Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Why Aren't Techies Improving The World?

Slashdot reader marmot7 isn't impressed by "the latest app that solves some made up problem. I'm impressed by apps that solve real problems..." I don't feel that developers, sys admins, finance people, even policy wonks focus on the problems that we need to solve to have a healthy functioning society. It seems like it's mostly about short-term gain and not much about making the world better. That may be just the way the market works.

Is it that there's no profit to be made in solving the most important problems? I'm puzzled by that as I would think that a good solution to an important problem could find some funding from somewhere but maybe government, for example, won't take investment risks in that way?

Is there a systematic bias that channels technology workers into more profitable careers? (Or stunning counter-examples that show technology workers are making the world a better place?) Leave your answers in the comments. Why aren't geeks doing more to improve the world?

537 comments

  1. And.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What are the important problems we are supposed to be solving that we aren't?

    1. Re:And.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, something like access to water, sanitation and food aka basic sustenance for more than 2/3 of the worlds population?
      Or, in the first world, free access to high speed internet and latest 'oh, shinny!' gadget?

    2. Re:And.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! What is this bullshit about wanting a healthy society? I just want to get PAID.

    3. Re:And.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you mean CS geeks, then things like Big Data, Data Quality, Project Support, High-dimensional Visualization, Voice Recognition/Generation, AI, AR, ...

      If you meed Science/Engineering geeks, then battery technology comes to mind. High-temp Superconductivity, Fuel Cells, Pharma/Biotech "solutions" (cancer, genetic diseases, ...), Non-carbon-emitting energy sources, Portable/small-scale clean water systems, species-specific (bio-friendly?) pesticides/fertilizers, crop modifications that increase the amount of arable land. Meat substitutes.

      Hammerbacher: "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads," he says. "That sucks."

      --

      Hard problems are hard. Hard, wet problems are f*cking hard because the data's sloppy and a bit random.

    4. Re:And.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Making things easier" but instead making things stupidly more expensive and time consuming.

      For example, "cloud"'ing things is supposed to make things easier, but is 10 times more expensive and 3 times more time-consuming to deal with.

      All these crappy libraries and frameworks used in programs that are built upon other libraries and frameworks, built upon sand. All it takes is one shake and the frameworks come crashing down.

      Example: "HTML5 C to Javascript" , what the hell, this is a bad idea. jQuery is a bad idea. Multiple different versions of "C++" and "STL" are a bad idea.

      Like the entire reason computers are getting slower is because we keep stacking "it will make things easier" helper libraries instead of optimizing things by getting rid of 20 layers of abstraction.

    5. Re:And.. by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      For example, "cloud"'ing things is supposed to make things easier, but is 10 times more expensive and 3 times more time-consuming to deal with.

      And significantly more fragile, as Nest and Ecobee3 owners can attest.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    6. Re:And.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about assisting people with jobs instead of replacing peoples' jobs as a primary goal? How about not being greedy twits and we stop inventing things the primary purpose of which is to increase human misery by decreasing standards of living? (through taking away peoples' incomes).

      Working in tech used to be fun and inspiring. Now it just feels dirty as the goal is to put as many out of work as possible.

    7. Re:And.. by cshark · · Score: 1

      Really.
      I think the OP is looking in the wrong place. I know plenty of devs that are doing their part to improve the world. I know one that's building apps for hospitals in the developing world for free, literally saving thousands of lives. I know another another that's using his knowledge to do 3d printing of buildings for villages in Africa. I know several devs (myself included) that work in food banks in their downtime. Another that's providing tech education services to inner city youth. Granted, you're not going to find any of this in an app store. But it is out there.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    8. Re:And.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What are the important problems we are supposed to be solving that we aren't?

      How to have fair elections and a democratic government that actually represents the interests of voters?

  2. If Slashdot is any indication... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If Slashdot is any indication, techies are too busy whining about Microsoft or decrying every new technology as somehow invading their privacy or otherwise harming them. Instead of actually doing something to solve the security problems and move those technologies along, the supposed techies are too busy wearing tinfoil hats. The techies really are a bunch of luddites who are standing in the way of innovation and solving problems. Anytime there's a new technology discussed on here, unless it involves Linux, everyone rushes to condemn it as harmful. Take off your damn tinfoil hats and do something productive to improve the world, for a change.

    1. Re:If Slashdot is any indication... by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      If Slashdot is any indication, techies are too busy whining about Microsoft or decrying every new technology as somehow invading their privacy or otherwise harming them. Instead of actually doing something to solve the security problems and move those technologies along, the supposed techies are too busy wearing tinfoil hats. The techies really are a bunch of luddites who are standing in the way of innovation and solving problems. Anytime there's a new technology discussed on here, unless it involves Linux, everyone rushes to condemn it as harmful. Take off your damn tinfoil hats and do something productive to improve the world, for a change.

      When nearly every new technology is warped into infringing upon security not creating new technologies is the best thing you can do for the world.

    2. Re:If Slashdot is any indication... by gander666 · · Score: 1

      You forgot to add butthurt over Apple deciding to drop the 3.5mm headphone jack in the iPhone 7.

      Oh, the humanity

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
    3. Re:If Slashdot is any indication... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is more than a fair amount of whining on this site, and often in herd fashion, which is disappointing. However, Microsoft hasn't been much of a factor for over ten years, and people here realize it. MS has been in decline since Windows XP shipped.

    4. Re:If Slashdot is any indication... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Apple's off shore savings (yes I know they are not alone) are already hurting world economy. The removal of the headphone jack will funnel more money into their coffers that are not being returned to support society as it should. Therefore, I think maybe you are underestimating the harm that this might cause.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    5. Re:If Slashdot is any indication... by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if it's AS true right now. But there was a time when Microsoft was trying to pull a lot of kind of scary stuff even resorting to building and using considerable political muscle. It got a bit weird to the point where it was rational to talk about it. I wouldn't be surprised if even if it's not an existential threat at this moment, though, I'd imagine there's still tension that's unresolved back when MS had the chops and the will to be aggressive assholes. I could be totally wrong to say I don't feel they're aggressive, destructive assholes anymore but I think it's true. Bill Gates devoting his life to the good of human society might have had an influence on Microsoft's culture. I have no idea. Just speculating.

  3. Re: Because the only "geeks" with money are Jews. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Why must so many geeks be filthy bigots? Every article is littered with racist and otherwise bigoted garbage. It's a shame that Slashdot is morphing into Stormfront.

  4. like what? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What could be solved by tech? And would people use that tech?

    If you don't have an answer, throwing money at it won't make it happen. If you do, you'll likely have an answer why it isn't being done.

    1. Re:like what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You pretty much killed the conversation, on the first post, kudos!

    2. Re:like what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Autonomous vehicles could solve a number of problems. They'd reduce the amount of space required for parking and would potentially greatly reduce the need for internal combustion engines.

      Improving solutions for storing power would allow us to move towards using renewable energy sources as the sole providers of our energy needs.

      Advances in bioinformatics, robotics, and nanotechnology have the potential to radically advance medicine. Improved AI could greatly reduce the cost of medical screening.

      Further advances in neuroscience could allow entirely new kinds of computer interfaces.

    3. Re:like what? by marmot7 · · Score: 0

      That's the question I'm essentially asking. There are clearly examples of tech being successfully applied to important problems. It's being done every single day by extremely talented and smart people. It just doesn't get the money and attention that BeerMe does. I'm wondering why not? Isn't Venture Capital throwing money at a problem with the hope of solving it and making money? Why is throwing money at BeerMe, DriveMe, FeedMe, etc., a reasonable idea but throwing money at a more important problem not acceptable or likely to work?

    4. Re:like what? by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Older than you by decades. Technology and especially information technology is the focus on human power right now, and that power can be applied to better goals than boosting stockholder equity and creating a new social network for cat videos.

    5. Re:like what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO Microsoft is a much different company than it was in the past.

      That being said, yeah, to hell with Windows, I'll never change my mind about that.

    6. Re:like what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But it is being done. Tech is improving the world all over, from your phone to your hospital. For example, I had thought about working on rigging mine-detectors to quadcopter drones so they could potentially scour landmine-riddled areas all day without risk to a human, but it turns out this is already being done by people who certainly have more experience with it than I do.

    7. Re:like what? by ChristopherMcNamara · · Score: 1

      Hey, that was me as AC. I don't disagree with this idea just trying to frame the expectations. Also, who cares if you are old and I am not. Why am I not old?

    8. Re:like what? by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Capitalism. Venture capital firms are not seeking to solve problems, they're seeking a return on investment.

    9. Re:like what? by ChristopherMcNamara · · Score: 2

      I don't think that "technology" has had a one fell swoop moment yet. Its more like, hey how about cell phones and remote 911? I don't think you appreciate all that has already been enabled. Maybe you are looking for a "we did it" moment?

    10. Re:like what? by ChristopherMcNamara · · Score: 1

      I work on things that are "real" apps. That like, enable safety etc... They just aren't cool. Like that GE commercial a few months ago.

    11. Re:like what? by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't Venture Capital throwing money at a problem with the hope of solving it and making money? Why is throwing money at BeerMe, DriveMe, FeedMe, etc., a reasonable idea but throwing money at a more important problem not acceptable or likely to work?

      Solving a problem does not inherently make you money. Creating a solution customers are willing and able to spend money on will make you money. By giving $10 to a starving poor person I could solve that hunger (at least temporarily), but I am unlikely to see a return on that "investment". Finding a way to make a better tasting ketchup, on the other hand, could make a lot of money, regardless of whether tastier ketchup is a more important than feeding starving people.

      Venture capital is not charity. Wealthy people can certainly choose to start a foundation (like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) instead of investing in a VC firm if solving "important" problems is their goal. If they choose investing, however, return on investment is likely the goal.

      There are a lot of VC funded companies solving very important problems, but the reason they were funded almost certainly was because they could show a potential return on investment. Social good could have been a factor, but very few companies (or possibly no companies) are funded by VC's as a charity case.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    12. Re:like what? by ranton · · Score: 1

      Technology and especially information technology is the focus on human power right now, and that power can be applied to better goals [...]

      Technology is not the focus of human power right now, financial capital is. This is unlikely to ever change. Technology is simply a tool used by those with power (regardless of how much power they have) to achieve their goals. The percentage of technological advancement geared towards social good is directly proportional to the desire to enact social good by those who have financial capital.

      When those with financial capital are more interested in solving the world's most important problems than they are in gaining more capital, technology will quite naturally shift its focus towards those new goals.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    13. Re:like what? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think I realised that the world had really changed about 10 years ago when I was vacationing in the south of Thailand. Standing on the beach on Koh Lanta at sunrise, I used my mobile to ring my mom back in the States and let her know that I was fine and hadn't even been in Bangkok during the previous day's coup d'état.

      It was my first mobile phone, and I'd only bought it about 2 months earlier. One of the early Samusung flip-phones. I still have it, and it still works just fine for voice, SMS, and very primitive (text-only) web browsing.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    14. Re:like what? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      (Yeahyeah, probably doesn't mean shit to most of yas, but it was a bit of a Star Trek moment for me.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    15. Re:like what? by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Autonomous vehicles could solve a number of problems. They'd reduce the amount of space required for parking and would potentially greatly reduce the need for internal combustion engines.

      And provide mobility for people with visual or physical impairment, eliminate drunk driving deaths and most of the deaths caused by driver error, too, dramatically reduce the delays caused by traffic lights, dramatically increase average road speed by reducing accidents and driving at faster speeds with shorter spacing between cars and speeding up more quickly when the car in front of you does, and dramatically increase fuel economy as a result of those other improvements.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    16. Re:like what? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Technology isin't that important.

      You mean technology like vaccines that wiped out smallpox, and will soon wipe out polio?

      Smallpox has killed more people than all the war in history combined, including more than 300 million during the 20th century. That is six WW2s. That is important.

      The problem with tech, is that once it is part of our lives, we no longer consider it "tech", and we take it for granted.

      How old are you?

      Old enough to have a smallpox vaccine scar on my arm. Old enough to remember polio killing people in America.

    17. Re:like what? by marmot7 · · Score: 0

      IMHO Microsoft is a much different company than it was in the past.

      That being said, yeah, to hell with Windows, I'll never change my mind about that.

      I still do not like Windows but Microsoft itself seems different. Feels different. I'm not even just talking about open sourcing this or that, I mean they seem less threatening then they once did. They're less powerful but also there seems to be a shift in values. I could be totally off as I know very little about Microsoft, the company. Back in the late '90s, many looked at Microsoft as evil incarnate, with Bill Gates the villain at the help. I took a long break from looking at Slashdot, at least regularly, and recently came back to it, finding far less about kind of scary maneuvers by Microsoft. I'm not even sure when people do post here about Bill Gates is there still that avatar with the Borg get up?

    18. Re:like what? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      You're not making sense. What should venture capital be funding? I can probably give you a detailed explanation. But I don't see anything likely to actually work and be used that also isn't being developed.

      If it clearly won't work, or people don't want to work that way, there's no point backing it. Making money isn't even part of this, since we has open source software and hardware that techies are making available to improve life.

      So what is not being done here?

    19. Re:like what? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 0

      Those are in progress. A single company, Tesla, answers half your post. A lot of money is being spent on all the things on your list, work is being done, progress made.

      So what is not getting attention?

    20. Re:like what? by aliquis · · Score: 0

      People do what pays the bills / make them money.

