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 TFA ignored obvious facts (Score 4, Insightful) 185

In addition to your irony, TFA ignores some pretty important facts. In the 1970s we had Math, Engineering, and Physics. There was no such thing as a CS degree. One learned to code because it helped your education, not because it was seen as a cash cow specialty. The successful coders may not have all completed a degree, but were all the brightest of the bunch in College. If they left without a degree it was by choice, not because they lacked aptitude to finish.

Let me use a Basketball analogy. Linked in believes that anyone can be Shawn Kemp, or another player that never played college ball and was not highly educated. In reality, the Shawn Kemp like people are extremely rare. About 1 in a billion.

Can linked in find people "good enough" to get a job done without? Probably, but I would rather have people better than "good enough" as a hiring manager.

Comment Re:Your dictionary is broken (Score 1) 463

Are you being intentionally ignorant or do you believe somehow a regulation can function exactly like a law? Agencies pass their own regulations with their own penalties and fines. As with any other law, if you believe a "regulation" hams you, you must take it to the Judicial branch for resolution.

Comment Re:Your dictionary is broken (Score 1) 463

The whole point of Agencies is that the 3 Branches of Government have no control. EPA, FDA, DoA, etc.. all pass laws without using the Constitutional process. Political appointees at the top have "some" impact, but there is no Congressional oversight for laws and regulations passed by these agencies.

Comment Your dictionary is broken (Score 1) 463

Try Cambridge or something reputable instead of what ever you used to find the list of synonyms and rubbish.

[ C/U ] us /trni/
social studies - Unlimited authority or use of power, or a government which exercises such power without any control or limits

When a Government is described as a tyranny, the definitions for tyrant (singular) do not apply. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that English is not your first language.

Comment Right, and then horse shit (Score 1, Informative) 463

You correctly arrived at one response, that nothing you do now will change the inevitable failure of coal.

My crystal ball does not work well enough to say that coal will die. Propagandists make the claim, I wait for what really happens. That is called reality.

You incorrectly think that market failures for growing new energy are unusual. The major thing that kept renewables down for so long was access to capital. When most nations and corporations started investing capital in renewables, costs dropped. It's how capitalism works.

I made no such claim, but your claim is a flat out lie. Subsidies have been poured into alternative energy, and this is still happening at massive scale. Take away the tax credits, incentives and subsidies and alternatives would not be able to compete with the exception of nuclear power. Wind requires massive amounts of land, and solar is still not cost effective for about a decade and panels don't last that long. We have certainly seen improvements, but the push to _use_ is not coming from the market but Government regulations and policies. Not Capitalism, but Tyranny (text book definition).

As to your own rates, that's probably because you haven't taken control of your own energy production, and built your own renewables, like a true capitalist would. You probably depend on Big Government for your energy supply for the most part.

Energy production in the US is run and regulated by Federal and State authorities. Capitalism is not at play here, though in certain areas you may be permitted to install Solar panels. This reduces some costs, but lacks storage which you would not be allowed to build due to regulation. As with above, this is not Capitalism but Tyranny.

Comment Re:Total regulatory impact 2-3 percent (Score 1, Insightful) 463

Great, then the market will kill off coal and we don't need propagandists or Government regulation forcing behavior. Obama and Hillary said flat out that they were putting Coal out of business by regulation and taxes, which we know as tyranny.

I have no problem with the best solution winning, but I certainly have a problem with Government agencies full of unaccountable appointees deciding who wins and loses.

Did anyone get a check back from Obama after the Solyndra bail-out fiasco? Nope. As with all of these interventionist policies, the only people who made money off the tax payer were cronies who voted for them. The Government sucks at picking winners and losers among themselves, let alone a business.

As to TFA's claim, if cheap energy is here why have my rates gone considerably higher, triple in December/Jan/Feb as most Californian's saw? Come tell me what will and won't work when you get back to planet Earth.

Comment Re:Cause/consequence relation ship. (Score 1) 268

Leftist politics causes homelessness yes. It was Leftists who shut down mental institutions and left the mentally challenged on the streets. Welfare in it's current form provides incentives for people not to work. Leftists pushed for no fault divorce, promote abortion, pushed to break up families, etc...

The strongest Leftists happen to be Democrats, but there are certainly leftists inhabiting the Republican party as well.

Comment You don't get out much (Score -1, Troll) 268

Those same kinds of people are in all of the big cities. SF, LA, Chicago, Detroit, NYC, all full to the brim with ridiculous amounts of homeless people sleeping on the sidewalks, defecating and peeing everywhere, accosting people at random, often committing open crimes like shoplifting.

Democrat run cities seem to be the worst, you can check the stats on that one.

Comment Jay should have a choice shouldnt he? (Score 1) 513

start by lowering full time hours / making OT cost alot.

Why should jay have to work 60-80+ hours a week doing the work of 3 people for the pay of 1?

When we can fill that job with 3 people working about 30 hours each?

Jay wants to work extra hours for extra money. If Jay didn't do the job the company would pay more money for more people to do the work. Or perhaps not, perhaps they would continue to hire more and more Jays failing each time. Maybe they would hire Jay back at a higher rate with better benefits because he's a good worker. No matter what way, the Market should handle the circumstance and reward workers and companies who take care of workers. The answer is not having Government agencies regulating Joe out of a job.

Socialism and Communism don't promote or incentivize job performance. Hence why even Russia and China went to a partial market economy.

Overall UBI won't work. The only way to pay people to do nothing is to take money from people who do. You see how well that's working for Venezuela right now right? Some places can play games for a while to make things appear better, but ask France, Greece, Spain, Italy, etc.. how that is working out for them. Before you say "but.. Germany" remember that Germany is not only a Market economy, but collecting shit-tons of interest from all of the nations in the EU who had to take out loans. (See the list of countries in the previous sentence).

Comment Re:Flying Law Mower (Score 1) 148

Not an exaggeration at all, you just need to do some hunting for information. Drones generally don't lead to fatalities, but lost limbs and mangled body parts. I gave one you can look for, but plenty of articles on damage from accidental drone collisions with bystanders. It's not usually the hobbyist pilots getting hurt.

Comment Especially when (Score 4, Insightful) 206

You travel overseas. AT&T makes this very simple and has deals with local phone companies in ever country I, and people I know, have traveled. It took all of 2 minutes to enable, and while perhaps a few bucks more than some of the other methods required nothing extra. No hardware swapping, no hassle.

Prices have come down recently, which made me happy. Price was my only knock against AT&T, and I have been a customer since the iPhone 3 which had no choice but AT&T.

Comment Re:Flying Law Mower (Score 1) 148

I see myself more as a realist than altruist, but the latter has to be somewhat true for the former to be true. *shrug* I'm simply being realistic about this product. It's not a car, and I don't find any appeal at all other than "I can afford it". Which will as they show will sell to someone who can afford to sit in a boat on an empty mountain lake. It won't address any of the problems with SF, or LA (I live in SF and know the suckass commute first hand). With all the pedestrians in SF they would not (and should not) be allowed on a road without massive safety improvements. It won't get you home any safer or faster than a car, and without luggage space you can't even bring home your groceries. I see this as yet another "start-up" hyping up for cash, and soon to fizzle.

Comment Re:Flying Law Mower (Score 2) 148

You need to null out idiots. They're everywhere as part of the noise, and cannot be eliminated.

You can't null the idiots, which is why we have to have so many regulations on roads and vehicles. Once you add safety features the flying lawn mower, they lose the ability to fly. I'm sure you understand the basics of physics and weight limitations for lift.

Wind gusts-- yep, need stabilizers. But we deal with black ice, snow, and have to dodge stuff with cars, like the dog that ran out into the road in front of me, this morning.

These flying lawn mowers are skimming 10-15 ft above surface, reaction time in wind requires a hell of a lot more than simple stabilizers. 0 for 2 on Science, lets see how bad you really are.

Your Edward Scissors-Hand thinking is a bit goofy. In urban environments, we're running out of space close to ground, because we can't convince people to take public transportation, although much of public transportation lacks convenience.

And you won't convince many people that an open deck flying platform with little to no weight bearing capability is better than the bus. These things will cost huge amounts of money to "drive", get insanely poor mileage, and be extremely expensive to insure. This is not the car we see in the Movies, this is a small flying drone with humans as the casualty. In terms of Science, you just struck out.

Will stuff fall out of the sky? Probably. Will we sue the living hell out of people that do this? Yep.

As mentioned above, they would have to have insurance. Insurance for these would be insanely high. This is a product that few people could afford to use, let alone would bother using.

The early adopters will be the super-rich. If you look at SillyCon Valley, they pay jaw-dropping amounts of money for simple housing, so a flying drone car that gets them over the 101 to their offices filled with barristas and pool tables is a no-brainer.

Yeah, and it'll stay that way until we have an actual flying car (which this is not). Reality. You should see if you can find some.

Slashdot Top Deals

"In the face of entropy and nothingness, you kind of have to pretend it's not there if you want to keep writing good code." -- Karl Lehenbauer