Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:History repeat itself. (Score 1) 139

In the past schools' main purpose was to teach children how to be cheap industry workers. This feels like the past may be coming back.

What you say is correct, except that 'the past' isn't coming back, because it never left. Also, the real purpose of public education goes far beyond creating a cheap workforce. And lest you think that latter page is the fantasy of conspiracy theory nutters, read Gatto's 'Underground History of American Education', then check the references he sites. American public schools were designed, and are being maintained and modified on an ongoing basis, specifically to stunt the intellectual and emotional growth of citizens who might otherwise a) be a source of unbridled innovation that puts the long term plans of the corporatocracy at risk, and b) start to question their own relative servitude and powerlessness. Again, the historical record on this is clear and unambiguous.

The next time you talk or think about 'sheeple', ask yourself why so many people are like that; then ask yourself in how many ways you yourself may have been stunted by a school system which was designed by smart, determined people specifically for that purpose. At that point you might want to have a closer look at the earlier educational systems upon which our modern one was modelled.

Comment Re:Fat Change (Score 2) 352

"* Climbs up tower and replaces part: win.

You have me on that last one. Replacing parts still requires a human. For now"

I could easily see that being replaced by a modular design of easy to fail parts and a drone. Drone flies up, puts part multitool into slot, unslots it and transfer the one from its drone bay in place. Optical sensors verify the repair and no air leaks.

Manually switching parts is difficult only because the parts havent been designed to be switched by a robot. Once that happens, game over. You've probably seen videos of robotic tape libraries already.

All thats needed is to design and build the system. We have the technology.
Making it cheaper than paying some forest ranger 50k a year to do it on the otherhand might take a while.

Comment Re:Well yeah (Score 2) 352

"In case you can't pick up on it, I definitely do not favor government dependence. People seem to be depressed as hell when they are dependent."

I used to feel that way till i went on government provided 9 month paternity leave which is the norm in canada. I worried about not working for about the first month, but by the end of it I was really used to walking in the parks with my son in the stroller and generally experiencing the wonder of life with him.

Of course i think it does depend on why you are dependant. In my view, i earned that paternity leave (been paying into EI for 20 years and never went on unemployment...) and spending time with my son is the most important way i could be spending my time.

A guaranteed basic income I think I could easily view as my right, same as i should have a right to healthcare, safety, fire protection and the other things the government provides.

Comment Re:Supportive (Score 1) 143

Actually, if he's doing a lifelong, pay-up-front insurance model, it will be a lot more expensive to stop providing it later. The rates have to increase with cost and inflation (which will be slower than income increases), and such an insurance model is essentially flow-through and uses new money to pay for current service. It's the same way Social Security works.

Comment Re:Just Remember, Folks. (Score 1) 143

I doubt battery replacement will be a big expense in 20 years. In real life, we've seen those batteries perform such that they should still have 94% of their charge capacity after 100,000 miles. At 20 years in and 12,000 miles per year, 240,000 miles, they'll quite likely have 85% of their capacity--which means the 150 mile range is a 136 mile range. With high-voltage DC J1772 combined charge connectors, you can power that up in an hour (Tesla has supercharger stations boasting something ridiculous like 50% charge in 20 minutes). Some of these Teslas have a 280-mile range, which still gives you a 238 mile range--over 2 hours between recharging on a road trip. The extra 15-30 miles is as many minutes of driving, so is insignificant--either the long trip has too many charges already, or it's a minor inconvenience that shifts your schedule by a few minutes.

Consider modern vehicles have a 200-300 mile range. My Mazda 3 needs a gas tank fill-up every 240 miles--about 2 weeks. Since most people aren't filling their 12-gallon tank every day ($800/month of gasoline), we can surmise the range of a Tesla is well more than the range required for nearly 100% of driving. When that range decreases by 15%... you're still using 10% of the battery's charge, then charging back up when you get home. Shrug.

The battery has to start physically failing before it needs real replacing. Even if it's a $12,000 battery, it'll be an $8,000 battery or a $6,000 battery in 20 years (plus inflation--which means it might still be a $12k battery, but the median income will be $118k anyway so it's still half as expensive). Amortize that over 20 years. Gas today is $600/year (with 2% inflation over 20 years: $891); battery tech taking half the labor (low-maintenance, self-driving, electric freight haulers to deliver heavy shit; automated factories) means you'd be looking at $300/year paid in the inflated future. You're comparing roughly $20k of gas to $6k of batteries--and, again, you can probably defer the battery replacement.

Consider that plus the damn things require a bit under 1/4 of the cost of gasoline--you're looking at $5k over 20 years there. So you're saving $9k out of $20k. You could also get a Zero SR and pay about $1,620 over 20 years instead.