      Autonomous vehicles could solve a number of problems

      I don't know why I read save lives or similar but if they did then I guess the price paid for each saved life was too low. Now you didn't mention it though.

      would potentially greatly reduce the need for internal combustion engines.

      Where's the money in that?

      Improving solutions for storing power would allow us to move towards using renewable energy sources as the sole providers of our energy needs.

      And you mean people don't try? At-least allowing for patents help people see a value in trying to find a solution for that problem. Batteries have developed in steps.

      Advances in bioinformatics, robotics, and nanotechnology have the potential to radically advance medicine. Improved AI could greatly reduce the cost of medical screening.

      If you can save money by removing the doctor but charging the same it will be done =P

      Further advances in neuroscience could allow entirely new kinds of computer interfaces.

      It's already frustrating when you want to go to the bomb site as a team and someone runs away alone, especially with the bomb .. Now imagine having that horror connected straight into your brain!

    21. Re:like what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the question I'm essentially asking. There are clearly examples of tech being successfully applied to important problems. It's being done every single day by extremely talented and smart people. It just doesn't get the money and attention that BeerMe does. I'm wondering why not?

      Isn't Venture Capital throwing money at a problem with the hope of solving it and making money? Why is throwing money at BeerMe, DriveMe, FeedMe, etc., a reasonable idea but throwing money at a more important problem not acceptable or likely to work?

      There is a level of nuance to the proper answer to this question of yours. I think that using money as part of the problem definition handicaps the type of innovative thinking that usually leads to the solving of the big problems that you are speaking of. First off the idea that you do a thing and that makes you millions of dollars is putting the horse before the cart. Plenty of businesses come about and most of the ones that fail (and tech workers) have fallen prey to the oversimplification by just purely chasing a fat paycheck. Free market economies (of which very few actually exist, America is a mixed economy, not a free market economy as some would claim. We have elements of a free market economy and elements of a command and control economy.) will dictate by their very nature (the proverbial invisible hand) how much a product or service will cost and it is up to the worker or the entrepreneur to set things up so that their venture is profitable at a level they are willing to live with. So many have brilliant ideas that do solve problems, but when it plays out, no one is willing to pay what it would require for them to be profitable or even a lot of times to even keep their doors open. Take America Online for instance, when they started they had an easy way for non-technical people to learn to use the internet and they charged by the minute. They basically traded time using their service for money at an hourly rate. Nowadays no one pays for the hour for high speed internet because the supply and demand rules changed. Network bandwidth is so cheap that charging an hourly rate is penny-pinching and no customer would put up with that and even the act of keeping track of the actual usage time is not even worth paying someone to do, so you have unlimited usage (within certain open ended constraints) for a monthly fee for the service.

      I think that the entrepreneur must at many points in the game ask themselves what their customers are actually paying them for and if it is a fair deal. What is more than that, regularly they have to review and revisit that question and either adapt or die. Throwing money at a problem is ok to a point, but in most cases if that is one's main mode of problem solving they will end up throwing a lot of money at a problem and realize that they are burning money because the problem is a house fire..so to speak.

    22. Re: like what? by PMuse · · Score: 2

      Why haven't geeks solved all the world's problems yet? Perhaps because they have been busy solving the world's problems.

      For example:
      --invented and built out mobile telephony, improving personal safety and convenience
      --built global data network (the Internet) that continues to enlighten populations and shake repressive governments
      --invented gps sats and provided cheap handheld receivers
      --invented geographic information systems (which allows not just MapQuest, but Yelp, gas buddy, and the self-driving car, among others)
      --911 service was a geek project from start to finish
      --proved the existence and cause of global warming back when it was still possible to fix it (too bad the money refused to listen)
      --provided micro targeted (per zip code) weather forecasts that are many times more accurate than anything we had 20 years ago (try MinuteCast sometime)
      --sequenced the genome, telling us what is likely to kill us, and, one day soon, repairing those defects (a work in progress)
      --invented recorded music (c. 1877) and made it ubiquitous (c. 1962)
      --created design tools that make it possible to build amazing stuff, e.g. successful 2700 ft buildings
      --visited the moon (in person) and the planets (via camera probes)

      Not that the amount of effort spent chasing short term profits isn't appalling (e.g. the entire video delivery and drm industry), but some of the things that computer geeks have built actually have changed the world for the better.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    23. Re:like what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell are we going to feed all those people that aren't dying of infectious diseases?-- yeah, yeah, I hear you saying GMOs-- But let's get real about the fact that we have too many people and a crashing eco-system. No amount of RoundUp-Ready corn is going to fix that. And your iPhone isn't going to fix it either.

    24. Re: like what? by PMuse · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The OP is probably so young that he thinks fresh produce at the corner grocery store all winter long is 'normal'.

      Decent roads. Fast vehicles. Electricity. Refrigeration. Perhaps plastics and cleaning/sealing tech to delay spoilage. It takes a lot of techs to get me a fresh, crisp cucumber in February.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    25. Re: like what? by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      Ffs.

      Really? So you consider the moved by windows ten to track, analyse, and control computer users throughout the world is warm and fuzzy do you?
      Tying security updates to allowing yourself to be tracked?
      Microsoft having a list of your applications as well as remote ability to block then from running?
      Practically forcing this 'upgrade' on users who were trying to avoid it?

      Yes. Seems so much more friendly to me..

      At to the original and very stupid idea of this whole discussion... Just imagine the world without satellites, undersea cables, advanced medicine (in fact almost all medicine), and many more things.
      Technology (or tech. The user if which kind of indicates the childishness of the original complaint) in pretty much a label for progress. The industrial age was 'just tech'. So was the iron age, etc etc.
      Feel free to go back to a cave and know nothing outside your valley if you want.. I'll stick with tech.

    26. Re:like what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO Microsoft is a much different company than it was in the past.

      That being said, yeah, to hell with Windows, I'll never change my mind about that.

      I still do not like Windows but Microsoft itself seems different. Feels different. I'm not even just talking about open sourcing this or that, I mean they seem less threatening then they once did. They're less powerful but also there seems to be a shift in values. I could be totally off as I know very little about Microsoft, the company. Back in the late '90s, many looked at Microsoft as evil incarnate, with Bill Gates the villain at the help. I took a long break from looking at Slashdot, at least regularly, and recently came back to it, finding far less about kind of scary maneuvers by Microsoft. I'm not even sure when people do post here about Bill Gates is there still that avatar with the Borg get up?

      They have changed and the world has changed, however they still have a massive market share and they have little respect for the privacy of their customers. Windows 10 is a information security nightmare for users and they harvest and sell your information without consent. They have changed in that they know they cannot get away with charging users $129.95 for their operating system and then charge them that again when a new version comes along, because the market has changed. Slashdot can pat themselves on the back because open source software played a part in that, but it does not mean that everyone is using linux, rather than the market changed and what the customers are paying Microsoft for has changed. Microsoft is also offsetting the money they are not making on software sales to advertising dollars and they have diversified and continue to diversify. They are still evil, but that evil is evolving and becoming more insidious. Don't think of them as the Borg anymore, think of them as Emperor Palpatine, they are more diabolical now, that is their brand.. in a way they are basically sheeple herders now as well as a software company.

    27. Re:like what? by Alumoi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Riding (horses or human powered bikes) would get the same result, you know?

    28. Re:like what? by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

      This is a big deal. I give the example of my mother making an international phone call when I was a child whenever I hear someone say there is no technological progress like there used to be. The whole process was quite a chore, and expensive. We had to go to the central post office in a big city, during working hours of course (through the snow, uphill both ways... just kidding). There was a special room with three phones on the wall and a person at the counter. We had to tell that person what country we wanted to call and what phone number. He then went into another room where he made the connection, probably with the help of overseas operators via some combination of undersea cables and satellites. When he made the connection he told us which phone to use. The call cost something like $10 per minute, which was a lot at that time, and the sound quality was poor. Literally every single part of that process has improved since then. Each improvement was small and incremental, barely noticeable, but together they changed the way we all communicate. I can now make a phone call to anywhere in the world for a few cents per minute, from something which fits in my pocket. That is amazing. I can't wait to see what incremental changes do to the way we drive cars in my lifetime.

      --
      Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
    29. Re:like what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vaccines are science, not "technology".

    30. Re:like what? by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      I think it's a perception issue. There's even an ad campaign: If you have a problem, "There's an app for that." Software development can move very fast, and a lot of people see software as technology. So, "Do [x], but with a computer or phone," starts to look like what techies do, and the set of problems you can solve with a phone is pretty small and personal.

      Real technology, like driverless cars to prevent ~1M annual fatalities, solar energy and other efforts to minimize global warming, or curing river blindness, takes a long time to develop and spends a long time looking like it won't work. A lot of it is developed by existing companies that don't need media-driven VC, and may even try to hide development from their competitors. Real technology looks incremental.

    31. Re:like what? by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      If they could reduce rolling resistance by replacing rubber wheels and asphalt roads with steel, then we would be back to 19th century technology.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    32. Re:like what? by beheaderaswp · · Score: 1

      There is no product without science. And once a product is made, continually updated, and marketed- it is simply refinement of that science.

      The science doesn't stop because there's a product based on it...

      --
      Another consultant who stuck it out.

      "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    33. Re:like what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The primary reason why we have speed limits in cities isn't because drivers are unable to control the car at high speeds but because pedestrians are nearby and you want to ensure their survival even if THEY make a mistake. You assume that the driver is the only one who can cause accidents when there are more potential causes and you want to make sure the damage is limited in every case. Therefore, automated cars will not remove speed limits because they are still needed for worst case scenarios.

    34. Re:like what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drunk people riding horses or bikes isn't great. Nor do they work for some visual or physical impairments. And they're certainly not faster than human-driven cars.

    35. Re:like what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What could be solved by tech? And would people use that tech?

      If you don't have an answer, throwing money at it won't make it happen. If you do, you'll likely have an answer why it isn't being done.

      I think Bell Labs might disagree with you.

    36. Re:like what? by kurkosdr · · Score: 1

      Good for them. ROI is good for the investor. You must know that here is no obligation (moral or otherwise) to fix other people's problems, or to develop technology that fixes other people's problems. All those people in the third-world failing at parenthood planning should not expect from venture capitalists to make magic technology that will fix the results of their decision to have 5 children when they can afford one or none.

    37. Re:like what? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      This is exactly how I would have answered. Capitalism creates way more problems then it solves.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    38. Re:like what? by naubol · · Score: 1

      ... and creating a new social network for cat videos.

      This comment induced me to ponder the social utility of cat videos. Your implication seems to be that whatever value they confer is negligible.

      I've seen these videos create bonds between people and to bring a sense of humanity to meetings, between co-workers, and between friends. The content itself may be fungible with other cultural talismans, but their existence and ease of sharing may perform an essential role in bringing people together. It may be the virtual equivalent of a neighborhood barbecue.

      --
      Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
    39. Re:like what? by mikein08 · · Score: 0

      Wiping out smallpox serves to increase the world's population, which imho is definitely not desirable. The root cause of virtually all the world's major problems is increasing population.

    40. Re:like what? by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      venture? Surely you mean 'Vulture' capital firms...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    41. Re:like what? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      The problem with tech, is that once it is part of our lives, we no longer consider it "tech", and we take it for granted.

      Exactly. Which is why you are taking for granted that the millions killed in WW2 and various wars in the last 700 years were mostly killed by technology. You might say wars were caused by politics, not technology, but then technology was also caused / enabled by politics.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    42. Re:like what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's a silly statement based on the silly assumption that humans are static and do not change behaviour based on events around them.
      While there are more reasons, it is very likely that it is the elimination of serious risks to most humans that allowed a lot of people to be happy with having only 1 or 2 children.
      With everyone having less than 2 children on average there is no way the world's population will increase. Yes, a lot of places aren't there yet, but many, many others have reached that point already, proving there is absolutely no need for illnesses or other ways of killing people to limit or even reduce the world population.

    43. Re:like what? by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      No they wouldn't. You're assuming that with autonomous vehicles we wouldn't still all own our own autonomous cars. I see no reason to believe that would be the case. I'm not going to sit around waiting for 10 minutes for a car to be available and drive to my house every time I want to drive- I'm just going to own my own car. If anything it will increase the need for parking space, as minors not capable of driving may be given cars to drive them.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    44. Re:like what? by fluffernutter · · Score: 0

      I still say capitalism will get in the way of any benefit that automated cars may possibly bring. As long as they are more expensive than manual cars, people will prefer manual cars and we will never reach a critical mass required to be statistically relevant. The people on Slashdot may think the automated thing is cool and all and worth spending a bundle on, but most people won't see it that way. Either governments will have to subsidize most of the difference in cost, or the economy will have to send a whole lot of money to the middle class so that the difference in cost becomes less relevant to them.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    45. Re:like what? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      There is such a sliver of time where a minor is old enough to go somewhere on their own in an automated car and when they can drive themselves, I don't think that use will be particularly relevant. Maybe between the years of 14 and 16, but that's about it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    46. Re: like what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not either or. I'm working at an EdTech startup and our goal is to help children, to secure funding, to grow and help more children, to increase revenue, to grow and help more children, to further increase profits, to grow and help more children...

    47. Re:like what? by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      ALso add in people who choose to switch from public transport to cars. I know many people who take public transit because they don't want to drive in traffic. If a car was self driving, they'd choose it over a crowded, smelly, loud bus in a second.

      Oh, and elderly who can no longer safely drive.

      Self driving cars won't reduce traffic or the need for parking. It will be somewhere in the no change to 20 percent worse.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    48. Re:like what? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      People will only switch to driving services if they are more the cost of Uber and cost much less than a taxi. Yet I think it is a reasonable assumption that taxis as we know today will be gone by then, so there will be nothing to hold the price of an automated driving service down and they may likely just fill the same niche. People keep saying that self driving cars will be cleaner because they will have sensors to detect when someone pisses in them but I'll have to see that to believe it. There will be no driver, but the car will be more expensive to purchase, operate and maintain so it will be a wash. I do agree with you on the point of the elderly but again, those people would then take taxi's today. The manual car will remain king, because it will be always be cheapest, and it will be there in your driveway to serve you with no waiting.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    49. Re:like what? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is exactly how I would have answered. Capitalism creates way more problems then it solves.

      This is debatable. I'd say the culture around capitalism (and perhaps more accurately, the "myths" capitalism tells about itself) are more problematic than capitalism itself.

      In a balanced society and economy which mixes various economic elements more freely, capitalism can be a useful element. It's when we put capitalism up on a pedestal as the "best" system or the "only" one that is an appropriate component in a free society that we run into trouble.

      There are many cases where capitalism can address problems that a more "managed" approach through government or whatever would be difficult, and there are plenty of cases where the creativity of capitalist enterprises can solve "problems" that people didn't even think were "problems" until capitalism generated a better way.

      It's the side effects, though, that are more worrisome. Capitalism breeds a "game" mentality where everything in life is about money, profit, eternal growth, etc. It creates illusions like our modern commercial economy based on "newness" and disposable goods. Contrary to what capitalism claims, these are not necessarily just "human nature," as there were lots of historical societies with different organizations and different values.

      It's not so much that capitalism is fundamentally flawed as that modern society's embrace of capitalism (to the exclusion of other values or possible economic components) hasn't yet found the most productive (and more ethical?) balance.

    50. Re:like what? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I believe most humans really do want what is best for other humans, but capitalism most definitely does not. Furthermore, it rewards the few remaining that don't want what is best for others.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    51. Re:like what? by narf0708 · · Score: 1

      Good for them. ROI is good for the investor. You must know that here is no obligation (moral or otherwise) to fix other people's problems, or to develop technology that fixes other people's problems.

      Sure there is an obligation, at least if you admit one has an obligation to better oneself. Measured altruism is self-interest. If a someone can develop a technology that fixes other people's problems, those people will not only pay for that technology, benefiting all parties involved, but they will also have more of some resource now freed up by that technology to devote to developing some sort of other beneficial technology themselves. Overall standard of living increases as a result, including one's own standard of living.

      If one has an obligation to improve oneself, or one's standings, one necessarily also has an obligation to help others so as to enable them to better help oneself(or some other person who then could help oneself).

      --
      "Violence is not the answer. Violence is the question. The answer is yes."
    52. Re:like what? by FrozenGeek · · Score: 1

      That's an excellent question. There are probably problems that could be solved by technology, but do the relevant techies know about the problems? A previous post mentioned automating testing of, say, TB. Great idea. But how would I, a programmer, know that that particular need exists? I'm not psychic (possibly psychotic, but that's a different issue). If techies are not improving the world, if they're spending their time creating stuff like Angry Birds, maybe they simply haven't found anything more interesting. Or maybe they see a better potential ROI in Angry Birds rather than testing for TB. Solving problems is great. Having a roof over your head and food on your table is better still.

      --
      linquendum tondere
    53. Re:like what? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      dramatically reduce the delays caused by traffic lights

      Autonomous vehicles are able to leap?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    54. Re:like what? by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      The fuck they arent.

      Next you will say steel is not technology.
      Or that ceramic is not technology.

      Technology is the application of science to change the human environment. The use of fire is technology. The combination of iron and carbon to make steel is technology.

      The purposeful introduction of viral protiens to sensitize a human immune system to viral infectious agents is technology.

      Science enables technology.

    55. Re:like what? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      I believe most humans really do want what is best for other humans, but capitalism most definitely does not.

      These two statements are somewhat contradictory. Capitalism is a social construct, produced by humans. If "most humans really do want what is best for other humans," then it is certainly possible for humans to employ capitalism in ways that have a positive result.

      Furthermore, it rewards the few remaining that don't want what is best for others.

      In a pure capitalist system (completely "free market" and essentially no government), that's probably eventually the case. Without any check on business at all, those who employ unfair practices will eventually gain the upper hand and will have an advantage over others.

      However, please note that my post was about a balanced system that utilizes capitalism as only one component, perhaps even in a relatively minor role. In the real world, governments and other social institutions can place limits on who can be "rewarded" economically and how. With enough such limits or proper incentives, the temptation to avoid "what is best for others" may be curtailed or even eliminated.

      But all of this is rather abstract. To bring it back to reality, the truth is that some people are smarter than others. Some people are more creative than others. But to utilize their intelligence and creativity to improve society, they may like some "perks" in exchange back from society. Capitalism allows that. Some political philosophers in fact have argued that the most just societies are those which would provide such incentives only as long as the "few" continue to benefit society. At the point when those incentives cease to benefit society as a whole, the incentives cease or are removed. Most modern governments already do this in limited ways, e.g., by taxing rich people more or limiting the benefits given to them.

      Meanwhile, without any capitalism at all in a society, you have to come up with a way to incentivize the smart, creative, etc. to help innovate and make society better. So what do you give them? More power instead of money? That breeds its own problems. I'm not saying there aren't other possible solutions, but a minor dose of capitalism within a balanced society might also be one of them.

    56. Re:like what? by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      From Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations:
      "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

      Without the market ideas which make up capitalism, you'd be force to stand completely independently, or else to be a beggar, depending for your subsistence on the mercy of others. How about this... try going a month... no, a week without exchanging labor or goods with someone else in a "capitalist" exchange and report back to us how your life changes during that time.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    57. Re:like what? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      GMOs. And automated agricultural machinery. So the "iPhone" *is* fixing it, kind of, if by "ïPhone", you're jocularly referring to modern computational machinery.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    58. Re:like what? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      No, science is science. Technology is technology. Science is about understanding things. Technology is about doing something to things in real life. Vaccines are definitely a technology.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    59. Re:like what? by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      Isn't Venture Capital throwing money at a problem with the hope of solving it and making money? Why is throwing money at BeerMe, DriveMe, FeedMe, etc., a reasonable idea but throwing money at a more important problem not acceptable or likely to work?

      Solving a problem does not inherently make you money. Creating a solution customers are willing and able to spend money on will make you money. By giving $10 to a starving poor person I could solve that hunger (at least temporarily), but I am unlikely to see a return on that "investment". Finding a way to make a better tasting ketchup, on the other hand, could make a lot of money, regardless of whether tastier ketchup is a more important than feeding starving people.

      Venture capital is not charity. Wealthy people can certainly choose to start a foundation (like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) instead of investing in a VC firm if solving "important" problems is their goal. If they choose investing, however, return on investment is likely the goal.

      There are a lot of VC funded companies solving very important problems, but the reason they were funded almost certainly was because they could show a potential return on investment. Social good could have been a factor, but very few companies (or possibly no companies) are funded by VC's as a charity case.

      Just in case the assumption behind this response was that I'm a total-fucking-moron-without-the-slightest-clue (I don't rule out that possibility that describes me accurately), I thought I'd clarify that I realize that investors invest money to earn a return. I'm with you on that. It's worth noting that in my question and in any of my comments, I don't really claim that any sort of attempt to to hard sell VC's to make funding charity cases as their investment strategies. First of all, my knowledge of what they do is somewhat limited. I don't presume to know the solution to this problem. I'm not even sure that funding "charity" cases is the way to go even if it were somehow lucrative. I presume nothing. We live in interesting times. I am beyond thinking I know shit. The collective consciousness of Slashdot know a whole lot more than I do and I've tapped into a bit with this question. It does have that feeling of a sort of mind merge. The collective brain bower in this sort of over-mind light (compared to the larger over mind). That is, this site is a way to extend your own intelligence beyond it's normal bounds. Other spaces do the same thing. Huffpo does not... Usually.

    60. Re:like what? by ranton · · Score: 1

      It looks like a better headline to this story could have been "How can we get techies to spend more time improving the world?" It doesn't appear you are unaware why they aren't doing it now so this may have geared the answers closer to what you were looking for.

      In an attempt to answer your intended question:

      1) One way for techies to improve the world is simply to create tools used by others who are improving the world. Better business intelligence tools can and are used by charities to identify and target those they help, not just by for profit corporations. Improved social media apps were arguably instrumental in the Arab Spring, and will likely continue to assist in other efforts to improve the world. It's easy to dismiss "meaningless apps" but they are created because they solve a problem for someone, so to their customers these apps are improving the world.

      2) Increasing funding to charities and to for profit companies with a focus on social good will cause more techies to work on these projects. This funding would almost certainly need to come from governmental organizations as they have the easiest method of collecting revenue for projects with little to no ROI (mandatory taxes).

      So if you really see this as a problem to improve, choose the most liberal political party in your country (which has a chance of winning elections) and work to help them get into (or stay in) power. That is most likely the best path to improving this problem.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    61. Re:like what? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >You must know that here is no obligation (moral or otherwise) to fix other people's problems

      Oh yes there is. The failure to recognize it is antisocial or even psychotic behaviour. That's literally the purpose for which society was invented. Indeed, it's literally the reason why we evolved as a social species. If you don't accept your share of "fixing other people's problems" as a responsibility - then you are not fit for purpose as a member of society. The only reason for tolerating your existence, indeed for saying you have a 'right to live' - the only reason NOT to murder you for your stuff, is the potential good you can do.
      "Good" is just a word meaning "effort spent solving other people's problems".

      Call that the biological obligation. But it not a moral obligation - it is THE moral obligation, the ONLY moral obligation. It's literally the definition of all sane morality.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    62. Re:like what? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Mere exchange makes trade - but trade does not equal capitalism. That oversimplification is always used by free market fundamentalists as a way to obscure the reality.
      The pretty picture they want us to have of a small town with two ice cream shops and the guy who sells the better tasting ice cream at a good price gets richer - that does not exist in reality. Capitalism like that stops existing the moment the town gets beyond a few hundred people.

      At the level of multinational corporations you end up with entities that command resources as vast as most governments, but not answerable to either the citizens of society nor even the people who work in them in any way, dictatorships in other words. Able to shirk all laws because if you make something illegal somewhere they just go do the exact same thing somewhere else, somewhere there will be a government that will accept a bribe to let you do what you want to do - no matter how insane. Destructive whenever destruction saves money. Murderous on a scale unmatched by even the most brutal empires - because empires rarely get richer by killing people, but dumping your toxic waste in the drinking water saves you a lot of expensive cleanup and fuck the dead people.

      The Adam Smith ideal does not exist in the real world and may never have existed at all. If it ever did, it got killed at the start of the industrial revolution. In Britain in the 18th century - about 50% of all children grew to adulthood. By the mid 19th century it was 10%. What the hell had pushed the child-mortality rate up from 50% to 90% in a century? One word: the industrial revolution. Those kids were literally being worked to death by the millions. 90% of them dead before the age of 10.
      They don't tell you THAT part when they are glorifying it though.

      When you reward self interest indiscriminately - the worst possible behaviours, the most murderous, the most deadly, the most unconscionable are always and without exception the norm. Because they are always the ones that have the greatest self-interest rewards and if you reward self interest indiscriminately and without limit - then the kind of people who would do the most insanely violent things to other people, are the ones who inevitably end up in charge.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    63. Re:like what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two types of rivalry (i.e. competition). Good natured and full

      A good natured rivalry is one that gets everyone excited to work, but in which honor and decency are preserved. Thus encourages both sides to strive to be better and, should a true evil present itself, both side are willing to work together to prevail.

      A true rivalry is one where there is nothing so dastardly to prevent the other from victory. Total, constant war is the order of the day--the only time a consequence is considered is if it may have some manner of helping the Enemy. Killing thousands is fine (or robbing thousands blind) as long as critical planners don't go to jail as then their planning would be impeded. Only because of the detriment of not having their abilities is this not done--not because of the toll on the outside world.

      Capitalism needs people to behave in the "good rivalry" frame of mind to work. The problem is it (currently) is easier / more profitable to use full rivalry, and as a result full rivalry is required to make any money at all. Government's job is to regulate such that full rivalry doesn't occur (or has too high of a cost to be feasible). It is this job which has lapsed, and why is where were are in our current position.

    64. Re:like what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not so much that capitalism is fundamentally flawed as that modern society's embrace of capitalism (to the exclusion of other values or possible economic components) hasn't yet found the most productive (and more ethical?) balance.

      Capitalism doesn't work for the same reason Communism doesn't, too many greedy humans trying to game the system for their own benefit.

      I'm not sure we can design an economic system that rewards workers while punishing sociopaths. Such behavior has to be rooted out at the cultural level.

    65. Re:like what? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is excellent at generating wealth, and increasing wealth helps the world out a lot. Capitalism brings its own major problems, but it does solve problems.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    66. Re:like what? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the primary reason for speed limits on highways is because humans suck at driving. That and the gas crisis in the 1970s. Either way, the only valid reason to have speed limits on highways is because humans suck at driving and frequently aren't smart enough to slow down when road conditions are bad.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    67. Re:like what? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Treat the light as a roundabout, stagger car timing to ensure that they are packetized, speed traffic up or slow it down to achieve gaps in traffic long enough for cross traffic to go through... the exactly solution varies from road to road. Either way, in every case, the lights themselves exist only to tell humans what to do.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    68. Re:like what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problems tend to start with the fact that most humans are very bad at identifying 'what is best for other humans.' Even though most people do eventually make the step towards conscious recognition that other people are--surprisingly enough--other people...subconscious recognition is not always there. There's actually some evidence that people who fully accept that others' wants, desires, and needs are not the same as theirs beyond the absolutely basic biological levels...are pretty rare.

      People can, have, and will do horrible things to others--while truly wanting what's best for other humans. In fact, that's pretty much normal here: The kind of people who can set out to do those things without believing what they're doing is what's best, are very rare. Go read some of the works by the eugenics movements--they honestly believed they were doing what's best for other people, even as they did things like forcibly sterilize people.

  5. Elon Musk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is improving the world. Bringing electric cars to the world to fight global warming, and solar panels for the same reason.

    1. Re:Elon Musk... by Jzanu · · Score: 2

      While he ignores safety engineering in every project, and outsources testing to the ill-informed consumers resulting in their deaths during normal use of products. So at best his character is a wash, and at worst he's really a psychopath.

    2. Re: Elon Musk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla has a better safety record than most car manufacturers so I suggest toning it down.

    3. Re: Elon Musk... by Jzanu · · Score: 2

      Not really, when you cherry-pick the kind of miles driven, the age of vehicles in the sample, and all other factors required to actually compare Tesla models to other cars that are their actual contemporaries in terms of manufacturing and usage they don't. RAND produced a great paper on this fact: http://www.rand.org/pubs/resea...

    4. Re: Elon Musk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, my car won't try to stop if I drive it at a wall.

      I guess Toyota is even more psychopathic?

      Or wait. No. You're just a fucking moron. Piss off.

    5. Re: Elon Musk... by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      You could try to understand statistical inference and experimental design for causality, or you could just be stupid. Your choice.

    6. Re:Elon Musk... by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      You misunderstand him, he only solves overpopulation on the side.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re: Elon Musk... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      All we know is how many accidents Autopilot gets into in its perfect driving conditions; situations that humans probably have a low accident rate in anyway. Add to that the fact that ever Tesla driver is driving a brand new $60K vehicle, which most people would be more careful with. Also all of them have probably taken a big step back in how far they are willing to push the envelope since the Florida accident. When Autopilot can leave a person's driveway in a blizzard, deal with snow and ice, driving around snow clearing equipment and piles of snow in the road on the way without touchng the steering wheel once, then we will have an accurate comparison of safety.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  6. WTF??? Techies have already improved the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at what Linux, Apache, LibreOffice, etc. provide to the world completely free in every sense of the word. People who could never afford a full commerical stack of software can nonetheless by an equal member of our tech-fueled society. That has "improved the world" far more than any starving kid charity or trendy social cause.

  7. Huh? by aldousd666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This problem sounds like a made-up problem. Nobody's cell phone app is going to cure cancer yet... but they ARE very useful for using cameras to deposit checks and file expense reports without any paperwork... I don't see what you're getting at... there is useless crap all over the place, everyone tries their hand if they are willing to do it, and if it's something that people want, they pay for it. If it's not, then they don't. The OP is clearly focused on one or two, or twelve apps or tech that are 'useless' but I wonder if they would stop a second and think just how fast the ENTIRE WORLD is changing right now... All the time.

    --
    Speak for yourself.
    1. Re:Huh? by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      If you think it's made up problem that's fine, I don't. It's not like I'm not paying as close attention as you are so unless you think I'm an idiot (possible), then you think it's reasonable to come to a different conclusion. I wasn't using black and white thinking here to say no important problems are being solved. And while I agree with Arthur C. Clark about technology, I don't think it actually *is* magic, so I wasn't suggesting "there's an app for that" approach to curing cancer. Someone who spends their entire life working on just the issue of depositing checks isn't mis-spending their time, either. I've spent more than my share of time on the day-to-day things. It's just is the most important thing right now to, say, "LET'S DISRUPT THE FUCK OUT OF CHECK DEPOSITS"? Or are checks fine, sure, let's incrementally improve it but why the fuck does every little nook and cranny of minutia have to have someone trying to turn it upside down for a buck?

    2. Re:Huh? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 0

      America--quite possibly the only country left in the world where they still use paper checks.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think it's made up problem that's fine, I don't. It's not like I'm not paying as close attention as you are so unless you think I'm an idiot (possible), then you think it's reasonable to come to a different conclusion. I wasn't using black and white thinking here to say no important problems are being solved. And while I agree with Arthur C. Clark about technology, I don't think it actually *is* magic, so I wasn't suggesting "there's an app for that" approach to curing cancer.

      Someone who spends their entire life working on just the issue of depositing checks isn't mis-spending their time, either. I've spent more than my share of time on the day-to-day things. It's just is the most important thing right now to, say, "LET'S DISRUPT THE FUCK OUT OF CHECK DEPOSITS"? Or are checks fine, sure, let's incrementally improve it but why the fuck does every little nook and cranny of minutia have to have someone trying to turn it upside down for a buck?

      It is actually very rare that there is a world changing paradigm shift in an area like that. When there is there are big established companies that try like hell to fight it and the software creators either sink or swim. (Napster comes to mind) It sometimes is like you say, incremental and mundane things that carve out a niche but that is not glamorous nor enables some kid working in their mom's basement to make a million dollars overnight. It is very possible however that small things can have big consequences in the realm of software and it sometimes takes years to play out.. Think of Bitcoin.. you could argue that that is not a business but it does represent big change, however it is not clear what the endgame of that one is. Bitcoin has the potential to turn central banking on it's head, but there will always be central banks.. Did the creator of Bitcoin become a millionaire? it is almost a certainty, however we do not know for sure who that person is!

      It is not a made up problem. You are not an idiot in my opinion. You know how to ask sane and thought provoking questions that are not easily answered by a google search.. you certainly sent me along some interesting lines of reasoning. Curing cancer is something that will be achieved by unfettered and organized access to research across the world and being able to store and provide access to the research that is open ended and accessible by everyone. Cancer is a wicked problem, and will require organized team effort and avoiding of reinventing the wheel or chasing money for "My solution" by everyone so that when cures or better treatments do come they are not prohibiyvitily expensive and are able to be recognized as useful by the world at large.. If it is solved by an android application (other than folding or something like it) I would be surprised.. It is possible.. but as Mr. Data said on Star Trek TNG.. "It is possible, but it is ... Extremely unlikely."

    4. Re:Huh? by Noble713 · · Score: 1

      but why the fuck does every little nook and cranny of minutia have to have someone trying to turn it upside down for a buck?

      There are 7 billion people on this planet. Not all of them will have the skills, inclination, or experience to tackle the "big problems". Yet all of them need to make money so they can eat. It's inevitable that somebody, somewhere, will end up working on a project that seems insignificant. You're focusing on (for example) some mediocre Java/GUI developer in India who makes Android fart apps for $750/month and making it sound like he's in the wrong because he isn't doing his part to make the Large Hadron Collider more reliable. Nevermind the fact that CERN would never hire him anyway. We will never achieve 100% efficiency in the allocation of human labor to taskings, partly because we can't even all agree on what the "right" taskings are to begin with.

    5. Re:Huh? by spitzig · · Score: 1

      Cell phone apps are used for so many purposes. I'm sure people working on cancer research use them, too. A while ago, I recall hearing about a cell phone component to do some type of chemical scan.

      Just the basic use-making phone calls-improves the efficiency of the researcher. Communication is important for science, and cell phones help that.

  8. As Aziz Shamim put it... by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "SF tech culture is focused on solving one problem: What is my mother no longer doing for me?"

    Not much world changing going on in that paradigm.

    Big companies do put lots of money at trying to change the world (usually in a way that also benefits them) but rarely succeed.

    1. Re:As Aziz Shamim put it... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Not much world changing going on in that paradigm.

      Really? Freeing up a full time job of looking after and managing people's sorry asses isn't world changing?

      As much as we heap shit on startups when you add up the incremental benefits of all the small things that are made better or more efficient it really makes a huge difference in the world.

    2. Re:As Aziz Shamim put it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      science fiction? san francisco?

  9. They are at tech non profits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check out Khan Academy, Mifos Initiative and Benetech. You can also volunteer your coding skills via Code Alliance.

  10. What do you want us to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all about money. What did you expect?

    I was part of a startup about 4 years ago. We had some pretty neat tech (patented, of course) that was going to go into a genuinely useful product. There were prototypes, and things were ramping up to go into full production by the end of the year.

    Management pretty much fucked everyone over by selling out the whole company to another corporation, who only really wanted our patents. 99% of us were let go within 6 months (we all got decent severance packages, but still). The plans for production were immediately halted, and the prototypes destroyed. 4 years of my life gone, almost overnight. The corporation that bought us out never did anything with the technology or patents, nor do they have any plans to do anything with it in the future. They only really wanted to lock everything up so it couldn't impact their own market, and so that nobody else could come along and try something similar in the future.

    IMHO; genuine innovation is pretty much dead these days. Money has made sure of that, and the patent system has turned into an excellent tool for corporations to use to stifle any innovation they find threatening.

    1. Re:What do you want us to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patent numbers, or it didn't happen.

    2. Re:What do you want us to do? by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Patent numbers, or it didn't happen.

      Not that guy, but one company which springs to mind immediately is HGSI. They cured AIDS, were bought out by Glaxo-Kline-Smith and all their research was shelved because GKS has a treatment-for-life product which a cure would have made obsolete.

    3. Re:What do you want us to do? by pthisis · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not that guy, but one company which springs to mind immediately is HGSI. They cured AIDS, were bought out by Glaxo-Kline-Smith and all their research was shelved because GKS has a treatment-for-life product which a cure would have made obsolete.

      Yeah, except that's not true at all. HGSI had a ccr5 monoclonal antibody in clinical trials, but it hadn't shown itself to be as effective as other existing medications let alone constituting having "cured AIDS". And Glaxo has been working on ccr5 agonists of their own (e.g aplavoric), with similarly mixed results.

      There's a ton of money and prestige in an AIDS cure, there's no way a pharmaceutical company would submarine it.

      And Glaxo and HGSI were beaten to the punch on CCR5 agonists by Pfizer, who got FDA approval for maraviroc (brand: Selzentry) and are making millions off of it.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    4. Re:What do you want us to do? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Shelving an AIDS cure makes no sense.

      Aside of being the company that cured AIDS, which alone would make the share value go through the roof, this is the license to print money. Instantly EVERYTHING your competitor has in that field is worthless. Why treat if you have the cure? Second, it's more likely to be paid for by European state insurances. For this to understand, you have to know how they work. Basically (VERY roughly simplified) they pay for cures more easily than for continuous treatments. Basically it's a rather inhuman calculation around the question "are you worth the expense", and if it is a cure, the answer is invariably yes, independent of the cost. This isn't a given for palliative means, which treatment for AIDS is, from the perspective of the insurance: There is no chance for cure, it can only prolong the life of the patient and/or improve the quality of life.

      There are a few more things, but I hope this already shows why the conspiracy of pharma corporations holding back cures because treating is more profitable is bullshit. You can make TONS more money with a cure. Especially with a cure for a disease that people can (and, given there is a cure, most likely will) get again throughout their life.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:What do you want us to do? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Second, it's more likely to be paid for by European state insurances. For this to understand, you have to know how they work. Basically (VERY roughly simplified) they pay for cures more easily than for continuous treatments. Basically it's a rather inhuman calculation around the question "are you worth the expense", and if it is a cure, the answer is invariably yes, independent of the cost. This isn't a given for palliative means, which treatment for AIDS is, from the perspective of the insurance: There is no chance for cure, it can only prolong the life of the patient and/or improve the quality of life.

      That's not how it works at least here in Norway, everything is worked out to a cost per quality-adjusted year. Fully healthy is 1, dead is 0 and various degrees of impairment somewhere in between. So if it's about saving your life, it's about how many years you'd statistically have left and a 20yo would get a much, much more expensive surgery than an 80yo. A treatment that'll improve your quality of life from 0.8 to 1 for five years is equal to one that'll (fully) prolong your life for a year (1-0.8)*5 = (1-0)*1. And I'd call it "given finite resources, are we taking treatments away from people who need them more?" because the system really isn't trying to be evil. It just can't afford to give everyone all the treatments they could marginally benefit from.

      At least here in Norway the threshold is around $50-100k/year somewhere, which is to say there are only rather extreme measures that'd either take massive hospital support, absurdly priced medication or that would only give a few months or have very slim chance of success that is refused. At some point you also have to consider the grander picture, how much would the taxes to pay for a massive last-ditch effort negatively impact everyone else's lives, if you live less healthy because you can't afford to or die in a traffic accident because we don't maintain the public roads that too will ultimately end up in lives cut short. We can't just pull money out of the hat, not even for a good cause.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:What do you want us to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think the fact that it makes no sense, and is not the most profitable path by far, then you don't understand greed. Facebook, Google, and Apple could make a ton more money by actually being productive instead of constantly ripping everyone off and violating their privacy, but they are all too fucking stupid and greedy to do it.

  11. You may be looking in the wrong place by macklin01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most of us who entered science and academia did so to make the world a better place, and many of us are techies. You'd be amazed at home much coding and tech is required for pretty much every area of science today.

    We're writing open source software to solve real problems in science and engineering. We're spending the last of our startups on open access for our papers because it's the right thing to do. We're contributing to open data repositories because sharing data makes all our work better. We're writing free content on blogs, code tutorials, and MOOCs for public outreach, because we view our roles as educators seriously.

    Most people in academic endure years of low pay and job uncertainty as postdocs and entry-level faculty--and defer or postpone indefinitely having children and buying that starter home--rather than faster and better-paying paths in industry, IP law, and mathematical finance because we do want to make the world a better place, and we're actively working on it.

    So, while I agree with your general feeling, take a look around, and you'll see more techies trying make a difference that you might have realized.

    --
    OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
    1. Re:You may be looking in the wrong place by marmot7 · · Score: 2

      Most of us who entered science and academia did so to make the world a better place, and many of us are techies. You'd be amazed at home much coding and tech is required for pretty much every area of science today.

      We're writing open source software to solve real problems in science and engineering. We're spending the last of our startups on open access for our papers because it's the right thing to do. We're contributing to open data repositories because sharing data makes all our work better. We're writing free content on blogs, code tutorials, and MOOCs for public outreach, because we view our roles as educators seriously.

      Most people in academic endure years of low pay and job uncertainty as postdocs and entry-level faculty--and defer or postpone indefinitely having children and buying that starter home--rather than faster and better-paying paths in industry, IP law, and mathematical finance because we do want to make the world a better place, and we're actively working on it.

      So, while I agree with your general feeling, take a look around, and you'll see more techies trying make a difference that you might have realized.

      I agree with you. On average, I find my techie friends are more informed and intellectually curious than any other group. I'd put them at about equal to my academic friends in this area. And I should have worded the question with more finesse, forseeing these sort of objections. There's all kinds of good work happening every single day but there's a lot of money and a lot of attention shined on the mundane. So much so that people are losing respect for "Silicon Valley" meaning the tech industry in general. Is that a PR problem or an actual problem? If non-tech public is to techies and their tech as a positive force for good or just a bunch of disruptive assholes who just want to get rich and don't give a fuck if they throw you out of a job in the process. Hyperbole? Of course. But there's a grain of truth whenever a shift starts to happen in perceptions of a group of people.

    2. Re:You may be looking in the wrong place by macklin01 · · Score: 2

      Thanks for your reply. It's an interesting discussion, and indeed, I get a little fed up when even in academia, translational medicine morphs from meaning "translating theory into practice" to meaning "getting patents and making profitable startups." It's needed, but it can sometimes distort the field and culture when it becomes an ends and not a means.

      I'm a little curious as to your definition of techie, because a lot of the discussion really boils down to how you define a techie.

      I find my techie friends are more informed and intellectually curious than any other group. I'd put them at about equal to my academic friends in this area.

      When you say this, this makes me think your Venn diagram for "technies" and "academics" has no intersection. But ask most any grad student, postdoc, or faculty in an engineering, CS, or applied math department (and increasingly many biology departments), and they'll likely regard themselves as techies.

      It seems to me a reasonable definition that a techie is a technophile, particularly one who loves, uses, and improves technology in their daily work and hobbies. But if you restrict your label to Silicon Valley and tech startup types, you're lose most of the amateur techies, the open source people, and the citizen scientists.

      Again, it's an interesting discussion, so thanks. (And great to meet you here on Slashdot!)

      --
      OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
    3. Re:You may be looking in the wrong place by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your reply. It's an interesting discussion, and indeed, I get a little fed up when even in academia, translational medicine morphs from meaning "translating theory into practice" to meaning "getting patents and making profitable startups." It's needed, but it can sometimes distort the field and culture when it becomes an ends and not a means.

      I'm a little curious as to your definition of techie, because a lot of the discussion really boils down to how you define a techie.

      I find my techie friends are more informed and intellectually curious than any other group. I'd put them at about equal to my academic friends in this area.

      When you say this, this makes me think your Venn diagram for "technies" and "academics" has no intersection. But ask most any grad student, postdoc, or faculty in an engineering, CS, or applied math department (and increasingly many biology departments), and they'll likely regard themselves as techies.

      It seems to me a reasonable definition that a techie is a technophile, particularly one who loves, uses, and improves technology in their daily work and hobbies. But if you restrict your label to Silicon Valley and tech startup types, you're lose most of the amateur techies, the open source people, and the citizen scientists.

      Again, it's an interesting discussion, so thanks. (And great to meet you here on Slashdot!)

      I meant "Silicon Valley" as a popular representation of what tech's about. It's the easiest thing to point to for the purpose of identifying the problem but the solution, if there even is a problem to solve, will extend way to the communities you mention! I think more nuance would have made my question harder to ask than it already was.

      I couldn't agree more with you, though, and now I'm wondering if I sacrificed clarity along with the nuance as a number of people latched on to either "dude, there's already an app for that what the fuck are you talking about?" and the "how can apps possibly feed the hungry?" sort of response but objections I could have addressed with a better formed question, including a broader definition of techie. The hobbyist, the researcher, the open source people, the citizen scientist (that's a cool concept).

    4. Re:You may be looking in the wrong place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're totally correct that most of us in science/tech work here to improve the world. We're trying, but we're not nearly as effective as we used to be.

      As a percentage of the scientific graduates, fewer of us are going into jobs that use our expertise. As a percentage of the stock market, less is being invested in science/tech startups.

      You may imagine that industry is great, but on average, science startup companies have been a losing investment since 1999. Where the investment in commercial science used to be 4-5X of university research, it's now equal. Imagine if your field's grant funding was only 20% of what it was 15 years ago. In industry, we've forgotten how to turn the good ideas that are generated in academia into practical applications.

      And, I'm sorry, but you guys are not taking your role as educators seriously enough. Academia needs to share some of the blame for the glut of postdocs and the poor job market for new entrants into the scientific workforce. Universities should care more about the landing place for their scientists. For many fields, industry jobs in that field pay less than postdocs. Just because a particle physics PhD gets a great programming job doesn't justify recruiting and training that student for a particle physics career. There's a confusion in academia as to whether grad students are labor, or students.

    5. Re:You may be looking in the wrong place by maswan · · Score: 2

      Exactly! This is why I work as a sysadmin to support science, instead of working as a sysadmin to support profit or entertainment. I've had to make this call a couple of times in my career, and so far I've chosen to stay on the side that improves the world. Not always an easy choice though, given the incentives of the short term profit side.

      You don't even need an academic career to do this either, there is plenty of us that have trouble recruiting competent programmers or sysadmins because the pay isn't as good. Which, I guess, tells us a bit of the priorities of society as seen by rewards structure, where making mobile games and banking is considered more important than making the world a better place.

      PS, I'm right now looking for an excellent java developer working on free software that enables storage for huge data science, like the LHC experiments. This is the kind of role that is part of the infrastructure needed to make science happen these days:
      https://neic.nordforsk.org/201...

    6. Re:You may be looking in the wrong place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be in a much nicer academic environment than I have ever seen in Europe at least.
      Acedemia is about wasting ridiculous amounts of effort on getting grants (outright fraud is the norm for any billing related to that at least in Germany btw.), pointless bureaucracy, generally having to do things you are no good at that wastes your talent because the university is too "cheap" to hire someone for the job.
      What's the point of settling for lower pay if all the bullshit means that you will still get less "good" done than at many oridinary, profit-making companies if you just avoid the worst scum?

    7. Re:You may be looking in the wrong place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the "priorities of society" which are decided by....the ENIRE REST OF SOCIETY, is wrong, because you've decided it so in your infinite progressive wisdom. You are societies victim, since you economic wants are unsatisfied by reason of unjust misallocation by these unwashed plebes! Oh the humanity!! Programmers should work on my pet projects for free simply because I daydream that they are a golden path for humanity! Grow up, man.

    8. Re:You may be looking in the wrong place by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      PS, I'm right now looking for an excellent java developer working on free software that enables storage for huge data science, like the LHC experiments. This is the kind of role that is part of the infrastructure needed to make science happen these days:

      Academia always befuddles me. I work on software that processes a new 450GB dataset in 8 hours, every weekday. It's written in C++. I wouldn't even consider trying it in Java. One of our competitors processes the same data using a Java solution. It does about a quarter as much data normalization and processing as ours does.

      Not so very long ago, CPUs were so far ahead and storage was so far behind that it didn't much matter what language you used. Those days have passed. We live in a world of terabyte nvme flash drives barely bigger than a bank card and commodity 10 Gb ethernet over copper.[1] It's now possible to keep the multicore beast fed with data. Choice of language matters again.

      The excellent Java developer you are seeking will be able to produce throughput that can be matched by a merely competent C++ developer. An excellent C++ developer could produce two to four times the throughput on the same hardware, or the same throughput on half as much hardware. It's unfortunate that you're now locked into maintenance of a distinctly disadvantageous codebase.

      ---
      [1] Here's a mindboggling build: two Fractal Design Node 804 cases packed with Seagate's 60TB SSDs gives you 1.2 petabytes that can sit on the corner of your desk with throughput that can saturate as many as six 10 Gb links to each chassis, operating nearly silently even at full load. If money is no object.

    9. Re:You may be looking in the wrong place by maswan · · Score: 1

      I'm not surprised that you''re befuddled, since you seem to not see the difference between storing data and doing data analysis.

      The data sets is in tens of PB, so SSD is way out for cost reasons. But that doesn't matter much, since a small cheap server with 16 7k2 rpm drives can saturate 10Gbit/s networking, in real life use with the storage software written in Java (this position). And we need lots of these servers to make the volume up, so the aggregate bandwidth is pretty large.

      The analysis software is up to my users, the LHC experiments, and is mostly C++, but with parts in python and probably some fortran libraries too.

    10. Re:You may be looking in the wrong place by chihowa · · Score: 2

      That's my impression, too. There's a huge personal and financial cost associated with working to make the world a better place, even if your specific goal isn't controversial at all (developing medical devices in my case).

      We see relatively few people working on these problems because we, as a society, value this work far less than almost every other pursuit (business, marketing, making weapons, etc). Maybe this illustrates that I'm not a very good person, but when I'm feeling down I wonder why I put myself through all of this just to help people who don't appreciate my effort at all. I could make a (relative) mint designing weapon systems and not feel like I'm helping people who wouldn't bat an eye at the sight of me starving in the street.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  12. honestly by nomadic · · Score: 1

    There seems to be a definite correlation between technical ability and lack of empathy. It's not totally determinative; there are plenty of technical people who are deeply compassionate. But on average? Probably noticeably less than the population as a whole.

    1. Re:honestly by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      There seems to be a definite correlation between technical ability and lack of empathy. It's not totally determinative; there are plenty of technical people who are deeply compassionate. But on average? Probably noticeably less than the population as a whole.

      I'm trying to think if that's true? Hmm. Yes, you're probably right but it's likely because it's so dominated by men and we men have less empathy than women. When I read, say, my Facebook feed it's clear that men and women tend to have a different take on things and a different focus. So I don't think it's techies specifically. If more women entered tech I think that would change that. Of course, there's a lot of variation.

    2. Re:honestly by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Actually that's a very good point that I hadn't really thought of.

    3. Re:honestly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should work for me for free on my personal projects that I feel are "important for humanity" for an indeffinite term. Not only will it endlessly benefit humanity, you will see imense personal growth and will demonstrate to everyone just how real your conviction that others have empathy really is!

      You refuse? I thought so, idiot.

    4. Re:honestly by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      Actually that's a very good point that I hadn't really thought of.

      Thanks! I really appreciate that. I rarely get a "hey that was a good point" especially if there's disagreement. People frequently choose a position and stay with it. I am one to concede flat out that I've lost a debate, sometimes shocking the person I'm debating. It's not a common move to concede as though it's a chess game, apparently.

    5. Re:honestly by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Thank you for proving my point.

  13. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation by CPIMatt · · Score: 0

    You mean like Bill Gates who is trying to wipe out Polio. Yeah, fuck that guy.

    -Matt

    1. Re:Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      That's how a billionaire is choosing to spend his retirement and wealth. That's awesome. What the hell ever happened to Bill Gates? I sort of miss the good old days when he was the perfect villian, a good sport, even willing to wear the Borg get-up to make himself even more sinister around here. :-)

    2. Re:Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation by NotInHere · · Score: 0

      The villain of the movie "Antitrust" has a foundation too, so Bill Gates can stay a bad guy.

    3. Re:Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      The villain of the movie "Antitrust" has a foundation too, so Bill Gates can stay a bad guy.

      Bill Gates is just not a bad guy anymore. What the hell, I feel like I live in an alternative reality. Bill Gates pretty is earnestly trying to make the world a better place and putting his money and i think his time behind that effort.

      Where did you go wrong, Bill? He's practically a hippie now but with billions of dollars to drive some pragmatic idealism. Holy shit, I sound like I could be an advocate. It just doesn't work anymore. He's playing a different role now so clearly he's not a guy who could just play one role and stuck.

      He is a counter example of what I'm saying but his program resulted from his decision so I'm not sure it counts as the application of tech toward solving problems. It's more like this guy who made billions decided to use his wealth to help solve some important problems.

    4. Re:Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      The villain of the movie "Antitrust" has a foundation too, so Bill Gates can stay a bad guy.

      Bill Gates is just not a bad guy anymore.

      Funny, last I checked he was taking the largest sum of wealth ever accrued by an individual, sticking it into a tax-evading non-profit he has control over, and pissing it away in the third world while the megacorporation he founded marches along to the same mantra of "fuck everyone who helped me get where I am, it's time for some cultural marxism and social 'justice.'" There is nothing good about Bill Gates, the fact you think otherwise is just another negative to add to the list (the liberal elites have brainwashed nearly an entire generation into believing in self-defeating ideologies.)

    5. Re:Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      The villain of the movie "Antitrust" has a foundation too, so Bill Gates can stay a bad guy.

      Bill Gates is just not a bad guy anymore.

      Funny, last I checked he was taking the largest sum of wealth ever accrued by an individual, sticking it into a tax-evading non-profit he has control over, and pissing it away in the third world while the megacorporation he founded marches along to the same mantra of "fuck everyone who helped me get where I am, it's time for some cultural marxism and social 'justice.'" There is nothing good about Bill Gates, the fact you think otherwise is just another negative to add to the list (the liberal elites have brainwashed nearly an entire generation into believing in self-defeating ideologies.)

      You mean? No way. He's still the villain. This is too good to be true. Do you have citations to back up what you're saying? Hey, I'm hoping he comes out of retirement because really who's his replacement? Name me one villain who even holds a candle to Bill Gates in his prime asshole days?

  14. Why is a "stunning" example necessary? by Corporate+T00l · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is not the genius required to keep existing infrastructure stable and feed the pace of technological advancement enough?

    Have we become so jaded to the incredibly fast rate of advancement that the everyday heroes who make this happen are not enough?

    Are we so self-centered in the wealthy developed parts of the world that we can't see the benefits that the rapid decrease in the cost of anything less than the absolute cutting edge have brought to poorer parts of the world?

    1. Re:Why is a "stunning" example necessary? by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      Thank god for the every day heroes. All the every day heroes, most people really, are what makes this thing work. It's necessary but not sufficient. We have some pretty serious problems so it's odd when a lot of brain power and money is thrown at the mundane stuff that frankly is already being done by every day heroes well enough but if you think that steady as she goes from every day heroes it going to be sufficient then I guess we disagree. Necessary but not sufficient. Do we have crappy world for our kids or a pretty decent one? I think pretty decent's an achievable but it's going to take solving some big problems. If you don't see that I'm not sure what I can say. I see a fucking train is heading down the tracks headed for a crash. It won't necessary derail in one dramatic event, it might just continue to go off the rails in sort of slow motion. You don't notice the change from yesterday to today as that's not how change usually works but at some point the train is completely off the rails and on it's side. Or it could happen faster maybe we're in denial that it's not happening really fast right now, a full on train wreck. Frankly, I'm not sure which is happening.

  15. We are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The end of need is upon us. Now we co-create eden.
    Earth
    Dawns
    Eternally
    Now

    permaculture
    aquaponics
    remote control animals
    artificial leafs
    plants
    fungi
    living systems
    cryptocurrency
    decentralized autonomy

    self sustaining food medicine fuel producing ecosystems in and outside the house
    biodiversity spreading symbiotic technology

    red and blue light said "let all creatures be fed"

    We are making paradise and giving it away.
    Slave no more for debt certificates.
    Improve your ecology, create and diversify ecosystems, ensure the survival of our biome, enjoy paradise
    The creation of personal local symbiotic cultural identities.
    This is our purpose.
    Fulfill the prophecy of the eagle and the condor,

  16. Pretty simple actually.... by beheaderaswp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is cultural. We do not champion the production of things that enrich society in general, especially if they have no, or little, profit attached.

    Speaking for myself, my whole resume as a Systems Engineer contains nothing organizations who either were directly involved in education, or served that market.. Those have been my sole employers. I've always been paid below market as an employee.

    And I've always been looked at as an anomaly. Sometimes even derided. One time there was an offer that was $60,000 above what I was making. It was for a Fortune 10 company- which I turned down. Boy did I earn a high level of scorn from my friends and family who valued the paycheck over the work.

    Am I the only one? I highly doubt it.

    If you tally up the number of children that were educated by systems I designed- the number is conservatively above 7 million.

    Was it worth it? You're goddamned right it was.

    --
    Another consultant who stuck it out.

    "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    1. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      If you tally up the number of children that were educated by systems I designed- the number is conservatively above 7 million.

      Was it worth it? You're goddamned right it was.

      Awesome! Your story is exactly what I'm talking about, why were you paid less than market rate? The market sends price signals (in this case pay) that indicate how much it values various activities relative to each other. The market chose to value what you're doing less than stuff that's a hell of a lot less useful. The market is us each signaling what we value, though big investors get a lot more say then the ordinary person. It's important to know the difference between shit and shinola. We seem to have this everything that the market does is equally good or bad. The market shouldn't be a religion that we have to tread lightly around. It can be completely fucking, economy collapsing level wrong about something. We've come pretty close, closer then I think people realize a few times.

    2. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's an interesting question. What I have observed personally over the last decade or two is a subtle shift in high-tech work. Back when I got into tech in the late 1970s, it seemed like every time an EE or software developer farted, the world got better in some way. The rate at which *fundamentally new* technologies were developed was dizzying, and it was easy to see that things "got better" as a result.

      In the last decade, what I've seen is a slowing-down in the "this will be good for everyone". There are a *LOT* more companies in the field, and they're all scrambling to make a buck. A lot of what they produce isn't clearly, unambiguously "doing the world a solid". There's a LOT of inane useless crap out there today. But there always has been. It's just that now, it's on our smartphones....

      I reject the notion that, in general, tech workers are "biased towards profitable ventures". I think that's no more the case than in any other industry. If I'm an auto-worker, I'm much more likely to be able to support myself and my family working for a for-profit automotive manufacturer, rather than, I dunno, an NGO that is "spreading the gospel of zero emissions vehicles" [its a loose metaphor, don't get too caught up in it].

      Having been in the commercial IT/software/tech dev world since 1979 or so, I'm personally getting disillusioned with the commercial side of things. The density of "this will make the world better" projects is much, much, lower than it used to be. The whole "keeping the shareholders happy at all costs" malaise is very much evident across a lot of industries, not just tech. I'm pretty sure that tech-workers, per se, cannot be blamed for that.

      My personal hope is that I get to spend the last decade or so of my career applying my considerable experience to help in basic science endeavors, because it is personally interesting, and it has more of a "making the world a better place" feel to it. Not sure how to make that transition, but it's one I want to make.

    3. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by nohup · · Score: 1

      Don't forget though that the market tends to highly reward the contrarian thinkers if they can prove that attacking a problem from a non-conventional way or against conventional wisdom actually turns out to provide something that gives a lot of value to people. And you can always find contrarian investors as well who are willing to take a risk on something that bucks conventional wisdom.

    4. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      Wow, you are one precious snowflake!

      Guess what man - if that's how you value spending your life, then by all means do it; but why must you call anyone who chooses a different path a "problem"?

      Also do you know what profit is? It's the result of doing what other people want you to do. And then you get to spend that profit on getting others to do what you want them to do. Profit is not evil. What it in fact represents is you doing the best you can at pleasing other people, of making their lives better. And then you get to ask the same of other people, and everyone gets what they want and/or need.

    5. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by beheaderaswp · · Score: 1

      It's simple... companies that service education do not have the margin that other tech companies have. The schools have limited resources and limited ability to pay. Everything is done on a razor margin (assuming a competitive bid structure).

      It comes back to value. Why was I paid below market? Because schools, as customers, could not support a salary over 150k.

      --
      Another consultant who stuck it out.

      "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    6. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree that profit is not inherently evil - you can earn a lot of money while simultaneously improving the world you are living in - there are still a lot of extremely high paid bullshit jobs. Jobs that do nothing to improve the lives of other human beings, but on the contrary make them even more miserable.

      For me, its kinda sad to see intelligent people almost always going for the highest paying jobs, instead of the more meaningful ones. I wouldn't want to look back on my life sometime in the future to realize all I have done was earning money.

      There is so much more to life than the amount of printed funny paper you have managed to collect.

    7. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by beheaderaswp · · Score: 2

      So what do black children on the west side of Chicago need to do to get a good education and a decent system to support them? Interpretive dance? How will they please the people around them and get support?

      What services do they have to offer? Things only get better for them when someone steps in to make things better- and there isn't much profit in that... Now is there?

      That's the case for most education problems....

      So I'll tell you what "man", if you can take your snowflaky ass out of the corporate offices at Tivo, and go see the real world, you'd see that your view needs revising.

      Elitist Carnage Mellon cake eating loser. Your bankbook is bigger than mine- but everything else you have is smaller.

      --
      Another consultant who stuck it out.

      "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    8. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by Solandri · · Score: 2

      The problem is cultural. We do not champion the production of things that enrich society in general, especially if they have no, or little, profit attached.

      Price (and indirectly, profit) is precisely an indicator of what society overall has decided enriches it. If people want it, they are willing to pay more for it.

      If you feel society is not championing the things which would enrich it, that is an indication that your idea of "enrichment" deviates substantially from society's. Not that society is wrong.

      The submitter suffers from the same problem. After a house and car, tech devices (phone, TV, computer, camera, stereo system, etc.) are some of the most expensive a typical person will buy. That indicates that in most people's opinion, techies are doing a tremendous job improving the world. Just that the submitter's opinion of "improving" deviates substantially from most people's.

      I disagree with most people's idea of what's important, either. But it takes incredible hubris and arrogance to unilaterally decide that the majority must be wrong because you think you are right. I have my opinion, they have theirs, and we are free to buy things as we individually see fit.

    9. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good on you.

      My boss told me once, "The more your job reflects what you want to do, the less you get paid."

      Society needs to reevaluate many jobs' value; education research, development.

      Profit from business is good, but excess profit that doesn't get reinvested in society is bad.

    10. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also do you know what profit is? It's the result of doing what other people want you to do.

      Planned obsolescence, DRM and monopolies are what people other want me to do?

      Sometimes, what you say it's true. But many other times, not exactly...

    11. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Price (and indirectly, profit) is precisely an indicator of what society overall has decided enriches it. If people want it, they are willing to pay more for it.

      Armchair economists and their definitions are so cute. In part, it is true, but then, in the real world, there are monopolies, price collusion, captive markets, lobbying for laws that will allow price gouging, etc.

    12. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by tomhath · · Score: 1

      GP could not have designed systems to educate 7 million children without the technology we have today. Was that technology designed and marketed with the goal of educating children? No, but that's the beauty of advancing technology which you are missing.

      If a project expands our base of knowledge or makes technology more affordable we will see other applications grow out of it, regardless of what the short term goal of the initial project was,

    13. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      excess profit that doesn't get reinvested in society is bad.

      Who are you to judge what's good and what's bad? I'm sure you consider yourself an idealist. Actually you're narrow minded and arrogant.

    14. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's basic survival instinct. Some time ago you could have quite a comfortable middle class lifestyle even if you didn't have a high paying job. But now that society is increasingly binary: either you're rich or live in dirt poor misery, people are more inclined to chase money above all else in order to avoid the latter. This is even more so for youth who, for all the 'entitlement' ridicule they have to endure from those who were lucky enough to be born a few decades earlier, can see quite clearly what awaits them if they don't rise above the rest of the plebs. 'Solving the world's problems' sounds like an expensive hobby which is easier to pursue when you have passive income and a few millions (preferably billions) in the bank.

    15. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by dwpro · · Score: 1

      It's the result of doing what other people want you to do

      That's one way it happens. Another is by buying out your competitors and cornering the market, or paying your employees less. It's certainly not necessarily what other people want.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    16. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      who are you to preach to others what they should do? Since you are so concerned about poor blacks in Chicago, I am sure you donate your money and time to help them, right? I am sure you now reside in a poor black Chicago neighborhood to help them each and every day. right?

    17. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Price (and indirectly, profit) is precisely an indicator of what society overall has decided enriches it. If people want it, they are willing to pay more for it.

      If you feel society is not championing the things which would enrich it, that is an indication that your idea of "enrichment" deviates substantially from society's. Not that society is wrong.

      Profit is not a reflection of what society has decided is important. Profit is a proxy for what individuals with money value. No society has a population where everyone has equal assets, so the market is distorted to reflect the values of those who can spend the most. Many individuals in the lower strata of society (contrary to what some here may believe) highly value education, and were they to have more disposable income I could readily imagine them willing to spend more on private tutors and investments in public or private education. Individuals with more assets typically live in communities where investing more in education yields diminishing returns (since so much has already been invested in schools) so they redirect their income to other pursuits (i.e., they vote against tax increases or don't donate further to their son or daughter's private school while they are still paying tuition).

      The marketplace is not a democracy. There are many people who would be willing to pay more for a lot of things, but simply do not have the cash.

    18. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget though that the market tends to highly reward the contrarian thinkers if they can prove that attacking a problem from a non-conventional way or against conventional wisdom actually turns out to provide something that gives a lot of value to people. And you can always find contrarian investors as well who are willing to take a risk on something that bucks conventional wisdom.

      That is cool and I think you're right on that.

    19. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Continuing on this thread (at least, in my mind) is the lack of focus on betterment as a whole. Our society idolizes movie stars, musicians and athletes... None of which are known to focus on making the world a better place. The general public knows "that guy from the Fast & Furious movie", not that Paul Walker bought a miitary couples engagement ring. Or the NFL player that takes kids on a shopping spree. No, the general public is too concerned about who plays the Super Bowl halftime show, and who is in the game.

      As long as the media spends 3 weeks overanalyzing Kim Kardashians red carpet attire and not the newest life-saving tech/medicine/advancements, this trend will keep going.

    20. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also do you know what profit is?

      Yes. It is usually the margin between the production cost, and the external costs that were pushed onto the rest of society.

    21. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      GP could not have designed systems to educate 7 million children without the technology we have today. Was that technology designed and marketed with the goal of educating children? No, but that's the beauty of advancing technology which you are missing.

      If a project expands our base of knowledge or makes technology more affordable we will see other applications grow out of it, regardless of what the short term goal of the initial project was,

      I agree with this. So BeerMe in the process of developing the app ends used to created GoodFoodWaste, Foodbank+, optimal cold (for the beer) tech is used to make refrigeration more efficient. The BeerMe staff' even met some battery guys at a pub one night, concluding that the key to keeping the beer flowing was keeping the juice flowing, inspiring a partnership between BatteryX and BeerMe. Then they decided we need to partner with WeedMe to really take this to the next level.

    22. Re:Pretty simple actually.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Profit is the result of doing what OTHER PEOPLE WITH MONEY want you to do, not what other people want you to do. There's no money in helping out the poor; indeed, helping the poor enough means not having desperate if largely unskilled people who will do whatever crap job needs doing for a small amount of money. I'd consider giving poor people a better chance to develop their abilities to be improving the world a lot.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  17. Tech doesn't solve cultural problems by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Developers and other "geeks," as the OP calls them, aren't ever going to solve cultural problems. And that's where most of the world's problems come from.

    Far too many people having too many babies in parts of the world that can't support those populations and thus the resulting strife and misery? Cultural problem.

    Far too many parents being completely disengaged with their kids' education, or too dumb themselves to contribute to it? Cultural problem.

    Sense of entitlement causing resentment instead of inspiring the creativity and productivity that comes without being raised in a state of feeling owed things? Cultural problem.

    All sorts of ecological messes and resource shortages? Cultural - see first example. Persistent friction between modernity and retrograde medieval thinking, including blowing up pressure cooker bombs in NY (as we had again, tonight)? Cultural problem. There's plenty more in the way of examples. App developers suddenly deciding to stop trying to become financially stable and instead put their waking ours into ... what, apps that teach people not to have so many babies? Apps that convince people that chopping down the rainforest so they can make ends meet on their poor rural farm this month? Apps that try to tell fishermen not to over-fish in sensitive areas because, really, do their customers really need that fish dinner after all?

    What does the OP actually envision, here? Since that wasn't even alluded to, he sounds just like the over-serious girl from (was it Animal House?): "I don't know how anyone can have a party [or was it a dance?] when there are hungry people in the world!"

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Tech doesn't solve cultural problems by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      Developers and other "geeks," as the OP calls them, aren't ever going to solve cultural problems. And that's where most of the world's problems come from.

      I used the word "techie" though I had an owner boss who called himself a geek with pride so it's not necessarily a pejorative, though I'd personally not choose to use that word.

      What does the OP actually envision, here? Since that wasn't even alluded to, he sounds just like the over-serious girl from (was it Animal House?): "I don't know how anyone can have a party [or was it a dance?] when there are hungry people in the world!"

      I don't have the hubris to envision anything at least on your behalf. It was an earnest question that I really don't know the answer to. Also, I don't think that techies will solve all the problems with apps. Also, tech can extend beyond computing with a computing component. I think that's going to be more and more possible with a lot of exciting possibilities. If there's a problem that's completely beyond the scope of technology then it's not addressable so not what I was talking about. It's not that I think technology by itself will solve everything. I'd be a mis-guided reverse-luddite (is there a word for that ideology?). It's also possible that a piece of an intractable problem is addressable using technology, and it may be that enough brain power focused on a problem someone reframes the problem in a way that you never thought about because maybe you were used to how the people who currently think about those problems for a living are going about it.

    2. Re:Tech doesn't solve cultural problems by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Far too many people having too many babies in parts of the world that can't support those populations and thus the resulting strife and misery? Cultural problem. Far too many parents being completely disengaged with their kids' education, or too dumb themselves to contribute to it? Cultural problem. Sense of entitlement causing resentment instead of inspiring the creativity and productivity that comes without being raised in a state of feeling owed things? Cultural problem. All sorts of ecological messes and resource shortages? Cultural - see first example. Persistent friction between modernity and retrograde medieval thinking, including blowing up pressure cooker bombs in NY (as we had again, tonight)? Cultural problem.

      We can't even agree on what the problems are.....pretty much all the things you listed are controversial to some segment of society (often very large segments).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Tech doesn't solve cultural problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Far too many people having too many babies in parts of the world that can't support those populations and thus the resulting strife and misery? Cultural problem.

      Far too many parents being completely disengaged with their kids' education, or too dumb themselves to contribute to it? Cultural problem.

      Sense of entitlement causing resentment instead of inspiring the creativity and productivity that comes without being raised in a state of feeling owed things? Cultural problem.

      All sorts of ecological messes and resource shortages? Cultural - see first example. Persistent friction between modernity and retrograde medieval thinking, including blowing up pressure cooker bombs in NY (as we had again, tonight)? Cultural problem.

      We can't even agree on what the problems are.....pretty much all the things you listed are controversial to some segment of society (often very large segments).

      One positive here is that the internet has repeatedly been a useful counter to censorship, seeing as by it's very design it views censorship as damage and simply routes information flow around it. The Ukraine comes to mind immediately. ISIS and Islamo-fascism would probably be tougher nuts to crack with technology.. but we do what we can.. educate as far as we can and use less nice tech to take out those that insist on hurting others rather than adapting to a peaceful world and learning from their mistakes.

    4. Re:Tech doesn't solve cultural problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the cultural side of a product's development.
      How many good products have been squashed due to Not Invented Here, It Competes with my POS that does 1/10 at 10x the price, and I don't Get It so I Dismiss It, and all the variant Political BS used by Pointy Haired Bosses and Deadwood in companies.
      Yes, many new things suck and should not be pursued, but even the good ones do not stand a chance in such environments.
      If we reduced that by even just a half ....

    5. Re:Tech doesn't solve cultural problems by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      pretty much all the things you listed are controversial to some segment of society

      Exactly. That doesn't make me wrong, it just reflects how many people aren't willing to confront the cultural issues that drive the sorts of things I mentioned.

      Getting developers to stop working on things like successful entertainment products or inventing a better company expense reporting mouse trap will NOT cause someone who thinks that women shouldn't be allowed to leave the house without a bag over their heads to suddenly take a different position. There isn't a different type of software development that a programmer could be doing that will cause someone in Africa to suddenly realize that a constitutional republic that embraces the rule of law is the foundation of a society that will encourage investment and prosperity and make it feel less necessary to have so many babies because that's what they've always done in their simple agrarian cultures. The OP's hope that somehow technology workers could re-focus their thoughts and magically the drive and motivation exhibited by someone with nothing coming to the US from Cameroon to work three jobs until his family is well situated would be transferred to a guy his own age who is born in the US who complains that nobody will make his life better for him.

      Yes, stuff like that is controversial. Because there are large segments of the population who hate the idea that prosperity doesn't simply exist like oxygen. Who can't grasp that discipline and delayed gratification are central to the sort of financial comfort that others desire but also resent. And yet most of the problems in the world stem from failure to handle issues just like all of those. And that's a cultural problem, not a technical one.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Tech doesn't solve cultural problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Developers and other "geeks," as the OP calls them, aren't ever going to solve cultural problems.

      Why not?
      I'm serious. This seems a little short sighted.

    7. Re:Tech doesn't solve cultural problems by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Far too many people having too many babies in parts of the world that can't support those populations and thus the resulting strife and misery? Cultural problem.

      That particular problem is best addressed with technology and economics. Make the society wealthier and healthier, provide basic contraception, and you'll find the cultural barriers to zero population growth falling away. Lots of ecological messes and resource shortages are solved through technical means. Culture is very dependent on technology.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re:Tech doesn't solve cultural problems by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Make the society wealthier

      Those impoverished third world countries are only still where medieval Europe used to be (in terms of health and prosperity and cultural wealth) for cultural reasons. You can't reach in and "make" Somalia wealthy. You can't take game developers off of that task and turn their attention to some other technical project that will suddenly make those in power in Sudan less corrupt and turn that country into a place where businesses will no longer know for a fact that any investment there will be stolen by the thugs in power.

      The people in places like that will have to go through the same sort of cultural Renaissance that Europeans 400 years ago, and then the self-discovery of constitutional governance that the modern west went through 200 years ago. That requires personal-level cultural change across entire populations, not fresh software.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re:Tech doesn't solve cultural problems by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Why not?
      I'm serious. This seems a little short sighted.

      I notice that in countering my assertion with a "why not," you didn't even lightly touch on the mechanism by which a game developer would, in spending his time another way, change the world view of people living in a country where baked-in corruption at every level of society (from military leaders to vegetable merchants, postal workers to diplomats) and power is in the hands of medieval theocratic thuggery. When poor, rural third world countries go through the same Renaissance and move towards stable, enforced constitutionalism that western cultures went through centuries ago, you'll see the sort of changes that will fix the problem. A game developer who gives up his job for a pay cut while making power-point slides for hand-wringing NGOs that have their charitable goods and services stolen by the countries they're trying to help ... won't help.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re:Tech doesn't solve cultural problems by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Assume that Somalia had been independent and under a reasonable government 200 years ago, and how wealthy it would be. Now, assume that Somalia had a reasonable government today, and how wealthy it would be. The difference there is technology.

      In the meantime, lots of people in Africa have cheap Android phones or tablets and access to the Internet, and that's a good first step.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  18. Wow. Excellent question /. by execthis · · Score: 0

    The fact that so many other posters here don't even see the egregious issues right in front of us is indicative of the need for the question, and perhaps also to some extent of why problems are not being solved but rather exacerbated as time goes on.

    For all the supposed wondrous things that high technology is capable of, our society and our planet are headed for failure. Our society is in shambles - unless you happen to be someone in the entitled class living in an exclusive enclave. Ghettos are increasing. There are literally corpses all over the streets - people literally decomposing right in front of us. Our government is a de facto oligarchy and the "fourth estate" which is supposed to be like a check on the powers of government is controlled by the same oligarchy and is an apparatus of inducing conformity through mass deception.

    Our ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the midst of a great extinction event. Overpopulation - already there are at least 2 -3 times more humans than Earth can comfortably carry - is set to increase to levels that are alarming and truly unsustainable. Humans are burning everything up and once fossil fuels become too scarce I guarantee you people will burn every combustible thing in sight in order to keep their kids warm and to cook food. And then there are the great catastrophes like the Gulf Oil Spill and Fukushima. One wonders what other great catastrophes are waiting down the road.

    In terms of society, the family has basically collapsed as the building block of society. The role models are appalling. Can you think of any of the famous people in the limelight who hasn't had a marriage fall apart after only 1 or 2 years? There is the drug use. Huge drug epidemic of opiates and record deaths in the midwest.

    There is a huge disparity which is only getting worse between "haves" and "have nots". There's a more or less permanent entitled class whose lives and values are radically different from the non-entitleds.

    And for all the supposed innovation in tech, how much of it is developed by people with noble intentions vs. greedy losers eager to capitalize on the next niche thing? Many tech people's minds are in the absolute gutter from a truly humanistic and even strictly technological viewpoint as they are conditioned to strive for $$ and not for things which benefit all.

    For people to post on here and question what possibly could be wrong with things now shows how completely lost and sick things are.

  19. I solve the problems I'm PAID to solve. by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have no obligation to sacrifice my unpaid free time simply because I have a set of skills.

    --
    "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    1. Re:I solve the problems I'm PAID to solve. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 0

      Well. Aren't you a little ray of sunshine.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:I solve the problems I'm PAID to solve. by shanen · · Score: 1

      If it were convenient for you to bid your time to help solve a major world problem, would you be likely to get involved?

      Would you want your full market value, or would you be willing to accept a discount in exchange for controlling your own work?

      If you would be willing to accept a discount, how much would you consider?

      Perhaps you have an alternative idea? For example, some kind of bonus based on the favorable evaluation of the results?

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    3. Re:I solve the problems I'm PAID to solve. by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      Huh? Where did I mention working for free in there? I wasn't even intending to focus on volunteer efforts at all. I didn't mention it in the question at all. I'm not sure why the question can't be addressed at face value.

    4. Re:I solve the problems I'm PAID to solve. by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Ask any sysadmin why he hasn't solved world hunger or war in the middle east. He'll tell you "That's not the job I signed up for."

      Next, ask your mailman why your cable bill is so high....

    5. Re:I solve the problems I'm PAID to solve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why "techies aren't improving the world."

      When I graduated college, I wanted to change the world - but I *needed* to find money because I was dead broke and could barely put food on the table.

    6. Re:I solve the problems I'm PAID to solve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no obligation to sacrifice my unpaid free time simply because I have a set of skills.

      This attitude is part of why I hate the tech field. Good thing you are NOT in the medical field or law enforcement. Aparently *lots* of off-duty help comes from people who sacrifice their "unpaid free time" without expecting compensation.
      We don't have to go so far to even talk about doctors or off-duty cops here... Open source software of yester-year used to be written by hobbyists rather than paid employees. Now we have the garbage that these days decides what happens to Firefox, KDE, Gnome or SystemD. There's a correlation in there, somewhere. The rest of us are too busy watching entertainment that our tech world did create to continue to deprive ourselves of that "unpaid free time" for others.

