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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Pros and Cons (Score 4, Interesting) 207

Pros: - less commute time - good for the environment - more flexibility - potentially higher productivity Cons: - Out of sight, out of mind is not good at layoff time - less social interaction - less professional interaction (maybe) Overall, I prefer to work from home, but since I have direct reports that I manage, I'm not allowed to do it full time. I do telecommute every friday though!

Comment Re:Self Driving Cars? Never! (Score 1) 50

You are the first one to actually answer my questions. Perhaps because they were loaded questions. I want to be able to speed. So does the government. They make money on speeding tickets. (Ironically, I usually DO NOT speed). I'm wondering in my questions whether or not the government will mess with speed limits in the case that I am still allowed to drive. They will lower them as they need to make more money on those cars still with drivers. And the SDCs will go those lower speed limits. The questions about the bald tires, oil changes, and phoning home all relate to liability. If I don't change my tires on the manufacturer's schedule, I am personally liable. What happens when those manufactures decide that half the tire life we have today is good, as they also either own or are in kahoots with tire manufacturers. What happens when they decide oil changes at 3000 miles and requirements for synthetic oil are to be standard. They feed their dealerships that way. The phoning home is to keep track of all this. And if I don't concede their demands, I become liable in an accident, not them. Bottom line is that I don't want SDC's. Give me assists, but don't force me to become passive in my own car. If that happens, I'll end up as part of the sheeple.

Comment Self Driving Cars? Never! (Score 1) 50

I'm tired of this one. It's not gonna happen on a massive scale. Not unless you build special roads for the self driving cars. Sure, I've heard all the arguments about how AI driven cars will be safer, better drivers than humans. And overall, perhaps so. But overall isn't the standard this will be judged on.

Simple example: Suppose an AI driver gets into a position where it has to hit either a young kid, or an old lady. Who does it hit? Should it hit the old lady since she's already lived a full life? Should it hit the kid because they bounce better than old ladies, and the overall chance of saving them both is higher?

Who programs the heuristics here? And what does the spec say? And what happens when the expected results are not what we expect? Who is liable for the vehicular homicide?

And this is only the really big one. Can I tell my AI to speed? Can I tell it I'm in a hurry and will it respond by acceding to my wishes? Can I tell it to go past the oil changes? Can I tell it that I want to drive on bald tires? Can I tell it I don't want it to phone home?

And you don't get to say, "Well, you have to be there to take over if the AI gets confused. BZZZZZZT. That is not a self driving car. That is some version of driver assist and I'm still the pilot in command. If you want a true "driverless" car, I have to be able to sit in the "driver's seat", spin it around, and play yahtzee with my kids. Short of this, you just have more and more of driver assist.

Besides, if I don't like driving, why am I buying a car? Asshats that want a driverless car should take the bus

Comment Re:Cannot happen in earth, period. (Score 1) 211

using up a resource at an increasing rate that we know is finite and will run out in the future []. Flag as Inappropriate

Hooey! We will never run out of oil and other fossil fuels. The market will fix it. It has to. Here's how:

As you "use up" this finite resource, its price will climb. This is natural as it will become harder and harder to extract what is left. Eventually, the price will rise to a point where alternative energy makes sense. It will likely be a combination of wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, and biofuel. It is already happening. As the price of oil spiked, many of these technologies made major leaps forward.

Of course, technology can also help you retrieve more fossil fuels at a lower cost. This, combined with lower global demand for energy, was what cause oil prices to tumble. Fracking increased the supply, demand went down, and the price cratered. Did you notice that when that happened, the US essentially became energy independent? No one EVER thought that could happen again.

The proof of all of this is the energy market for lamp oil in the 19th century. It used to run on whale oil. And we had almost hunted the whales to extinction over it. Ships went out hunting whales for YEARS before coming back to port. And these were wooden ships, not super tankers. Price of whale oil was going out of sight. Then Getty comes along, and figures out that kerosene will work, and that he can drill for it and the problem is solved. Fossil fuels were the answer to that crisis, and the alternative energy that we are researching now will be the answer in the future.

Comment Re: So just rename it then? (Score 1) 330

If you are a pilot, this is intuitive. Takeoff is the most dangerous phase of flight. You are low, and slow, and you have to run your engines at near full capacity to take off. Landing is similar, but you already have airspeed enough to fly the plane, and some altitude to play with, and you can trade one for the other to a limited degree, as well as power in reserve if needed.