Comment Makes sense, if the price is right (Score 4, Insightful) 89

I think there's probably quite a decent niche market for this product. Some people like to use a phone primarily as, you know, a phone. They'll be attracted to the extended battery life, and won't be bothered by a bit less processing power and slightly lower resolution. Some people use smartphones as fairly basic tools, not as gaming platforms / computer substitutes / fashion accessories.

Comment Re:Enablers shift expectations (Score 1) 129

None of the people in this discussion have mentioned the real evil destroying our world.

Books. Newspapers. Written language. When Gutenberg's press came into existence, there was a Swedish psychologist warning everyone that we'd all experience information overload, social withdrawal, and all manner of ills becoming addicted to the vast mountains of text sent our way. The family is destroyed as the father now reads the paper at breakfast instead of interacting with his household, and the children read their books instead of playing with other children.

When will we destroy this great tool of Satan which has corrupted the hearts of good men?

Comment Re:SubjectsSuck (Score 1) 204

More ridiculous is the claim that including crypto will force WordPress to implement better security. WordPress can just ignore this; and getting hacked by shitty REST API authentication verification isn't fixed by pouring on more crypto sauce.

This guy is a crypto nerd who thinks crypto solves all problems. It doesn't. He probably has databases with columns (UserID, UserName, CryptedPassword, AESKey) so the password is AES-encrypted with an individual key per-user.

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 1) 511

Seriously this article makes it sound like life just after a devastating conflict is better than economic prosperity because most people are equally poor.

That's pretty fucked up, and I'm calling BS.

Even the title of TFA, (which it seems you didn't read or didn't understand), contradicts your interpretation: "The Only Thing, Historically, That's Curbed Inequality: Catastrophe". Nowhere in the article does it say, or even imply AFAICT, that "life just after a devastating conflict is better than economic prosperity" - it only says that economic inequality is reduced. Therefore, you are the one making the value judgment, not the article. Nice strawman there.

Comment Re:Agile! (Score 1) 74

Yes well, some people hear the word "Agile" and don't bother to look up what that means. There are published standards on this stuff, you know. They're built on top of other published standards. I don't like the SCRUM terminology largely because I work better with direct information instead of social idealism--therapy for me involves a pencil and a clipboard while the psychiatrist tries to explain wtf is wrong inside my head, not group-hug sessions, supportive friends, and pep talks--but it's still actually a highly-bureaucratic, defined process. I simply have to decode the metaphor to something concrete to access it.

Comment Re:Agile! (Score 1) 74

Sprints are SCRUM. You don't need to use SCRUM to perform agile project management.

User stories are an attempt to dress up requirements gathering and the requirements traceability matrix. In project management, a requirement has a business justification and a stakeholder. The Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) will tell you the requirement (what?), the stakeholder (who?), the business justification (why?), and the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) elements which implement the requirement (how?). User stories attempt to make this relatable by describing it in child-friendly terms: "As the manager of finances, I want to be able to compare categorized expenses from different time periods so that I can identify where our major expenses are and how new controls impact those expenses."

As you point out, this is kind of silly for an OpenGL back-end. The user story is something like "as a user on an operating system which doesn't support DirectX, I want to be able to use the software so that I can use the software," or something equally generic. In a RTM, you would simply identify stakeholders as "Linux users" and "MacOSX users", and give the business justification that "the software platform does not support the DirectX back-end". In an actual business, you might identify the product manager as the stakeholder, and use the business justification that demographic data shows interest among MacOSX users. There's no need to invent a fancy story.

If I had a client that would request a demo every 2 weeks I'd have been fired long ago.

If something deliverable can't be produced in 2 weeks, then it can't be delivered every 2 weeks. Plain and simple. Sometimes the next iteration or incremental deliverable takes months to ship. Nobody who knows what they're doing actually implements a 2-week rule; some people use that as a soft guide-line to wring out the WBS (which is used in SCRUM and other agile methodologies), and even then they find that some work packages are necessarily hours or days long while others take longer than 2 weeks.

The standard delineation for work packages is "when the work is broken down to a level at which further decomposition no longer provides a management benefit," which effectively means you only decompose work which cannot be fully understood and measured as a whole unit. "Actigraphy Module" for a generic polysomnography application, for example, is insufficient: you have to break that down at least to include Interfaces, Base Classes, Zero Crossing Class, Time Above Threshold Class, and Digital Integration Class. You might also include, at that level, an Integrations deliverable, which breaks down to include FitBit, Pillow, EightSleep, Jawbone, and other actigraphy-based systems, because "Integrations" is made up of complex pieces and can't be estimated without thinking about the pieces from which it's made.

None of that comes out to "two-weeks". It still comes out to iterative and incremental delivery, user feedback, and compiling lessons learned repeatedly to avoid further defects.

Slashdot Top Deals

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire