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


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:I know I'm being selfish, but... (Score 1) 114

Since I'm NOT worried about whether the Gods are going to punish me, not worried about whether I'll make a kill on the next hunt, or if the flint spear I have will be good enough for the job... I'd say our system's working out fairly well. There's always room for improvement, though.

If you know where your next paycheck is coming from, if your basic needs are met and you can sleep without economic anxiety at night, You are the eight percent.

Damned right there's room for improvement.

Comment Re:This is pretty obvious. (Score 1) 114

Who would bet on self-driving cars that work safely and reliably in the next 20 years right now? It's always easy to wheel out some dandy-looking prototype that works fairly well 99% of the time. But that remaining 1% is what hurts you.

The sad part is that we have had the technology for self-driving vehicles since the 1800s. It is called rail.

Comment Re:I know I'm being selfish, but... (Score 1) 114

Can we just hold progress back another 40 years or so?

Sure. Just fight MGI/UBI/COLA and mission accomplished.

In an efficient world, the most talented people would produce the best stuff, and we would use it. In this world, everyone produces a lot of shit and only a few people get to use the best stuff because it is buried under feces.

You don't have to worry about finding your place in the world if your place in the world isn't tied to your economic output. You can simply exist. There is more than enough to go around if we cut out the waste simply for the purpose of waste.

Comment Re:Tesla (not the car company) (Score 1) 87

quote>That's interesting, where did he come up with those kinds of thoughts? How did he learn to tap into the other dimension?

He was born that way. I don't know that it came from any other dimension or anything, but the schematic for the practical production of AC current came to him in a vision while walking on the beach.

Comment Let me just decode this for you (Score 1) 48

Tesla notes in its press release: "Our Model 3 program is on track to start limited vehicle production in July and to steadily ramp production to exceed 5,000 vehicles per week at some point in the fourth quarter and 10,000 vehicles per week at some point in 2018.

"Limited vehicle production in July" means that they will make a few vehicles by hand and put them in the hands of customers. This is precisely what they did with all prior models.

"At some point in the fourth quarter" means in December, if then, since Tesla has a perfect record of being late.

"some point in 2018" means Q4 2018, again, if then.

This of course assumes that history will repeat itself, but it's been reliable so far.

Comment Re:not surprised (Score 1) 48

And, everything to this car is way more expensive than others. And body collision, even small will cost you $5K+ ~ $10K.

Well, no. You're just new. Honda made the first production car with body repair bills like that, the NSX. It was the first production vehicle with an all-aluminum unibody. I have an Audi A8, which is in exactly the same boat. It's from 1997. Get with the times, youngster.

Comment Re:First Ammendment (Score 1) 89

I understand that a stupid, young politician might make such an inane law but what really bothers me is that Jerry Brown (California Governor) actually signed the stupid law without any legal basis.

Jerry Brown is a piece of shit, and the starry-eyed idiots who supported him apparently forgot every way in which he proved it the first time he was in power. Arnie was actually a better gov because they wouldn't let him do anything big and bad, but they'll follow Moonbeam anywhere.

Comment Re:Cool? (Score 1) 89

I'm a pretty liberal dude - but this age-information-protection thing is the wrong role for any governance to be playing.

I'd go a step farther and say that the information-protection thing is the wrong role etc. I reject the notion that diplomacy can only be conducted by underhanded means. That might be true for tiny, powerless nations, but we are the world's big swinging dick, and that means we should be able to act scrupulously. With great power, great responsibility. Not just great opportunity to fuck everything.

It's just bad tactics too - objecting to information only spreads that information further (justly called the Streisand effect).

In short, any road which leads through suing your customers leads nowhere positive. Microsoft tried that, and look at where they are now: Waning.

Comment Re:Refillable packaging (Score 1) 86

Rather than working on ways to continue the level of waste we produce, why not make more products refillable?

Refillable packaging is a liability nightmare, so that is not going to happen. I'd just like to see non-recyclable plastic things outlawed, period. No making anything out of plastic and selling it into a market where it cannot be recycled. Glass was good because sand is an endlessly renewable resource. You can literally just take the glass out into the ocean and dump it. If you avoid toxic additives in the glass (and there are some, and there are alternatives) then there is basically zero environmental impact. The glass, in fact, turns back into sand over time. Recycling glass is a boondoggle — you really don't save any energy vs. making virgin glass. Meanwhile, all plastic bottles leach toxics into their contents.

Comment Re:TL;DR something you claim is cogent...? (Score 5, Informative) 123

The IAU spend months in total hashing out this issue and three days talking in meetings before the vote

That's just the issue: that's not what happened. The IAU discussion was a disaster. Here's the timeline:

2005: The IAU appoints a committee to investigate the issue and generate a proposal. The committee investigated the issue for a year.

The IAU meeting is scheduled from 14-25 August 2006.

16 August: The committee recommends a definition based on hydrostatic equilibrium. No "cleared the neighborhood" nonsense. They publish their draft proposal.

18 August: The IAU division of planetary sciences (aka, the people who actually deal with planets) endorses the proposal.

Also 18 August: A subgroup of the IAU formed which opposed the proposal. An astronomer in the group (aka, someone who studies stars, not planets) - Julio Ángel Fernández - made up his own "cleared the neighborhood" definition. While most of the membership starts to trickle away over the next week, they remain determined to change the definition.

22 August: The original, hydrostatic equilibrium draft continued to be the basis for discussion. There were some tweaks made (some name changes and adjusting the double-planet definition), but it remained largely the same.

Late on 22 August: Fernández's group manages to get to just over half of the attendance at the (open) drafting meeting, leading to a very "heated" debate between the two sides.

22 to 24 August: The drafting group begins to meet and negotiate in secret. The last that the general attendance of the conference knew, they'll either end up with a vote on a purely hydrostatic definition, or (more likely) no vote at all due to the chaos. Attendence continues to dwindle, particularly among those who are okay with either a hydrostatic definition or none at all.

24 August: The current "cleared the neighborhood" definition is suddenly proposed and voted on on the same day. Only 10% of the conference attendance (4-5% of the IAU membership) is still present, mainly those who had been hanging on trying to get their definition through. They pass the new definition.

It's not generally laypeople who are upset about how it went down, it's IAU members. Many have complained bitterly about it to the press. The IAU's own committee of experts was ignored, in favour of a definition written in secret meetings and voted on by a small, very much nonrandom fraction of people, the vast majority of whom do not study planets.

If there's one thing I hate, it's people who pretend that anyone who opposes the IAU definition does so because they're ignorant morons overcome by some emotional attachment to Pluto, when in reality it's been planetary scientists themselves who have been the definition's harshest critics, because it's an internally self-inconsistent, linguistically flawed, false-premise-based definition that leads to all sorts of absurd results and contradicts terminology that was already in widespread use in the scientific literature.

Slashdot Top Deals

"There is no statute of limitations on stupidity." -- Randomly produced by a computer program called Markov3.