Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:What advantage does cutting off employees provi (Score 1) 76

Does this have a measurable advantage/merit?

Several:
      * Walking to a cafe in the next building and eating with co-workers is much faster than walking/driving to a restaurant some distance away. Plus employees tend to talk shop over lunch. => more working hours per day.
      * The company has some control over the food served, and can encourage healthier eating. => lower health care costs
      * For large campuses, the surrounding area simply cannot absorb that many people for lunch.
      * Happier employees (with more money in their pockets)
      * Catered meals for events are much cheaper.

Some years ago a company where I worked got rid of their nice coffee machine and replaced it with a cheap model that people hated. Many people started taking breaks to walk to a coffee shop a block away (30-60 minutes of lost work depending on the weather and context-switching), and morale took a big hit.

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 202

Do self driving cars need driver permits and insurance. Will they be allowed to drive at night or in the rain?

States are developing certification systems, so yes, there will be "driver permits", though I suspect they will be for the sensor/software combo rather than "per physical computer/driver".

All cars on the road need insurance, so yes. Self-driving cars will make many fewer mistakes than humans, but certainly not zero mistakes.

I don't see why they wouldn't be allowed to drive at night or in the rain? I mean, LIDAR is insanely better than human eyes in the dark. Rain is a challenge, but it's as hard for humans as computers. Plus computers, unlike humans, will be smart enough to slow down when visibility or road conditions are bad.

Comment Good (Score 4, Insightful) 202

This seems like an important next step. Expecting even a trained human to take over with only a few seconds (or less) leeway is crazy and cannot work.

I expect that these regulations will evolve a bit as we see which self-driving car developers can handle this and which ones cannot. There will likely be a few accidents, hopefully none serious. But since these cars have no egos and no temper, they're likely to drive far safer than the average human.

Comment Re:Companies doing fine; not comsumers (Score 1) 319

As others have said, it was tried in the 90s and worked perfectly (a real free market; real competition; more choices for consumers). Also lower profits for huge incumbent ISPs, which was not a goal but is a natural consequence of the other effects.

Those regulations only affected copper. Which is why Verizon and other baby bells moved most of their profitable areas to fiber, and sold off DSL in those areas. They can be as anti-competitive as they want with fiber.

I don't know the state of those regulations, but since Verizon stopped rolling out new fiber (except where Google Fiber is deployed) I suspect that the regulations ended. Maybe someone in that industry can say.

Comment Re:How were consumers not dong fine??? (Score 2) 319

For many years, whenever I wanted to watch netflix during peak time, the connection was laggy and low-quality. If I wanted to watch pay-per-view from my ISP (also a video provider, so a competitor to netflix) I always got perfect quality.

This was because my ISP purposely kept their bandwidth to netflix low. The other ISP in my area did the same thing.

So... there is a single example. You can never again say that you have never heard a single example.

I also recall a few cases of ISPs (who also sold telephone service) intentionally degrading VOIP connections.

Comment Re:Companies doing fine; not comsumers (Score 5, Insightful) 319

"Net Neutrality" became a thing as a result of Netflix trying (and failing) to bully Comcast into peering agreements by appealing to the public.

Yeah, I hate when huge companies bully helpless startups like Comcast.

A more accurate description: Comcast is being paid by you and me to deliver the internet, including netflix. But comcast sells movies, so netflix is a competitor. So they decided to limit the traffic from netflix to their customers, so that netflix movie quality would be terribly but comcast movie quality would be good.

Netflix offers free caches to solve this problem, and free peering to solve this problem, but comcast doesn't want to solve this problem, because to them it is a feature.

In a free market we could move to another ISP. In my case, I could also use Verizon... who is doing the same crap as comcast. ISPs are a natural monopoly, based on the economics and physics of running cables.

With net neutrality, all companies can compete based on quality. Without net neutrality, vertically-integrated ISPs have an major advantage. Now, you may like government picking winners and losers, but I'm a fan of market competition, so I choose net neutrality.

Comment Re:Replace it... with what? (Score 2) 895

Sorry, the reason she didn't want to talk about it was because it had a number of bombs in it that were timed to go off after elections. As they've went off, they have continued to propel the cost of insurance up astronomically.

What is amazing is that exactly zero predictions Republicans made about Obamacare came true. Zero. That's a truly amazing record. I don't think there has ever been a psychic with a worse record.

Healthcare.gov would never work? False. Nobody would sign up for the ACA? False. Only sick people would sign up? False. Would kill millions of jobs? How about that really low unemployment and many years of job growth! (Thanks Obama!) Would make employers make millions of jobs part-time-only? False. 30 million people would lose employer insurance? False. Death panels? I don't even... Would cause massive deficits? The deficit shrunk in real dollars every year that Obama was president.

