Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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 No excuse (Score 1) 173

A quick google search shows that there are, by the most wild estimate, 600 people on the planet, at most, who are over the age of 110. More like 150 to 300.

Yes we know that people who are very old are rare. Rare does not equal nonexistent. At least in the US denying someone service on account of age is a civil rights violation. The fact that it is a rare problem does not excuse them from failing to deal with the problem properly.

Raising the age to 130 just means there's an extra 20 years of potential pension fraud or incorrect payments.

That is not and should never be the problem of the customer. The bank can suck it up and deal with the problem in other ways. Go visit the customer if they are that worried about it. Old people often need help anyway.

Comment Sanity checks (Score 1) 173

Probably because it's not arbitrary; most people don't live to be 110, and everybody knows you're supposed to perform sanity checking. According to a quick google search (the height of scholarly rigor,) there's maybe 300 people in the world who are older than 110 years. The most wild estimate is 600.

Ok so then why was that sanity check not performed? It seems obvious that the system should be able to handle ages that people have actually reached even if only on occasion. 130 would have covered it at least for the time being and the programmers could have figured that out with about 60 seconds research on google.

On the other hand, fraud is a real thing, not to mention straight up human error; somebody dies, they don't get taken out of the system, so the money keeps going out.

Not a valid excuse to deny someone service who has done nothing wrong. Plenty of other and better ways to deal with the fraud problem.

Comment Accidental rules (Score 3, Insightful) 173

Programmers don't generally throw in arbitrary rules like that...

Like hell they don't. They do it all the time unintentionally and sometimes very much intentionally. The entire Y2K problem was from tens of thousands of programmers arbitrarily taking short cuts in their programming creating arbitrary rules in regards to what seemed like corner cases at the time. Happens all the time, especially when the programmers don't fully understand the problem they are being asked to solve. The software we use to run our company is positively riddled with arbitrary restrictions which interfere with the efficient conduct of our business. The guys who programmed it are smart enough and decent folks but they don't actually use the software themselves so they don't really understand the limitations they are creating along the way.

I'd say it's more likely they were given a specific business rule that prevented people over 100 from claiming pension cheques to reduce a fraud vector.

Highly unlikely. Laziness and/or incompetence are far more likely origins of this problem.

Comment From the fiction section of the library (Score 0) 173

What DO they teach them in Sunday School these days...

Fiction. But nobody really reads or even really believes the bible anymore anyway. People just pick and choose the bits of it to follow that suit their particular sensibilities and pretend that only those bits are the "word of god". In fact most of them don't even read the bits they follow. Someone else reads those bits and that someone else tells them what they want them to mean. Must be nice to have a world view unencumbered by evidence or logic or responsibility...

Comment Private sectors wastes money too (Score 3, Insightful) 61

This looks like another conservative trope about how the Federal Government wastes money, and somehow the private sector never does.

Arguably the private sector wastes FAR more money than the government does. 90+% of new businesses fail. Even the most successful companies make investments constantly that don't all pan out. The difference is usually that we have a lot less visibility into their failures nor do we have a lot of say over them unless we are investors. We are all "investors" in a sense in the government so we are a lot more sensitive to government waste as a result. But to pretend that the private sector is universally more efficient at everything is just demonstrably absurd. There are some tasks the government is far more efficient at than the private sector and vice-versa. The key is to know which is which and to not conflate the two.

Comment Was it obvious at the time? (Score 2, Insightful) 61

I fucking care. NASA gets less money every year from the US government. I'd prefer they don't waste it on stupid space suits they have no need for.

The question is whether it was obviously wasteful at the time the decision was made to fund the suit development. I don't know the answer to that either way but it's unfair to judge in hindsight if it wasn't clear at the time. R&D isn't some magic results dispenser that money in equals results out. Sometimes we pay a lot of money to learn what doesn't work. That's useful too though admittedly frustrating at times.

I'd prefer NASA be spending their limited budget on more robotic probes, since they have had excellent success with those so far, than some stupid goal of putting more very fragile and relatively useless meatbags in space.

And I feel that NASA should be spending more money putting humans into space and that we get huge value from doing so. Want to know the fun bit? We're both right. The difference is that I think we should be fighting to get more NASA funding and you apparently are meekly accepting the status quo. I want more humans in space AND more robots.

You're drawing a false equivalency. Yes, Trump is wasting a massive amount of tax payer dollars on his useless golf trips. But this money wouldn't go to NASA anyway.

It's not a false equivalency and you seem to have missed the point. And nobody argued that Trumps wasted money was going to go to NASA so that is a strawman. Waste is waste and tax dollars spent are fungible. Trump flying to his resort to play golf and line his own pocket is very obviously wasteful and unnecessary and arguably violates the emoluments clause of the Constitution. A decision to invest in a space suit that in hind sight we didn't need is waste of a different sort but still waste. Though I would argue a FAR more acceptable sort of waste. At least the space suit development was an attempt to do something potentially valuable to the taxpayers even if it didn't work out and we probably learned something useful in the process.

Comment Re:It's not just money (Score 1) 182

Actually you can. The use of power tools doesn't eliminate the possibility of precision. Anyone that's been forcibly subjected to shop class can attest to this.

It's pretty easy to isolate different requirements for different class of operators.

Not that I buy for a minute that any part of a Trump administration gives a sh*t about "the little guy".

Comment Re:prediction... more good comments... not (Score 2) 426

Here it is then. A straight up conspiracy to temporarily resuscitate coal mining so the crap investment can be dumped on pension funds and gullible mug punters. It seems the rich and greedy held on too tightly to those coal investments, hence the need for a major conspiratorial pump and dump. The reason why coal will crash, simply to environmentally damaging from carbon to coal ash, it simply is an ancient energy source that should have been abandoned years ago and they know it, hence the need for a major pump and dump. So yep economic and environmental (do I get bonus points).

Comment Re:Opposite (Score 0) 487

Make no mistake they will be retiring younger than the current norm, they will just be retiring into poverty, unwanted and abandoned by a psychopathic capitalist society, unless change is forced. Now that is something millennial are waking up to. Once they are no longer desirable they will be tossed on the scrap heap unless they fight back now.

Comment Re:Money (Score 1) 182

It would prove Trump is an idiotic orange orangutan if he stupidly destroyed exactly what got him elected in the first place. Without net neutrality Trump would have been dead in the water, how much would any individual have to spend when their digital data could be put in the slow lane, enough to buy the company who purposefully put it in the slow law. As a cartels they can not silence content with net neutrality laws in place, else they would traffic they want to censor for what ever reason the slowing to zero lane. If Trump wants to prove himself an idiot and be slowly basted in the fire of public condemnation, then he is foolishly welcome to do so, the law would be changed back anyhow, so kind of stupidly pointless, except to formet public outrage and put another nail in the Republican political coffin (having temporary political dominance is no reason to become politically stupid, if you do not say no to idiot demands, you will lose and lose badly, very badly, at least make it a challenge else it's just not fun anymore).

Comment Re:We need enforced standards (Score 1) 84

Wikileaks through the efforts of Julian Assange and the rest of the Wikieleaks team and, we know that the US governments consider every single person on this planet as a person of interest, someone who might need to be controlled, a potential target and they did disclose their intent to specifically target political activists for thought crimes.

Lets be blunt, you idiots worry about facial recognition at a sporting venue, what the fuck do you think they have been doing with your smart phones and passwords when they leave you sight as customs, taking data off, get real, putting stuff on is their goal, total control with total data, we are talking seriously sick psychopathic fuckers and not tomorrow but yesterday, in fact operating for years and years. Want to know slavery go cashless socities with mobile monitors and controls, George Orwell could not even dream of what is actually being constructed by an extremely corrupt US government.

Comment Re:lack of socialization: evolutionary disadvange (Score 1) 102

It's called evolution in action. Those who do not want human companionship are very unlikely to breed, those who want human companionship, especially of the other sex are very likely to breed. Hence not the problem it is made out to be. Unless you use donation and artificial wombs, then what function you are attempting to achieve will be achieved. So the choice really is Planned Parenthood or the Idiocracy.

Social people will seek social interaction, especially at times of need, so human provided medical services with computer generated supervision of those services. Policing interactions again with computer generated supervisions services. Then there are the other logical ones, like education, citizen government interaction and of course government. Sure computer provided supervision of those interactions with the consent of the human parties involved but people will inevitably want to deal with people, even if they might not want to do so too often ie parenthood being too often for some (unwilling to make the sacrifice, they fuck off with your ego and don't play the game - sometimes the truth is brutal). Hence over time the problem continually presents and resolves itself, as long as stupid attempts to feed psychopathic or narcissistic ego are simply forbidden, else extremely negative outcomes become the norm, like our current era.

Slashdot Top Deals

The wages of sin are unreported.