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 Re:Question of efficiency (Score 1) 356

In my experience, this is a very common perception from the business admin folks though. To them, you're paid to do your work in an allotted time frame. If you can do your work faster than the time frame given, they see it as being inefficient on their part, in paying you for more hours than the position requires so they see a need to trim the excess off if possible. You see this more often when a company decides to downsize and dump a larger workload on fewer employees than were available before. The value of the employee nearly always takes second consideration to the value of the work output. Sometimes such a view has merit, but in general its extremely unbalanced and has created an overall terrible working environment in the US.

Comment Question of efficiency (Score 1) 356

I can entirely see how a company would initially see this as a problem. They are paying someone to do a project on the side that will likely never bring any money back to the company. In many companies, theres a policy that says anything you create while on the company dime or while utilizing company facilities, equipment, etc, is the property of the company since they have in essence paid for it by paying you.

I've seen people pushed out for this before and I've seen the same companies struggle to fill the hole they just created. The person provided a significant benefit to the company and was efficient enough to not really need to focus on anything company related for a few hours of the day. During this time, the employee did several side projects, some for small monetary values, others for free. It would seem easy from a business perspective to just assume that maybe they should just cut hours back if the employee doesn't need a full day to complete the tasks. This would provide the time for the employee to do these projects but this typically also comes with a reduction in salary.

The aforementioned employee saw their own work as highly valued since their salary was very satisfactory for the required work. However, when management stepped in and said they were reducing the number of hours the employee would work, and to reflect the "reduced work provided to the company" a reduced salary as well. The person was expected to continue performing at peak efficiency as they had, with a shorter day and a smaller salary. This was understandably taken as a perceived reduction in the value of this employee.

I think its important to mention that this person, largely enjoyed their position and did it exceptionally well. They had never had a bad evaluation, never been written up in 10 years despite having worked on side projects for most of it, and never let the side projects interrupt their daily duties. I think the side projects really provided a good creative outlet for this person and it helped motivate this person throughout their day.

Anyway, the person was pretty pissed off about the situation and stayed on maybe 2 weeks after this change before quitting. Management had a big "oh fuck" moment too since the person had a lot of knowledge that wasn't always well documented. Took them a year and a half to find a schmuck that was willing to try and work in the reduced hour position and he lasted all of a few months before being fired for not being able to perform the duties (big shock). So they decided to contract it out and pay a shit ton more than they used to.

While it presents an ethical dilemma, I think the greater perspective on the matter must be taken. Physically and mentally healthy employees are always going to perform the required tasks better than people deficient in either. Sometimes all that is needed is a good self driven but compensated outlet to provide that and I think we will see this to be much more true in situations where true UBI comes to fruition.

Comment Re:Yeah... but no. (Score 1) 726

The question I would ask is "Is writing an unsolicited letter to the state engineering board regarding the safety issues resulting from the length of a yellow traffic light considered part of the profession of engineering?"

That is a great question and I would take it a step further and add semantics to it as well. Was he qualifying his knowledge in a professional sense or simply as a knowledgeable concerned citizen.

If Joe Bob Hillbilly says writes a letter concerned or upset about the dangers of short yellow lights, it might be easy to dismiss as a know-nothing citizen with an easily dismissed complaint. But if someone suggests they have a qualified knowledge and are simply expressing concern based on that knowledge, maybe it would be taken more seriously. I can totally see that being this guys thought process in writing his letter. He wanted to be heard and he wanted it to be known that his concern comes from qualified knowledge, not in an advisory, consulting, or more literally a practicing manner.

How does this person mention a qualified knowledge without speaking directly to that knowledge that would lead to this sort of fine? Does he leave it vague, simply stating "I have qualified knowledge"? That seems rather ambiguous and again, easily dismissed by those who would prefer to think they know better.

Comment What? (Score 2, Informative) 358

$100,000/yr = $8333/mo. Lets say your rent is up there at $5500/mo, that still leaves you with $2833/mo to feed yourself, your spouse and your 2 children. The remainder of what you have to spend nearly $34,000 for the year to pay your bills, buy food and buy whatever other crap you need. A helleva lot of people don't even make that much and support a family of 4 on a single income and their salary hasn't yet even covered their housing expenses. The lower amounts they mention, I can agree with, considering current rent prices in SF. But $100,000+ per year? National prices aren't SF prices. Your money goes a helleva lot further on the internet than nearly everyone living outside of places like SF.

Here's an idea. Tell the NIMBYs to go suck a fat one and start building appropriate housing for the demand. Or people could wise up and stop giving a shit about living anywhere near SF.

Comment Re:AI killing industry (Score 1) 120

Star power? No. But if a star can license their likeness to these film companies without doing anything at all, thats a different story. Every voiceover can now star the exact same people that fit the bill of being a known and also willing to license their likeness for the least amount. Good luck breaking into this sort of market, pretty much forever.

Comment Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 359

That is a fantastic scenario for where a Kuerig can be useful. People of all walks need different aids to help them function in a day. But in general, most people do not need the "convenience" of Kuerig like devices. I can dump old grouds, fill up a coffee pot with water, dump it in the machine, throw in a new filter and new grounds all in under a minute and a half (I know this from heating up the last cup out of the coffee pot taking around 1m30s in the microwave). That doesn't account for other conveniences a Kuerig might provide but it really is typically unnecessary for the expense of the machine price and the continued cost to maintain use of the machine. For those without a huge everyday budget, it becomes pretty damn inconvenient for how convenient it is supposed to be.

