Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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 Re:Who owns the trucks (Score 1) 615

>> Would a dog have stopped Andreas Lubitz?

Depends. Which one?

>> There are so many things wrong with your premise

OK. Please point the many other things wrong out to me.

>> there will be no independent truckers, the "Walmart" of automated trucking will make sure of that

Ah, now I get it. Fear is nothing to be ashamed of - just don't pretend it defines a reality the rest of us live in

Comment Who owns the trucks (Score 1) 615

Don't (at least some) truck drivers own their truck?

Buy an autonomous truck, sit back and rake in the dough.

A good model would be to train some drivers in maintenance and repair. It's like the old automated plane joke - there will be a pilot and a dog, the pilot to make sure nothing goes wrong and the dog to bite the pilot if he touches anything

Comment Stop being an obnoxious tech snob (Score 2) 809

You post two examples of questions you asked your applicants.

Exactly zero of them applied directly to the actual work they would be doing.

I am fucking sick and tired of being asked moronic questions during interviews - and horrified when people I work with ask them. Why do you feel the need to show people how much they don't know, and pretend you are smarter than them?

If you want to pretend to want to find out how smart your applicant is, by all means continue. Otherwise just administer an IQ test and have them write some code related to the product they will be working on. Then, for gods sake, ask them about themselves.

The interview is not about you -- it's about the applicant. When you find a decent one you do want *them* to actually want to work with *you* right?

Comment Re:Little disturbing (Score 1) 491

I hear ya. But let me ask you this - are the insurance companies going to pay life insurance claims based on the evidence being used to make this announcement?

I'm not saying they need to find bodies, but appearing to simply rely on this new data analysis just feels wrong. The way I read this was that, based on this new analysis the plane was in the southern corridor and based on that "ping arc" they were not near land. Therefore everyone is dead.

I mean, that is my point. I am not saying the analysis is wrong, just that it felt weird to me that they announced all were lost due to that piece of information. Do you really tell family members that everyone is dead without having found wreckage? That just struck me as, at the very least, poor PR timing and at worst trying to sweep all of this away.

asmkm22 makes a good point, the Malaysian government is probably not used to the pressure of criticism and they just want this over with. Which, if true, makes this deplorable conduct.

Comment Had this conversation a million times... (Score 4, Funny) 505

Me: "Here's a pen dad, sign the picture for them"
Dad: "Why do they want my signature?"
Me: "You were an astronaut when you were younger, you went to the moon"
Dad: "What?"
Me: "Yes, you went to the moon."
Dad: "We've been to the moon? That is amazing!!!"
Me: "Yes Dad, and *you* have been to the moon"
Dad: "*I've* been to the moon?!?"
Me: "Absolutely, see that picture you are signing? That is you"
Dad: "OK. Why am I signing this?"
Me: "Your were an astronaut when you were younger, you went to the moon" ...

Slashdot Top Deals

A university faculty is 500 egotists with a common parking problem.