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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Not super surprising (Score 1) 53

You just made a fallacy. Global warming is not binary. A 3 warming is much worse than a 2 warming.
And we must do both, reduce emissions and adapt to the warming.

I agree, we should do both, although I feel a more accurate ratio would be 20 warming with little work on reducing emissions, and 18 warming with significant emission reduction by developed nations. We need to realize only about 15% of the world's population can be considered developed, and almost no matter what we do emissions will skyrocket as the other 85% catches up over the next 100 years. I hesitate to say reducing emissions in a significant way is hopeless, but that is nearly the case.

Comment Re:I wonder.. (Score 1) 53

It is inevitable that as any country becomes "developed", the size of their market will be highly correlated to their population. My country (the US) likes to think its something intrinsic about our people or society which has made us #1, but by far the most important thing going for us is a large developed population under the control of a strong single government.

It is no small feat to contain a 300+ million educated and developed population under a single unified society. Russia failed in the 80's, Europe is really struggling keeping the EU unified today, and the US went through a civil war and its hard to see a perfectly unified society in our current political climate. I believe China will have a harder time keeping control than any of my earlier examples, but even multiple fractured Chinese states would have significant economic power.

Projecting out world politics 50+ years into the future is impossible, but ultimately the largest and most unified markets will win economically. The winner could be a unified and developed China, a merged Euro-American market, or any number of other options. This is why the protectionist trend in my country is so troubling, but luckily these factions are rarely successful politically.

Comment Re:Gattaca (Score 1) 228

That's just it, the fear (or mine at least) isn't that they'll perfect the technique, but that they will try to use it anyway. It may become a means of discrimination that they can utilize to justify hiring and promoting who they want.

We already have laws which require employment tests to have a demonstrable link between the test and ability to perform job functions, as well as criteria for determining whether a particular set of criteria have an adverse affect on a protected group. If you are worried these laws won't be applied properly, that is no different than worrying about abuses such as asking American Football related questions to weed out immigrants.

I certainly agree people will try to get around employment laws, just like they already try today. But systemic problems such as those portrayed in Gattaca should not be used a realistic future possibilities. We have had these types of employment abuses handled in our laws since 1971

Comment Re:Ummm (Score 3, Informative) 228

Using IQ tests, or any other test for general intelligence, is ILLEGAL in America [].

That is not true. That ruling simply ensures that employment tests provide a demonstrable link between the test and ability to perform job functions. In this case any high school graduate could complete the job (and probably even that is an unnecessary requirement). IQ tests are generally regarded as poor choices for employment related tests, but they are not illegal.

Comment Re:Gattaca (Score 3, Interesting) 228

Apparently Gattaca is not as far off as I would have thought.

Gattaca simply took a concept which is almost certain to happen and took it to an illogical extreme to create drama and conflict. Not unlike many sci-fi books and movies. I haven't read any scientific literature claiming we will ever be able to use genetic testing to perfectly determine someone's capabilities, as explicitly shown in Gattaca by interviews consisting of only a genetic test. Nurture still has an effect, so genetics will only ever be one of many factors.

Comment Re:Ummm (Score 2) 228

There are laws that prevent employers from considering health, gender, religious views, and other deeply personal attributes when hiring a candidate. I don't see how this could possibly be allowed in the future (unless our laws change).

Genetic testing is simply an egregiously extreme version of attempting to determine how smart, hard working, determined, etc. a candidate is, which is allowed by our current laws. If a company cannot use genetic markers which signify greater intelligence (if such a thing even exists), why would they be allowed to use an IQ test or school grades, or any other indication used to guesstimate a candidate's intelligence?

I think new laws will be needed to stop abuses, because I'm not convinced our current employment laws are enough to stop abuse.

Comment Re:pixel (Score 1) 212

My question was primarily this - what are the 70% of Note users who are not switching to the iPhone 7 doing? People buy a Note because they want a phablet. They aren't going to downgrade to a smaller phone, most likely.

That is exactly the problem my wife had with replacing her Note 7. There simply are no competing products for the Note. She either had to downgrade to a 5.5" screen with no stylus, or go back to a Note 4/5. It is quite painful to pay $700+ for a phone released a year ago, so she went with a $250 refurbished Note 4.

In the end this fiasco cost us about $50 and a lot of hassle, since we traded in her old Note 4 for only $200.

Comment Re:Too Late (Score 1) 394

I know Gary Johnson isn't likely to win, but if he gets close to 10% of the vote it'll change the entire scope of all future elections.

This is why I'm close to wanting a civics and history test to determine who is allowed to vote (which needs to be taken more recently than an 8th grade civics test). Anyone who thinks a third party candidate getting 10% of the vote would change anything about modern elections doesn't even remember the last 25 years of presidential elections. Ross Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992 without causing any of the political upheaval you are hoping for.

Young voters, or simply uneducated older voters, need to learn what a Plurality voting system with First Past the Post voting is, and how it works. They need to learn the difference between a voting system where coalitions are built before the election and represented by two parties containing multiple voting blocs (like the US), and one which allows for more than two parties but which requires a coalition to be built after elections (with less input and control from the voters). There are pros and cons on both sides.

Comment Re:Economic growth (Score 1) 121

The benefits of that economic growth will almost exclusively go to billionaires who contribute to to their campaigns and foundations.

And just like today, one of the political parties will confuse the issue by starting an anti-AI bandwagon just like we see done with anti-Globalization today. Instead of dealing with the income inequality created by AI (like with globalization) they will distract voters by blaming the technology. And then you'll have a new generation of politicians pretending they can put the genie back in the bottle just to get votes from the uneducated while still keeping their donors happy.

Comment Re:Extremely ignorant (Score 4, Interesting) 523

What's your point? A lot of people feel like that's exactly the kind of president we need right now. There is a lot of stuff to rebuild within our own borders so we don't need to worry about how other people around the world are living their lives. We are not the world police.

This is one example of how poorly educated most voters are. Foreign policy is one of the few parts of our government where the President has a great deal of control. With the exception of supreme court justices, foreign policy, and the military, all other talking points are mostly irrelevant since Congress is responsible for most domestic issues.

Slashdot Top Deals

I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky