Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:6.8 Billion (Score 1) 333

Not supporting nuclear power to a greater extent than we have today is going to ensure that we exceed Global Climate change targets which are meant to keep climate change largely within acceptable limits.

Maybe Global Climate change is unavoidable at this point, but just trudging forward with solar and wind without seeing their real limits doesn't do anyone any favors, except dragging things out for the fossil fuel industry until they hit their production limits. The future is at least 60% nuclear or else it is going to get a lot warmer for our kids and grand kids than civilization can really withstand.

With that kind of environmental damage we can expect some serious regional or world wars with food production and water resources as underlying causes and the mass migrations we see because of that. Already we can view the war in Syria as not just a factional struggle, but as a result of too many people struggling to control too few resources and then dividing along sectarian and ethnic lines when resources become too scarce.

Comment Re:Irony (Score 1) 87

Another Yahoo Apologist AI chat bot?

Well, you either accept the leak and reported stories as fact... which means anyone at Yahoo that knows about it really can't legally say anything about it publicly without going to jail or you don't accept the facts as they have been reported and it may not even have ever happened.

I choose to believe the facts that were reported and that Yahoo did likely cooperate with the government under a secret order which means exactly what I said. Yahoo isn't saying they don't have information they are saying they can't reveal that information and are asking the only authority they can ask to declassify the information so they can talk about it publicly.

Personally, I am not pulling any punches... if the story is true and Yahoo didn't legally object in court to the sort of untargeted keyword searches being alleged, then Yahoo was complicit in a criminal conspiracy to violate the constitutional rights of millions of Americans.

And by untargeted I mean they used keywords instead of having a constitutionally valid warrant for all the emails to or from specific individuals.

Comment Re:Irony (Score 1) 87

So Yahoo, a company that made its name as a search engine, can't search through its own corporate records.

"we find ourselves unable to respond in detail" doesn't necessarily mean they don't have any records about this, it most likely means they legally can't respond because it is either classified and only cleared individuals given access to the information have it or they are simply under threat of felony prosecution not to divulge that they were under orders. Also, it is very likely they would not have been given any copies of those orders. It would be sufficient to show them the orders without giving them a copy.

Comment Then prepare a fiery desk for Watson, too. (Score 1) 886

That's all fine and good but what you are proposing will only stave off the inevitable for at most a year or two. Automation is coming, it is already here and covering more ground faster and faster. Read "Rise of the Robots" it is an enlightening read.

AI is fine and dandy, but only when it is an intelligent companion, not an existential threat.

If multi-disciplinary automation (such as current-day AI) wants to become a threat, treat it no differently. Nothing says that today's Watson can be treated the same way Mr. Patterson treated the original one.

How would you propose penalizing anyone that overlooks the long-term unemployed/discouraged? Who would you propose get penalized?

The party/parties that overlook the unemployed, including all third parties and contracting services.

What would be the mechanism for detecting and punishing these despicable beings?

The lowest bar of proof constitutionally allowable for the unemployed (that meets criminal/civil standards), such that no "safe reason" can be formed.

As for punishment? A golden ticket to work directly with the organization in question for a guaranteed minimum term measurable in decades, with provisions to survive existential events - including but not limited to acquisition, offshoring, bankruptcy, and/or reorganization. It might put the staffing industry out of business for being a favored benefit dodge, but it's not as if they've been of much use for regular people these days.

Comment Not everyone is an entrepreneur. (Score 1) 886

The people who would sit on their asses with a UBI are the same people who pretend to have autism and get social security disability checks, i.e. they would amount to nothing anyway

Between the ones that do and the ones that don't, it'd be far better to entice them with a good job on good terms versus the pittance of a Social Security check.


Not everyone is fit to be the proverbial Richard Branson. They would be fine with their 30ish years of office work as a direct hire at a respectable company, with good benefits and increasing levels of responsibility. Consigning them to 60-70 years of squalor just for not having the startup bug in them is far from optimal.

Never mind that some people have a perfectly fine mindset that does not work well with startups, but works well with established organizations. Unlike some people of my generation, I saw how the latter can work well for people.

Comment Re: Alternative (Score 1) 886

Bingo! You nailed it. The Federal government can always "borrow" the money from the Federal Reserve and as long as it always borrows more than it has to pay back then it isn't a drain on taxpayers.

Really the net government borrowing is the only way to increase the money supply over the medium to long term, since money borrowed by banks does eventually need to be paid back to the Fed.

So lower rates are a temporary monetary stimulus followed by a contraction of the money supply when rates go up.

Give the money to the people. No way there is a level playing field without a base income at least. It used to be that land was so cheap it was the equivalent of a basic income since you could always go out and subsistence farm. That level of equality was what enabled Liberty to thrive for a time in America.

Comment Or how about recruiting people that we have? (Score 2) 886

Instead of allowing employers to have an entitlement mentality to perfection or desperation, why not make it harder for them to not hire citizens, especially the ones looking for work? Get rid of guest workers, make offshoring a royal PITA, and penalize anyone that overlooks the long-term unemployed/discouraged.

Entrepreneurship doesn't provide a steady income or a good upward path (unless you like casino-level risk), and UBI would serve to reward laziness.

Comment Re:Content waning, incompetence rising (Score 5, Insightful) 44

Netflix is getting hammered with PR and backroom dealings by the media companies that don't really want it to succeed. If they raise prices or simply don't negotiate to allow Netflix to even have their shows, they reduce Netflix influence. Luckily, Netflix has started creating their own shows and they are ALL killing everyone else as far as quality. Stranger Things, Luke Cage, Daredevil, House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, they are actually making content that is worth watching. Everyone else is trying to set up their own streaming service, but in the end, none of those services will survive past life support against superior capabilities by players like Netflix and Amazon.

Your issue with Netflix sounds like an ISP issue or a device issue, not a Netflix issue.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's later than you think, the joint Russian-American space mission has already begun.