Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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

Comment Re:Eh, yes and no. (Score 1) 198

All the options boil down to a dictatorship. The person playing makes all the decisions.

That being said, the most efficient form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. Always has been, always will be.

Having played those games before, it was strategy to change the form of government at the right time to match the phase you were in to get the advantage.

Ended up being mostly about advancing through the tech tree as quickly as possible so you ended up with the BFG before your rivals. (And that is not Big Friendly Giant).

Comment What does this game teach? (Score 1) 198

What does this teach the children using this game?

It has very little to do with reality, it does not correlate to current events, it does not match historical issues or events.

All this game will do is teach kids how to manage the rules applied in the game. Those rules do not apply to anything outside the game.

This is a mindless activity for kids to waste a lot of time on during class when they should be learning something that would be useful.

Most likely the new version grants lots of points or success for those gamers (students?) that choose clean energy over other sources, democratic rule over dictatorships, etc.

Waste of money and time. Teach the kids something real like metal shop, wood shop, and how to say "Do you want fries with that?".

Last year I was in a McDonald's and the kid behind the register was having problems because he hit the wrong amount on the register for the cash that was tendered. The manager came over and made change for him and he said, I am not kidding about this, "You can do math in your head?"

All I could do to keep from laughing out loud.

We are doomed!

Comment Re:Is he responsible for the pain? (Score 1) 186

A better example for something like this would be the autonomous cars that will be on the streets in the next decade or two.

First case: you are a passenger in a car you purchased. And it is involved in an accident, who is responsible? The owner of the vehicle or the company that wrote the program that failed to account for an obstacle? You were not actively driving the car.

Second case: an autonomous car with no passenger is involved in an accident. One of the many autonomous taxis driving around looking for passengers accidentally runs over a customer. Who is responsible? The manufacturer of the vehicle or the company that purchased the vehicle?

The device this guy built is simplistic and built to harm. These other devices are not built to harm. What insurance company is going to insure autonomous cars?

And if there are no steering wheels in these cars how do you get it into the garage with a 3 inches of clearance?

Comment Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur (Score 1) 1023

Correct, those jobs were the entry level jobs back in the day. Now due to elimination of factory jobs and our country's move to a service economy what was an entry level job is all that is available.

Increasing the minimum wage feeds into inflation. So that is a short term remedy at best.

Very soon we will have an entire generation that will never have an opportunity at an entry level job like we had. No one will work. there will be no jobs. Everything will be automated. There will be fewer and fewer technician jobs as well as better self repairing machines are built.

We are headed toward a state where no one will have jobs.

Not clear how that will work out. A pure welfare state is not sustainable for very long. Other people.s money will eventually run out.

Comment Re:And then those employees burn down your restaur (Score 1) 1023

Raising the minimum wage will accelerate what has been happening for the past couple of decades.

Read an article recently that each McDonald's franchise only has a profit each year of about $150,000.00. I had to check that number and other sources agreed that was correct. The level of profit is thin. Eliminating employee costs and improving efficiency could make that profit much better.

As to raising the minum wage:

First, while there is an increase in entry level wages, eventually wages for everyone increases to cover the increased costs for goods sold by companies that employee minimum wage workers. So in fairly short order the person that was making minimum wage today is back in the same position, they can not afford basic rent and other goods on minimum wage. This will happen regardless of how much minimum wage is increased.
All that setting a minimum wage does is establish the lowest cost you can get someone to perform a job. Any business will pass along that cost to their customers, they have to in order to stay in business.

So while there is a short term improvement in entry level wages eventually entry level wages only buy the same amount or less of goods they did before.

Second, increase the wages at that level and companies will automate. This will reduce the number of entry level jobs. Jumping to $15 an hour in a couple of years will accelerate the move to automate. All positions won't be eliminated immediately, but as automation improves more and more will be replaced.

Third, our economy is moving ever quicker to automated systems. There are fewer factory jobs because of automation. As automation is pushed into the service industries, there will be fewer and fewer jobs. Eventually, the vast majority of people will never have the opportunity to work.

This raises the bigger question, how do people live when there are no jobs? A huge welfare state is not sustainable. But many of our politicians want to try that. Once you run out of other peoples money the system collapses. We are not quite there yet but getting closer every day.

How do you organize a society where production of goods is primarily automated and most people don't work?

Comment Re:Climate Change Happens (Score 1) 795

Please note there will be another ice age at some point. As I said before, with current CO2 levels: unlikely. With increasing CO2 levels: definitely not.

Just a matter of time. The climate changes in cycles. Always has, always will. No it does not. The earth orbit or more precisely, the "side of the earth" that points to the sun in winter or summer respectively is changing. And the point when the earth is closest to the sun is changing.

Right now we are closest to the sun in northern winter and obviously the south pole is pointing to the sun then.

And those changes obviously lead to different climate. However the climate by itself: does not change at all. Why should it?

So the orbit of the planet has a greater effect on the earths climate than man does. I agree with that. Slow changes in the orbit of the earth would explain the different ice ages and the changes that are coming. Like you state we are closest to the sun in the winter. It gets cold in winter because the north axis tilt is away from the sun so the northern regions do not get as much solar radiation as during the summer. A change in this relationship will cause climate changes to occur.

You have to be working on the order of billions of people removed to make a difference. And you don't get it. It would only have an effect if we kill all north americans, most europeans and people from some niche countries like Kuwait.

And bottom line: it is simply nonsense to propose stuff like this. The rest of the planet is not stopping to produce CO2 ... unless they are producing clean energy. So: no idea why people come to the stupid idea that killing a few billions changes anything except delaying the result.

Change to clean energy and the planets population can double or even tripple with no problems. Provided of course that people start farming more sustainable and keep the ocean alive.

I did not say to exclude anyone from the purge. If the population is reduced to a few hundred thousand there would be enough diversity to prevent inbreeding and provide a long period of time for the earth to recover.

Moving to so called clean energy is not really that clean and won't get the results fast enough. You can't just turn off coal plants overnight all over the planet. If the estimates are correct, it won't happen fast enough to make any difference.

So the only fast solution is to eliminate vast majority of people. All I am saying.
Or realize that global warming is not the disaster it is being made out to be and is really a scam to gain political and economic control of most of the worlds population.

Comment Re:Climate Change Happens (Score 1) 795

You are not thinking large enough to make any change in the world's climate.

You have to be working on the order of billions of people removed to make a difference.

Beheading is to slow and costly for the numbers required.

Please note there will be another ice age at some point. Just a matter of time. The climate changes in cycles. Always has, always will.

Comment Re:Climate Change Happens (Score 1) 795

Won't do enough to reduce the levels to make any difference.

Elimination of people is the quickest and surest method to reduce green house gases caused by people.

Face it, people will not want to give up their cars or phones or lights or A/C in the developed portions of the world.

Those that are getting to that point don't want to give up those items either.

Alternate sources of energy are to expensive and not as efficient as current forms. And people freak out if you suggest using nuclear power.

The only viable way to try and reduce the impact people have on global warming is to eliminate them.

Of course that is if you really think humans are making that much of a change. I suspect it is more likely that solar conditions in this part of space we are moving through or the shift in the axis of the earth has more to do with it. But taking the hypothesis and figuring out what it would take to fix it is an entertaining exercise.

Reality is, nothing we do will change the course of the climate on Earth. We will learn to adapt. It will happen slowly enough that we will be able to adapt.

This is not some catastrophe that will happen in the next 10 years. It will take 100s of years for this to get to the levels they are predicting. By then they will be worrying about the next ice age coming.

Comment Climate Change Happens (Score 1) 795

I think most people would agree that the Earth's climate has changed and will continue to change.

The bone of contention is between those that believe it is caused by human activity and those that that don't.
.
Assume for the moment that it is caused by human activity and not solar radiation or a change in the tilt of the earth's axis.

That means that there must be something that we can do to reduce or eliminate the portion of the change caused by humans.

Given that the population will continue to grow, and that there will be a need to provide food, shelter, transportation, etc for an ever increasing number of people, it is unlikely that we will be able to reduce the production of greenhouse gases by an amount to have any effect on global warming.

So that leaves us with one solution. Reduce the number of humans on the Earth.

That leaves two options.
1. Export people from Earth to other worlds.
2. Eliminate people.

Of these the second is the easiest and the quickest solution. We have the means. Those in power are working up the will to execute option 2.

Comment Driverless technology will be stopped by lawyers (Score 1) 748

For some time now I have watches as driverless cars have been developed. And I believe that while the technology can be made to work, it will end up having a very hard time getting wide spread acceptance.

The primary problem is going to come the first time a driverless car is involved in a serious accident.

Since there is no driver, just passengers, how can they be liable for damages or deaths that are caused when the driverless car is involved in or causes an accident?
Does the liability fall back to the manufacturer of the car? Or the programmer that wrote the code for the car?
What company could accept the liability for all those cars they sold to the public?
Or would that be the issue, they can make the cars for $35,000 but the added liability coverage would be to expensive for most to afford.
Of course the real problem being discussed here is driverless cars sharing the road with idiot drivers doing stupid things everyday. They will be involved in accidents and they will cause major damage at somepoint.

The only way to solve that is to switch entirely to driverless fleets of cars instantly, and that is not something that can be done. Costs would be to much.

This can also be a very disruptive technology. I expect the first real commercial use for this would be long haul trucking. Setup a fleet of these driverless trucks and run them from depots on or near the interstates. They can run as long as they have fuel which should improve the transportation costs since the trucks don't have to stand down every 8 or 10 hours to allow the drivers to sleep. And being on limited access highways the chances of them being involved in situations that are unforeseen are minimized. Once at a depot loads can be shifted to normal trucks for delivery in towns.

Comment Re:I wonder... (Score 1) 106

... if there are computers trying to understand what makes them work... Is there some computer out there that is pondering the question are humans capable of intelligent thought...

Actually that is a great question for all of us: Are humans capable of intelligent thought?

Based on data collected so far the odds of that are slim to none.

Intelligence in the universe is a constant. The population is growing....

Slashdot Top Deals

Enzymes are things invented by biologists that explain things which otherwise require harder thinking. -- Jerome Lettvin

Working...