Comment Here's how I see things going down (Score 1) 287

The robots are coming for your job, no doubt. Theres a plethora of jobs that simply can't be easily replaced that typically involve the service industry; those will remain.

For the rest of the jobs out there, a robot awaits your position. Here's how I see things working. You graduate high school at 18, you can either choose to work from then until age 35, or you can go to college and work until age 35. At age 35, your UBI kicks in and is based on how much you made while working. If you have made yourself extremely valuable and highly skilled in a broad range of areas, maybe you get take your UBI and continue working at a higher wage.

Problem is, those few jobs, aren't guaranteed to go to the most qualified people. The wealthy want to remain wealthy and will give these positions to their family and friends to keep their wealth on the uptrend. This will gradually slow our growth as a society as these wealthy, unqualified and lowly skilled fuckups take over these important jobs. Lately, America has a great track record of picking the best system for the wealthiest people which also happens to be nearly the worst system for the most people. UBI is great and is absolutely necessary. But if you think you're getting fucked in the ass now, I suggest you stock up on lube.

Comment Re:Doesn't even need to be open source (Score 1) 123

Speaking of binding. How about lets not sell university published textbooks with no binding at all for $200+. This seems to be a growing trend at my local university. Of course, the only available vendor for the textbook is the university printery and since the the professors of these courses wrote or greatly contributed to these books, they make sure that if you don't buy the text book, that you're not going to pass the class. SGA tried to fight back a little by making several copies of each available at the library but surprise, you can remove them and you can't use the elementary school style tearout worksheets. Fuckers.

Comment Re:Let's define terms here (Score 1) 359

Maybe I missed it but what's the plan after the bag gets used for a single serving anyway? Do you then have to remove the bag and place it back into the fridge? This after having to first remove it from the fridge in the first place, put it in the machine and then place you glass under it. Couldn't they just sell jugs of juice that you could put in your fridge, pull out and pour a single glass? Have we become such a lazy society that pouring a glass of juice is too much?

Comment Re:Seriously? (Score 5, Insightful) 359

Dumbass investors saw this as a Kuerig for vegans. A new device that accomplishes the goal of selling the most amount of cheap material crap to people at a exorbitantly marked up price, with a potentially successful marketing message of a "better way".

Somehow people bought heavily into the concept of Kuerig, even though you have had small (even single) serving coffee machines for decades and decades. But no, now you can buy a wasteful and expensive single serving cup that you drop in and there's a water tank and a pump that will eventually fail too, all for the low price of 5-10 small, simple, almost never failing, thermosiphon drip coffee maker. Oh and you get to pay tons more for your easy to use coffee cups now too! Yay!

A lot of people seem to think their lives get better as they acquire more technology. Doesn't matter what it is. If it has a button and a screen and it does something that didn't have a screen before, its better. Now it even has the internet so it can do... even more things or something.

TL;DR Why? Because stupidly blind and wasteful consumerism.

It puts a smile on my face to see such an expensive shit device like this fail so hard.

Comment This should be interesting... (Score 1) 231

This should be interesting to watch play out. I honestly don't see this making it to trial and if it does, it'll be a speedy victory for Bose. The PTB absolutely do not want any sort of precendent set that says they are violating wire tapping and other privacy laws with these sort of everyday increasing intrusions from "smart devices".

However, one can be hopeful that a hard nosed judge is selected that truly sees this growing trend as the problem it has become and gives Bose the ban hammer. Such a ruling would have interesting implications for all sorts of devices. Ah well, shit in one hand, hope in the other I guess.

Comment Re:Back in the 1970's (when dinosaurs ruled)... (Score 1) 440

Ultrasonic clothes washers were never a truly efficient, marketable product. Soft materials are really good at absorbing sound waves. So when you subject a a tank full of sound absorbing material, with sound waves, not a whole lot happens unless you are talking about ridiculous, non-home friendly energy levels.

Comment How does this help? (Score 5, Insightful) 141

How does this help the citizens of that country? Now, not only are they in the dark, the rest of the world is in the dark in regards to their plight as well. The governments that institute these sort of shutoffs are already authoritarian and these organizations think the best response is to be authoritarian as well?

These governments are already going to have better organization that a random selection of the population. Banning the provision to expand IP addresses to a given country will do nothing to curtail their authoritarian efforts. Having that organization already in place allows them to respond to things like this more easily by instituting other wisely used channels, especially now that they know about this new rule. Meanwhile, the citizens are left out in the cold, and have to rely on very skilled local community leaders to lead the way of change. Such change has happened in the past. However the playing field just shifted away from the citizens in a hard way if this passes.

Comment Re:Someone hire them... (Score 1) 258

This "millenial types" stereotyping bullshit needs to end. Can I say all boomers fucked the country up? Maybe they are apathetic because their future looks bleak so they seek to standout, even if seems entirely unwarranted? And lets not forget that you or your kids generation raised these folks and taught them all these traits you seem to hate. Guess your generation sucks too?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Truth never comes into the world but like a bastard, to the ignominy of him that brought her birth." -- Milton