Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

Comment Re:Remote work is validated once again. (Score 1) 132

Yeah, for my WfH days I don't deliberately work more hours (I may make up some if I had to leave work earlier on other days), although having a child I have to take to school removes that 'Wake up 5 minutes before the morning stand-up call' temptation.

I may end up working more hours just because it's a better environment to get work done, or I decide to have a 2 hour nap in the middle of the day.

Comment Re:Remote work is validated once again. (Score 1) 132

I think an expectation of remote work ability (at least after a couple of months or so of joining) should be an expectation for anyone looking to move company these days. Especially if you have children it gives you the necessary flexibility to cope with the situation. For most it would be 2 or 3 times a week, face to face time may still be important/necessary for some to retain humanity .

The last thing I would want to do is sit in a car in a traffic jam daily. Luckily I've avoided that throughout my career so far (admittedly this is easier in the UK/London than the US, but OTOH I have Southern Rail to contend with).

Comment Re:Work and cars (Score 1) 132

TBH pretty much the only exercise I get is the walk to and from the train station for work (at both ends). Which luckily probably totals over three miles a day, and it's an enforced routine.

Problem is, work has recently started an aggressive Working from Home culture (well, 2 or 3 days a week). Guess how much I walk on those days... sure, I eat better, but that's about it. "Bed -> Desk (via Kitchen for coffee/lunch/dinner) -> Sofa -> Bed" isn't the greatest daily routine. Saves a decent amount of time and money though (especially when you factor in work lunch and occasional beers).

Comment Re:When are we going optical? (Score 1) 192

I guess at some point HDMI will have to break compatibility with the form factor. Maybe for 16K120? However the reasonably sized, standard, non-changing, form factor is one of the selling points.

So it makes sense to go optical then for the main data stream, although the temptation for them to push copper further will be very high. Look at USB 3 - I remember way back that they were thinking of optical USB as the future, and it turned into merely having even more standard I/Os.

Comment Re:Yet another standard (Score 1) 192

The only thing still missing from HDMI is power to drive HDMI attached media dongles. Maybe with HDMI 3.0 ...

Still, modern TVs have enough USB ports these days to power a couple of these, or you can get single socket multi-usb adapters.

A *consumer* 48Gbps cable is a pretty damn amazing creation, especially being backward / forward compatible with old ports / old cables.

Comment Unexciting, uninteresting shed (Score 1) 303

I would recommend building a 20000ft^2 subterranean anti-methhead-bunker 100ft under ground. This will also allow you to survive Trump.

Install a lift up into a hidden room inside a non-descript looking shed. Obviously the lift will only work via DNA verification anyway.

You should fill the bunker with snakes, scorpions and taratulas, apart from your work area (6x6 ft), this will dissuade people who have cloned you to get into the lift.

As for the work area, I recommend a bulletproof chair that enconses your body as you work.

Comment Re:How Will this Affect... (Score 1) 253

Cost of production in the pharmaceutical industry has no correlation with the sale price.

This will be sold initially for billions per treatment. Then hundreds of millions. Then tens of millions.

Beneath this, it absolutely will have to make up for the loss of income from other age-related medications and treatments that this would kill, especially if it was available to all. Otherwise it would be an effective way for social governments to deal with the high medical cost of retirement aged people - eradicate the getting old part.

Comment Re:Things to solve (Score 1) 253

As I wrote elsewhere - immortals will spend their days evading capture by hunter-killer terminator robots.

Nah, best bet is that at 150 you go into clinic for your next rejuvenation treatment unaware of the following intents: you're tranquilised, and then fed into 'the machine' (industrial grinder / furnace). Even better, make it religious, so they queue up for the machine. Sadly some upstart will likely find out and ruin it for everyone else.

I just know that I'll have 40000 project that I've put off for another day that I suddenly feel motivated to finish around that time. Typical.

Comment Re:Things to solve (Score 1) 253

If rejuvenation means fertility too (thank gawd there are a limited number of eggs in a woman), then birth rate per person may increase over time.

Sure, 1 or 2 children is the western standard these days, but that's because of the small window of opportunity.

There are going to be people, whose children left the nest, who get rejuvenated and who want a new child. If you live to 200, you might have children at 30-40, 60-70, 100-110, 150-160 (a 40 year gap!). OTOH maybe due to housing shortages having your 80 year old child hanging around home might put people off.

If you live to 1000? Even if you settle on a child a century, that's a lot of children.

Comment Re:Things to solve (Score 1) 253

I'm guessing that floating cities, hyper-stilted cities (shallow seas), transformed deserts, etc, would all occur anyway in the next 50-100 years.

Given a sudden lack of death in the world population (it would take a while in truth) that might buy a few decades on Earth.

It'd be a lot cheaper to allow colonists to take only digital property, personal tech, and some clothes - everything else they can get at their destination. Some of these things could be made in space rather than be lifted too.

Send the people who have lived a life, have extended it, and the price for extending it is being space colonists - Mars, Ceres, Titan, etc. Retire on Earth in a bungalow eating Soy-Lent watching NetFlix, or go into space rejuvenated by 20 years? They can build out space, and when disasters happen, at least the victims had already lived and understood the risk.

Sadly that leaves the rich people on Earth with their life extensions, just sucking up more and more money like the worthless financial black holes they are. They'll still be eating beef and ruling, and trying to stop progressive options like the above.

Comment Re:Things to solve (Score 1) 253

Most people currently live in a post-inheritance world - either they get funding from living parents, or unless the parents are particularly rich, retirement, health care, care homes, etc, grabs so much of what was built up in savings during life that anything that dribbles down to the children (who are already in their 40s to 60s by this stage) doesn't really pay for a lot so much so that many inheritances jump a generation now.

So IMO if you are relying on an inheritance to get on in life in the future, then you may be disappointed.

Note too that end-of-life treatment is the majority of the healthcare cost over a lifetime for most people. If this treatment can eventually be fairly cheap, then it may be better to always apply it to people rather than let them get close to dying and being costly. In that way, you will be hoping that rapid-death scenarios happen to keep some form of turnover in population - accidents, etc. Maybe older people bored with life will be encouraged to take riskier and riskier holidays...

Comment Re:Things to solve (Score 1) 253

You can't deny that moving excess people to various floating deadly rocks doesn't solve the overpopulation problem on Earth. The technology will evolve to get to these places over time, although getting it to affordable rates may take a lot longer.

It is likely that the birth rate would continue to drop as well, and with life expectancy extensions - in particular if women could stay fertile for longer (maybe difficult with the limited set of eggs they are born with, but I'm sure they can be kept around too) - it will likely extend even more, as people continue to stay children to older ages (both definitions of 'stay' apply here).

People would still die too, but that would move from ~70-80 years old to ~100-~120 years old on average initially. The concern is that the prolonging therapy evolves over time to be repeatable, and more effective, meaning people will live to a very very long time, and people may already be alive who will benefit from this.

I think there are strong arguments to society being stronger with new blood (to eradicate rich Trumps). So maybe forced exile to the stars once you hit a certain age is an idea. You've had a life, now continue it elsewhere building a new society from scratch, with all that experience you should have gained. And if it all goes tits up, hey, you did live a long time already, don't whine about it (not that your whines will be heard back in our solar system).

Funding mechanisms for the massive cost to society of people hanging around longer will need to be found. Fit for work doesn't mean much work will exist in the future due to automation...

That's if we're not all scrabbling for scraps in a post-Trump nuclear winter.

Slashdot Top Deals

The goal of science is to build better mousetraps. The goal of nature is to build better mice.

Working...