"Propel the cost of insurance up astronomically"? Huh? Even with spikes in a few states health care costs are well below estimates from 8 years ago. Until Obamacare, health care costs were going up an average of 8% a year over the previous 30 years. They've gone up about 3-4% a year since. Sure, some of that was the recession, and there will be some corrections; we're seeing a few now. But that still puts costs far below expectations.

Pelosi said that people like you were telling lies about the ACA, but that once it was passed people would see through the lies. Guess what: People don't want to get rid of Obamacare! GOP officials are cancelling town halls because their fragile egos crack when they hear their constituents beg them to keep Obamacare. Every budget watchdog has warned that removing Obamacare will explode the deficit. The GOP has gone from "repeal" to "repeal and replace" to "repair" and now they're hoping they can just ignore it and let it continue.

Look, I realize that you actually believe the lies you repeat. But it's so easy to look at the actual facts. Please, please do so.

Comment Re:No. (Score 2) 895

Trumped up alternative facts don't last long in the face of the truth. Deal with it.

Things like birtherism, climate change denial, Benghazi, and anti-vax paint a different story, sadly. The only reason that birtherism and Benghazi have stopped mattering is because the targets have left positions of power.

Comment Re:So much winning... (Score 1) 895

no interest in prosecuting anyone whose name isn't Clinton, Warren, or Pelosi.

Only Warren and Pelosi; they stopped their muckraking campaign against Hillary the day after the election. There will be a few more accusing statements, since their fragile white herds must be pacified while they are pointed at a new target, but there will be no action.

Comment Re:Replace it... with what? (Score 4, Insightful) 895

Right. I mean, I can imagine those Republicans are so stupid that they'll come up with something and then say "duh, but, der, we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it". That'd be just like a stupid Republican, amiright?

I love that quote; it's an easy way to separate idiots from people who care about facts. Intelligent people listen to the two sentences before it and realize what Pelosi was saying. Idiot partisans just assume it means "we won't show you what's in this bill before we pass it, neener neener", and of course never look deeper because they're idiots.

I encourage you to look up the whole quote. Then think about where you first heard about this quote, and ask yourself why they lied about the meaning, and why you accepted it. Also ask yourself if listening to that source is a good idea. You won't, but since this country would be better off with fewer sheep and more thinkers, I feel that I should at least encourage you.

Comment Re:A more basic question (Score 1) 723

First, UBI studies have been done in the United States, with similar results. So I'm not sure why you wouldn't think they wouldn't generalize, unless you have never looked at those studies and just assumed.

Also: "one of those cultures and there is the basic social expectation that you of course want to contribute to society" sounds like the usual "anyone on welfare is lazy and deserves to be poor" whining I hear a lot. Folks in conservative states regularly do studies to show that most people on welfare are gaming the system. Have you ever heard of those studies? Likely not, because they always show that the fraud rate on welfare is quite low. "Improper payments" is about 10% of welfare funds, and that doesn't mean 10% fraud, that means 10% of funds are over- or under-paid; the percentage of money paid to lazy people gaming the system is far lower.

Oddly, the fraud rate for poor people on welfare is pretty similar for the fraud rate of rich doctors scamming medicare. Poor lazy people have the same fraud rate as smart rich doctors; do you put doctors in the "don't want to contribute to society" category too?

Comment Re:So what are the stats on /.? (Score 1) 174

Drinking absolutely pure water can hurt or kill you. In the same way, pure information, stripped of context, is as likely to mislead or confuse as help. For example, if I pick a specific range of years, I can "prove" that the climate change is making the earth hotter, colder, or is completely false. A bit of context (a graph showing a wider range of years) is far more accurate.

I use the name as part of the context of information. It's not the whole of the context; even mostly-truthful sources can be mistaken, and even mostly-false sources sometimes post truths. But it's a useful shorthand, because nobody has time to verify every fact. My experience is that those who claim they verify every fact are the least accurate, actually...

Also, if you can't be bothered to sign up for a mostly-anonymous account and have your current statement interpreted in light of your previous statements, then I don't see why I should take to time to read your opinion. Most people who don't want their statements connected are trolls, and I've got better things to do than deal with them.

Comment Re:A more basic question (Score 1) 723

The more money you give to people for free, the less work they'll do.

Interestingly, previous small-scale experiments have not really shown this; time spent working only decreased a small amount, and was mostly replaced with other useful activities (raising children or education). Do you think the previous experiments did not measure this, or do you think the results will not scale?

Which means the trade balance with other countries will worsen, and more of your tax money will escape.

That's a non-sequitur; trade balance doesn't seem tied to hours worked. It has some relation to economic output, but (with automated jobs) that is also not strongly tied to hours worked. Basically, how is our trade balance affected by how many workers vs robots are in a restaurant or in a factory? It is affected by how much consumers can spend, but UBI means that spending power is also less tied to hours worked.

Slashdot Top Deals

I am a computer. I am dumber than any human and smarter than any administrator.

Working...