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


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:Why do airlines overbook? (Score 1) 575

Your argument still makes no sense. Americans only put up with overbooking because they don't know there is a better way, yet you yourself point out JetBlue doesn't overbook.

Americans want airlines to overbook. They won't ever say it like that, but the evidence is clear. The benefits of overbooking to the consumer are large and the negatives are almost non-existent, because the airlines have become really really good at overbooking. Just look at the FAA stats for IDBs.

But, yes, I have zero illusion that you are ever going to understand this because of your personal preferences, which you have expressed repeatedly now. So I think we can move on.

Comment Re:For the millionth time on record (Score 1) 250

Wow. You proved my point and you think you destroyed me. This is why these discussions are pointless. You are living in a world where you assume all the methods make logical sense and don't even bother to proces the logic of the experimenter's (I use that term loosely here) train of thought and what assumptions he or she is knowingly or unknowingly just kind of waving away. And I can't get there. I'm stuck here pointing out that in every case we are simply modeling case A vs case B, and one of those cases never existed and could never exist because we are dealing with the alternative histories problem plus climate timescales. So it's impossible to know that your model for the null is correct, and it's quite debatable whether anyone has successfully modeled the climate that does exist, too. What you are hanging your hat on is exactly the bullshit I was referring to in my original reply.

You can choose to believe it. Lots of people believe plenty of things without compelling scientific evidence. And in cases where there is a risk of ruin (fat tailed), that's prudent. But what's perpetually annoying is that people like you pretend it's science, and your side does it so much you have lost all memory of what science really is, and lost all ability to think critically outside the groupthink.

Comment Re:Why do airlines overbook? (Score 1) 575

Look, you keep complaining about what Americans want and keep citing how much better service is in the rest of the world. It is clear you just aren't representative of the bulk of the US market. That's ok. As I explained before there are tons of options, including paying a bit more for domestic first class. Meanwhile, you should realize your view on this differs from the majority of US customers, so if I were you I would hesitate before asserting that I am wrong about US customers wanting airlines to overbook, especially since every airline does it and innovation in the US airline industry is almost exclusively focused on price. So you can keep replying and saying the sky isn't blue. But it stopped being interesting quite a while ago.

Submission + - Harvard Study Finds Increased Min Wage Causes Restaurant Failures (

mattwarden writes: A study by the Harvard Business School looked at the impact on city area restaurants when the minimum wage is increased. Restaurant failure rates were computed per star level. The highest tier restaurants (5 star) experienced no significant effect, perhaps because they have no minimum wage workers or have large enough margins to absorb the additional labor cost. Not so with the remainder. For example, median quality restaurants (3.5 star) experience a 14% increase in likelihood of failure with a minimum wage increase of $1/hr.

This does not necessarily mean unemployment increases, as the study looks through the lens of restaurant failures, and counteracting forces could lead to stable employment levels. However, the study does suggest minimum wage causes major disruption to the restaurant industry.

Comment Hindsight mocking and never learning (Score 1) 167

It's fun and easy to mock these cases in hindsight. What a bubble! Fake company! No revenue! Etc. And, I'm with you in the mocking. But what gets lost is that before the crash, really smart people bet on this company. I'm not talking about investors. A friend left his home city and great director-level job to take a higher level position in a new city at this company. He is a smart guy. He was excited. He truly believed he was making the clearly right decision.

My point is that if all we do is laugh, we don't recognize that we could have been my friend. We should be learning from this, not mocking it as a stupidity we could never run into ourselves.

Comment For the millionth time on record (Score 1) 250

For the millionth time on record, entities abuse the language of science to make unscientific claims to push a political agenda. The good news is this story can serve as a self assessment. If you find it remotely plausible that through science we have found evidence of this so compelling to overcome alternative explanations beyond tolerable error, then you now know you do not understand science. Metaknowledge is difficult to obtain, so this really is a uniquely valuable opportunity.

Comment Re:Different != more accurate (Score 1) 74

It's worse than that. The second doctor likely knows it's a second opinion. And you likely picked a doctor that might not give you the same diagnosis (otherwise, why waste the money to likely hear the same thing again?). Tons of biases here. My question is always: do journalists repeating this know the these things, which are pretty basic, and just don't care because it fills pages and gets clicks? If so, there is something evil about taking advantage of Average Joe's lack of statistical/logical knowledge to make money by making them come to the wrong conclusions. If not, wow journalists are dumb.

Comment Re:Different != more accurate (Score 2) 74

As usual, journalists and /. submitters knowingly or unknowingly use statistics and data to imply things they don't actually imply. Here, we are trying to suggest there is a high error rate in medical diagnoses. But the rate of different diagnosis given you seek a second opinion is not at all the same as the base rate of a different diagnosis if randomly selected individuals (or everyone) sought a second opinion. You seek a second opinion when you don't like the first opinion, or when it's so serious and you had some reason to doubt or you hope you have a reason to doubt. The second doctor likely knows this is a second opinion, either because you told him/her or because he/she can see it in your medical records. And you may have sought out a doctor you know will think differently. For a similar example, many chiropractors tell you to talk to them before back surgery. Not quite the same thing, but if you go there, you know what they are going to tell you in every case except when the X-ray shows it would be dangerous to perform chiropractic adjustments.

So what does this rate tell you? Not much. It certainly doesn't suggest the second opinion is correct. And it doesn't tell you much if anything about the base diagnosis error rate.

Comment Re:Why do airlines overbook? (Score 1) 575

I have no idea what you're talking about. Almost every airline allows you to pay an extra $500 to ride in first class, and it's a much better experience. But most people are not willing to pay that, so first class seats are mostly filled by people getting upgraded in exchange for loyalty, which generally means paying an extra $50-100 per ticket to stick to one airline rather than picking the cheapest for your route. We have tons of options if you want to pay more for comfort, flexibility, and certainty. Airlines have like 20 fare classes where you can choose the rules you want to abide by. So whining about the rules and pretending you don't have full control over those rules by paying something more than the lowest available fare class is either your ignorance on how airlines work or just willful denial because you want to blame "that corporations!!!!" for only being able to fly anywhere you want for next to nothing using under whatever rules you desire. Ok...

And maybe first class isn't good enough for you. Maybe you want an even nicer experience where your short girlfriend is massaged in her seat. Well, there are only about a gazillion charter and private airlines in the US. For most people this isn't an option, because it turns out planes are expensive and operating them is expensive and maintaining them is expensive and landing fees at airports are expensive and security is expensive and paying commercial pilots is expensive and keeping them current on their type ratings, medicals, sim time, etc is expensive and complying with FAA regs is expensive and they end up in a totally different league cost wise compared to the highly efficient large commercial airlines.

So it's clear to me you have no idea what you're talking about and have onidea how good you have it and how amazing it is that $300 gets you anywhere in the US on a safe plane.

But I will give it one more shot. Suppose you get your own pilots license (to fly a small single engine plane). And you rent a Cessna and want to go somewhere, say, 500 mi away. Because it's you, you don't have to pay a pilot. You can leave from a regional GA airport, so no fees. You can even land at a regional GA airport, so likely no fees. All you're paying for is gas and plane rental. It will take you about 2-3x longer to get to your destination, plus 90 mins or so for preflight planning and inspection, but ignoring all that... you will still pay at least twice the cost for the round trip than if you bought a commercial airline ticket.

Perhaps that gives you some remote idea of how efficient commercial airlines are and how much you would need to pay to have the experience you are imagining... ...which, as I have said above, YOU CAN ALREADY DO TODAY.

Slashdot Top Deals

The way to make a small fortune in the commodities market is to start with a large fortune.