Comment Re:Green Cards (Score 1) 355

But many of these immigrants do NOT integrate culturally. I work in the tech industry and the landscape has changed dramatically. Used to be that you hired junior programmers out of school and they rose through the ranks. I did that, and I might be the last generation of Americans who can. I have 5 employees reporting to me - they are all Indian. I work for an Indian boss. And I have over 100 consultants that work for me, mostly offshore. But some are onshore, and the culture is radically different. I now tell friends I work in the curry palace - the whole office smells of it. Worse, I have to accommodate people travelling back home for 4-5 weeks at a time. Sometimes they want to "work from India" for a week. I had one guy tell me he would work some days and not others. I couldn't keep track, so made a rule that if you want to work from home, you have to work EST and it has to be for a full week in these cases. I once asked for 3 weeks off for a family vacation to SoDak and Yellowstone. I got the hairy eyeball. Realistically, the unwritten rule for Americans is 2 weeks off. I get that going to India takes much more time. But still... anyway, some do integrate quite nicely. Most don't. Social norms are very different. Don't get me wrong... my India resources work VERY hard, and get the job done. But with the offshore rates so much lower than onshore rates, there is no room left in my company to hire historically American workers regardless of race, religion, or any other classification. They are just too expensive. So I worry about the company's future - where will they get the next "me" from? Will they outsource my IP to a consulting company? Will my company ultimately own any IT related IP? Yet I have no adequate answer either... if my company decided to insource everything, we'd be uncompetitive at least in the short run. We'd eventually go out of business. So what is the answer? I don't know. What I do know for sure is that this doesn't fit into "they're taking jobs Americans won't do" category. Lots of Americans would do this work. There are just far less positions than before, and as a country that is gonna hurt us.

Comment Re:Insurance is necessary and useful (Score 2) 293

A well reasoned post, however, reinsurance is not as much "insurance for the insurance" but really looks more like financing so as to maintain working capital to grow your insurance business. By sloughing off your insured limits to another party, it frees you up to write even more insurance. The cost of doing that is akin to interest on a loan.

Comment They did it to themselves... (Score 5, Insightful) 259

I've been watching the media coverage (and listening - NPR) on this whole encryption mudslinging by law enforcement. The media is eating it up, and while they are careful to say that the jury is out on whether or not the terrorists in Paris used encrypted communications, they are quick to say that law enforcement and intelligence agencies had no inkling that this attack was on the horizon. I will leave aside the notion that Occum's Razor can be used to evaluate the two scenarios - one where the agencies and law enforcement were simply incompetent and are now blaming this evil encryption for being caught flatfooted, vs. their premise that the terrorists MUST be using encryption now...

What is lost on all of them (agencies, law enforcement) is THAT THEY DID THIS TO THEMSELVES either way. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been "hoovering up" all available communications data and metadata. They demanded and got kangaroo courts (FISA - I'm looking at you) where secret search warrants are being executed. There is no regulation by the citizenry, only by government "you can trust us" types who don't understand that when the stories about this stuff break, consumers begin to demand secure communications. Every time the government executed these warrants on the communications and computer industries, they gave them both an incentive to ditch the whole cooperation thing, and finally those companies started encrypting things in a way that they did not have the ability to "listen in" because lets face it, that is a pain in the neck and takes them away from their core mission.

Now they are crying about encryption, without understanding that the ship already sailed... And they are the ones that kicked it out of the harbor.

Comment Re:F-117 stealth radar coating (Score 1) 138

Me and thousands of people saw an F-117 up close at the New England Airshow at Westover AFB about 20 years ago. You couldn't touch it or walk under it, as it was cordoned off with ropes. A soldier with an M-16 guarded it. My dad struck up a conversation and said "That gun isn't loaded." and the soldier said "Yes sir, it is loaded" My dad took that at face value but went on and said "But if I crossed the rope you wouldn't shoot me." and the soldier replied "Yes sir, I would shoot you". At that point, I took my dad's arm and started walking him away from the display saying "Come on, Dad, let's stop annoying the man with the automatic weapon"

Looking back at the soldier, I could see just the hint of a smile on his face as we walked away.

Comment It worked for a lost nuclear weapon (Score 1) 63

In the Palormares incident in 1966, a B-52 collided with a refueling tanker and both planes were lost. The plane was carrying 4 nuclear weapons, 3 of which were found on land (and two had their conventional explosives go off), but one fell into the Med. Dr. John P. Craven used a Bayesian Search theory to locate the lost bomb. The first step in the Bayesian Search is to formulate hypotheses for where the bomb might have gone down. Craven put a bottle of Scotch up as a prize for the person who came closest to where the bomb would actually be found, and got several hypotheses for where the bomb went down. While this isn't exactly the type of gambling discussed above, putting a real reward up clearly motivates people to give their very best guesses! Oh yeah, they found the bomb, and the actual recovery of it was fictionalized in the movie Men of Honor with Deniro and Cuba Gooding Jr.

Slashdot Top Deals

What this country needs is a good five cent nickel.