Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Convenience for ALL (Score 1) 19

Closed source, open source, half-way open source - they all have holes the size of the Titanic, and are casing our privacy to sink to the bottom of the ocean.

Are you trying to say, governments haven't spied on and persecuted opponents before these modern-day conveniences appeared?

The problem is our dependence on these "conveniences" we can now not live without.

We can live without them, but the life will be, wait for it, less convenient.

They make living more comfortable. For everyone — including the spies.

Comment Re:Climate Non-Science (Score 1) 388

1 degree of global warming isn't enough for you?

No, it is not enough. Because there are legitimate questions as to how it is measured, how the measurements are calibrated (including the scandal of some raw data disappearing), and what swings are normal. For example, Tasmania used to be connected to Australian mainland not too long ago. It is now an island. Do you think, the shamans of the aborigines living there blamed the sins of their contemporaries for the rising seas back then? Same question about Kodiak archipelago — it used to be reachable from Alaska, but is not any more. The Kodiak bears are now considered different species from mainland grizzlies... Is humanity to blame for that?

And there is a big difference in falsifiability

You try to find a prediction by "climate scientists", that uses a falsifiable "will" instead of the evasive non-falsifiable "may"... The scarcity of such statements itself is an indication, of the state of this sorry non-science... What you can find is as scientific and meaningful as the Geico's commercials: "15 minutes could save you up to 15% or more..."

If you ever found a point where the teachers told you the equivalent of 2+2=5, you could point that out to the world

I don't need to find errors — the purported "scientists" need to demonstrate, their discipline is really a science. And the only way to do that is by showing useful predictions, that have come true. I'm yet to see any.

Try it yourself: assemble a list of link-pairs:

  1. The first link in each pair shall be to the prediction.
  2. The second link each pair shall be to confirmation of the prediction materializing within, say 20% of the predicted value(s), if quantifiable.
  3. The link-targets in each pair must be several years apart — predicting tomorow's weather, for example, would not count.
  4. The prediction must be somewhat meaningful: a promise, that it will get hotter or colder, is not acceptable.

Give it your best... Can you offer at least 3 such link-pairs?

Submission + - Making one-on-one meetings actually USEFUL

Esther Schindler writes: All too often, managers and team members reject a regular check-in because they think it's a waste of time. But when done well, one-and-one meetings are a great way to build trust and rapport. That weekly time slot is a predictable time for feedback and coaching. Even when a manager and team member get along well, a regular one-on-one is an opportunity to impart information privately, to raise emotional issues before they fester, to address career challenges, and to help managers make better decisions with team input.

But way too often, those manager-and-team-member meetings are a waste of time. Here's three ways they go wrong.

Comment Re:How the hell (Score 1) 119

offer 20$ of rides free as introduction offer, undercut taxis by subsidizing rides

Does this mean, eventually, uber fares == taxi fares, when the subsidizing stops?

No, they'll be far more expensive if everything stays the same. Taxi drivers make very little and most taxi companies are run on shoestring margins (sometimes for a lot of money because of volume, but still very low margins), and they're selling a far lower quality product in most markets.

Comment Re: I would invest (Score 1) 119

Don't forget that they're also screwing the city by putting lots of wear and tear on the streets without generally paying any commercial fees/taxes that would otherwise go to offset that damage - street infrastructure is stupid-expensive and they're basically using it for free (individual car fees are generally much lower on the expectation that you're not spending all day driving around downtown).

Comment Re:The losing side must automatically pay (Score 1) 205

Which means the winning side runs up legal fees until the loser goes right out of business.

My proposal explicitly included the vetting of the winner's expenses by the judge... He can trim them, if he suspects abuse or some such.

The point is, currently, the winner needs to file a separate lawsuit seeking legal expenses compensation. This is too costly and time consuming in itself — the award should be an automatic part of the conclusions.

Comment Re:The losing side must automatically pay (Score 1) 205

And then you're back to the problem of wealthy companies/individuals who can afford expensive legal teams, intimidating poorer, lesser funded individuals who can't afford good legal support

My way, the poor side can reclaim its expenses upon winning.

The current way, the poor side will be bankrupt even if it wins, which is exactly, what allows for the intimidation you denounce.

Comment Re:The losing side must automatically pay (Score 1) 205

No one would ever dare to sue any corporation

Why not? If you are so sure of your case and/or can find a deep-pocketed sponsor (such as described in TFA). But, if you aren't sure, you would not file your stupid suit — thus lowering the legal insurance fees for the corporations and lower prices for their products/services for the rest of us.

because if they lost they would be broke after paying the legal fees of the corporate lawyers

I did allow for the judge to review the expenses claimed by the winner — to prevent abuses.

Comment Re:Man up, NASA. (Score 1) 103

To be fair the article summary above makes it sound like a computer glitch, so if you just went with the slashdot summary and quote I can understand the confusion. From the article it indicated that there was a sensor malfunction (not necessarily a computer malfunction) which means it couldn't autonomously point itself at the sun anymore. Leading to the solar panels not getting enough direct sunlight and thus draining the battery. The computer startup just means it will then consume power more quickly than the solar panels can produce it at the wrong angle to the sun and the battery will drain in a couple minutes again and the computer will automatically shutdown.

Really all we are talking about is whether the computer can boot up quickly enough and whether they can send something like:

1010 Fire thruster X for 23 milliseconds
1020 wait 500 milliseconds
1030 Fire thruster y for 22 milliseconds

(My BASIC is a little rusty though ;)

Assuming they know a precise orientation of the craft when they send the commands they should be able to at least point the craft more towards the sun. Maybe not 100% optimally, but enough to get net power to the computer and maybe begin to charge up the battery. Of course without more information from the computer they probably don't know much about the state of the systems. It could just not work if there are more malfunctions, so there is substantial unknown risk mitigated by the fact that they have already lost the use of the probe so they have everything to gain from the success of a best attempt.

This is all about observation, timing, communication, making some educated guesses, keeping the execution simple to keep it within the estimated window of opportunity and a lot of triple checked math to come up with the correct numbers to send based on all the available information.

Slashdot Top Deals

Introducing, the 1010, a one-bit processor. 0 NOP No Operation 1 JMP Jump (address specified by next 2 bits)