more equitable sharing of profits for workers, and the like. It also contained a lot of aspects of nationalism (e.g. a German people, limiting immigration, etc.) which is why it had the name National Socialism in the first place.

However, once they were in power there wasn't a clear push in either direction. The Nazis privatized some parts of the existing government while at the same time nationalizing companies, particularly those that would be used to fuel their war machine. They also outright took over the labor unions to the extent that they were controlled by the party and essentially made them functionally useless. There wasn't a clear cut push for outright government (or worker) control of industry nor was there a hand's off free market approach.

Trying to lump Nazi Germany into one basket (left) or the other (right) ignores a lot of the fine detail. In some regards they leaned left, and in others right. On the whole they probably came closer to the center than most people would care or like to admit and I think it had less to do with any sense of economic ideology and more with doing whatever was most effective in terms of building their army or supporting the war effort.

Slashdot Top Deals

To program is to be.

Working...