      I don't blame you, personally --it's a downward spiral.

    7. Re:I solve the problems I'm PAID to solve. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I can't end war in the Middle East or solve world hunger. I can make certain services that foster technical innovation a little cheaper and faster. I can donate some money to organizations that I believe are improving the world, but not enough to make a major difference in anything.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  20. Hard problems are hard. by Yaztromo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So what sorts of problems does the submitter think we should focus on? World hunger? Poverty? Disease? War?

    These are very hard problems to solve. All of these have been around since the dawn of humanity, and nobody has come up with an all-encompassing solution yet.

    The problems with the big problems are more than technological -- they're political. No amount of technology is going to be able to solve poverty in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (for example), when the government is corrupt and the rule of law and human rights aren't being observed. Even in a Western country like the United States, you can't fix poverty when many people blame the poor for their own situation and there is no political will to provide a minimal level of social assistance.

    That said, where there is a political will, technology is already helping solve big problems. Solar cells are bringing inexpensive electricity to villages in poor countries. Software hoping with resource allocation helps aid agencies ensure they have food stocks of adequate quantities where they are needed most. Vaccines and modern medical technology are having a major impact on disease -- we've rid the world of smallpox, and we're really close to eradicating polio.

    Hard problems are hard. I know we in technology like to think of ourselves as solving hard problems, but pervasive political problems are way bigger than what technology alone can resolve.

    Yaz

    1. Re:Hard problems are hard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what sorts of problems does the submitter think we should focus on? World hunger? Poverty? Disease? War?

      These are very hard problems to solve. All of these have been around since the dawn of humanity, and nobody has come up with an all-encompassing solution yet.

      Those are easy problems to solve; you just don't like the answer, meatbag. Just kill all humans. Boom, no more world hunger, poverty, disease or war.

    2. Re:Hard problems are hard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, disease, poverty and hunger are self correcting problems - the people will live a short life and die.

      As Aristotle (and plagiarized by Jesus) said: "The poor will always be with us".

    3. Re:Hard problems are hard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No amount of technology is going to be able to solve poverty in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (for example),
      > when the government is corrupt and the rule of law and human rights aren't being observed. Even in a Western country like the United States,

      Ignorance is half the problem. Nothing will be fixed until the *root* cause is dealt with.

      Congo is corrupt and laden with poverty *because* of Western interference, in many ways.
      Any African leader with any sense of independence trying to improve their country in the last century
      has been killed or sidelined by Western intervention.

      The worst government corruption *is* in the US where (1) DOD every now and then announces it has lost track
      of a trillion dollars, (2) the drug war and the war on terror are massive scams to f*$& over other peoples'
      countries, (3) the media and the government are in the back pocket of the military-banking-industrial complex
      and last but not least (4) one of the biggest killers is the agriculture-medical-pharma complex that
      lies about healthy food and produces scam drugs.

    4. Re:Hard problems are hard. by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      So what sorts of problems does the submitter think we should focus on? World hunger? Poverty? Disease? War?

      These are very hard problems to solve. All of these have been around since the dawn of humanity, and nobody has come up with an all-encompassing solution yet.

      The problems with the big problems are more than technological -- they're political. No amount of technology is going to be able to solve poverty in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (for example), when the government is corrupt and the rule of law and human rights aren't being observed. Even in a Western country like the United States, you can't fix poverty when many people blame the poor for their own situation and there is no political will to provide a minimal level of social assistance.

      That said, where there is a political will, technology is already helping solve big problems. Solar cells are bringing inexpensive electricity to villages in poor countries. Software hoping with resource allocation helps aid agencies ensure they have food stocks of adequate quantities where they are needed most. Vaccines and modern medical technology are having a major impact on disease -- we've rid the world of smallpox, and we're really close to eradicating polio.

      Hard problems are hard. I know we in technology like to think of ourselves as solving hard problems, but pervasive political problems are way bigger than what technology alone can resolve.

      Yaz

      I agree with all this and that's sort of part of what I was getting at with my question. Some of the problems are market failures and there's no obvious way to directly profit from working on the problem so if we are going to spend money it'll likely be through the political process. . The government's likely to be the one investing in technology directed at these problems. Even if it's contractors doing the work, the funding comes from the government. Certain domains, such as military get plenty of resources, but other critical domains do not. I'm not even suggesting that our military spending is bad, by the way. I'll forever be grateful to ARPA (DARPA) for inventing the Internet. :-)

    5. Re:Hard problems are hard. by Yaztromo · · Score: 1

      I agree with all this and that's sort of part of what I was getting at with my question. Some of the problems are market failures and there's no obvious way to directly profit from working on the problem so if we are going to spend money it'll likely be through the political process. . The government's likely to be the one investing in technology directed at these problems. Even if it's contractors doing the work, the funding comes from the government. Certain domains, such as military get plenty of resources, but other critical domains do not. I'm not even suggesting that our military spending is bad, by the way. I'll forever be grateful to ARPA (DARPA) for inventing the Internet. :-)

      Yeah, but my point is more having to do with political will rather than a lack of monetary or technical resources. And some of the solutions don't even require technology -- just effort (and thus money).

      As I pointed out, the political issues are greater than just that of political will. It requires all governments in all countries respect human rights, minority rights, and uphold the rule of law. It requires removing government corruption where it exists. And then it requires a ground-up push from The People to push their political masters to prioritize and push solutions to these big issues.

      Technology can somewhat help when it comes to implementation, but you have to have the political will first. Without the political will, no amount of technology is going to help, now matter how great the ideas are. If you have a corrupt government that isn't interested in fighting poverty in minority populations in their country (and perhaps has a vested interest in oppressing those people), technology and ideas aren't going to fix it on their own.

      Yaz

    6. Re:Hard problems are hard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are easy problems to solve; you just don't like the answer, meatbag. Just kill all humans. Boom, no more world hunger, poverty, disease or war.

      A better way would be to remove all those safety warning labesl from all products. Boom, problem solved. Of course, this would mean that 90% of US will die, but hey, that's the price of progress.

    7. Re:Hard problems are hard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even in a Western country like the United States, you can't fix poverty when many people blame the poor for their own situation and there is no political will to provide a minimal level of social assistance.

      This statement is factually false, but beautifully proves your point. Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on social assistance, that's a lot of money to hand wave away, saying that nothing is being done. Politics as usual... The desire to impose ones values on other people causes problems that technology can't fix.

      Perhaps an app could help with this, something to highlight factually incorrect statements...

    8. Re:Hard problems are hard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He never said that "nothing is being done", if you make up things in your mind people don't write you will have a hard time understanding them.
      For example, no matter how you turn it, "provide a minimal level of social assistance" would (from my point of view) absolutely have to include that everyone will get the medical attention they need to live reasonably healthy. In the US, there is clearly NO political will for that.
      Also, numbers like "Hundreds of billions" are usually much less impressive if you put them in dollars per person.
      I doesn't look so impressive if instead of "hundreds of billions" you say "less than half of what is spent on gas is spent on helping the poor".
      Not that I am in any way sure that MORE should be spent, but I do think that no government unless on the brink of collapse can be excused to not at least try to provide for shelter, food, and basic medical care for every single of it citizens, possibly even every single human within its sphere of influence.

    9. Re:Hard problems are hard. by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      I agree with all this and that's sort of part of what I was getting at with my question. Some of the problems are market failures and there's no obvious way to directly profit from working on the problem so if we are going to spend money it'll likely be through the political process. . The government's likely to be the one investing in technology directed at these problems. Even if it's contractors doing the work, the funding comes from the government. Certain domains, such as military get plenty of resources, but other critical domains do not. I'm not even suggesting that our military spending is bad, by the way. I'll forever be grateful to ARPA (DARPA) for inventing the Internet. :-)

      Yeah, but my point is more having to do with political will rather than a lack of monetary or technical resources. And some of the solutions don't even require technology -- just effort (and thus money).

      As I pointed out, the political issues are greater than just that of political will. It requires all governments in all countries respect human rights, minority rights, and uphold the rule of law. It requires removing government corruption where it exists. And then it requires a ground-up push from The People to push their political masters to prioritize and push solutions to these big issues.

      Technology can somewhat help when it comes to implementation, but you have to have the political will first. Without the political will, no amount of technology is going to help, now matter how great the ideas are. If you have a corrupt government that isn't interested in fighting poverty in minority populations in their country (and perhaps has a vested interest in oppressing those people), technology and ideas aren't going to fix it on their own.

      Yaz

      I agree with you and that's part of my question above where I mentioned policy wonks but I should have mentioned politics directly. This is part of what puzzles me as how we end up with the political priorities we have as I don't get the feeling they match what the *people* want. I realize we live in a Republic so it's consent to govern and once in Washington, representatives make all sorts of decisions that don't have anything to do with the interests of the people in their district much less people in general. How could that be true with all the money inputs into the system? There's massive distortion. That was intended as part of what I'm puzzled about, so we have this system and people routinely claim to be reformers BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT yet nobody delivers.

      Mr. Smith types usually get relegated to making symbolic gestures, which is something. But the real work is done behind closed doors dealing with people who are willing to put cash on the barrelhead. That's not a formula for even approximating the will of the people. There's a lot of policies, massive programs, that prominent people on the right and the left rail against but the the policies keep running zombie style even though everyone knows they're broken. They have money behind them and inertia. I have no clue what the solution to this is at all. Some people say take all money out of politics other than some modest public funds. How could there not be loopholes in this thing that would allow organizations to route around the regulations and find a way spend those dollars for policy influence.

    10. Re:Hard problems are hard. by Yaztromo · · Score: 1

      I agree with you and that's part of my question above where I mentioned policy wonks but I should have mentioned politics directly. This is part of what puzzles me as how we end up with the political priorities we have as I don't get the feeling they match what the *people* want. I realize we live in a Republic so it's consent to govern and once in Washington, representatives make all sorts of decisions that don't have anything to do with the interests of the people in their district much less people in general.

      The world is made up of thousands of different governments, each of which has its own system. We have dictatorships, theocracies, monarchies, communism, and democracy. And while the latter form of government is generally considered the most representative of the people, some democracies are rife with corruption, intimidation, sexism, racism, oppression of minority populations, etc. All of the above types of government really aren't particularly concerned with "what the people want" -- indeed, in some situations (such as theocracies), the government is able to tell the people what they should and shouldn't want for themselves (and are often able to get them to believe it too). You're not going to solve big problems in such countries, when the governments of those countries work against the solutions. No technology or company is going to solve poverty in North Korea, for example, when the government is happy keeping their people poor and hungry so they can chase other priorities (like nuclear weapons).

      So let's narrow the discussion going forward to just that of the Unites States.

      (FWIW, I'm neither a US citizen nor a US resident. I'm Canadian.)

      How could that be true with all the money inputs into the system? There's massive distortion. That was intended as part of what I'm puzzled about, so we have this system and people routinely claim to be reformers BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT yet nobody delivers.

      I don't think we're in an era where anyone can really determine "what the people want" in the United States, as the US is very highly polarized. How can you tackle poverty when, on the one hand you have nearly half the countries population believing that poverty is the fault of the people who experience it? When a prevailing attitude is "It's they're own fault they're poor -- why should my tax dollars go to help them?"?

      I'll go so far as to say that right now the US has no general sense of agreement or consensus on solutions to any of the "big problems" that plague the country (or even the world). So given that, how do you determine "what the people want"? Do you placate one group and alienate the other (only for the next government to change things back)? Do you try to find a middle ground that makes nobody happy (and in the end may not actually solve any problems)? Do you throw your hands up in the air at being unable to reach a useful consensus and give up? It seems to me all of these have been "solutions" used in US politics so far in this century, with the expected results.

      Again, you don't fix this with technology. You need to gain consensus on the dimensions of the problem class first, and then reach consensus on a solution. Without that, you're going to get nowhere.

      Don't forget either that the biggest social and humanitarian problems facing the world hit the people with the least resources the hardest. These are usually the people with the least political clout, and with the lowest level of access to technology and education. By definition helping rid the world of these problems involves wealth redistribution -- and in the US, that is often political suicide.

      Some people say take all money out of politics other than some modest public funds. How could there not be loopholes in this thing that would allow organizations to route around the regulations and find a way spend those dollars for policy influence.

      There are a lot of countri

  21. What do we need? by Jonathan+C.+Patschke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your question implies the following:

    • The we know what a functioning and healthy society looks like and, thus, know what next step we're missing to get there.
    • That there is anything like a consensus on what the "most" important problems are or what their approaches should be.
    • That these are problems with direct solutions in "technology," without cutting-edge domain-specific knowledge.

    I'm not sure that any of these is strictly true, and I'm nearly positive that we'll only know most of those answers in hindsight.

    How about race relations? There's no app for that. War? You can't solder-up a PCB that convinces governments to stop murdering each other's citizens over differences of opinion.

    Speaking of governments, what would a "techie" solution to government oppression look like? We have Tor, cryptocurrencies, steganographic filesystems, and mobile devices that would destroy the data on them before giving it up to an intrusive search, and look at how governments react.

    That said, how about some of the areas where technology absolutely has worked on big problems?

    Do you think climate change is a big problem? Do you think that the amount of power consumed by information technology globally is a terrifying figure in the face of anthropogenic climate change? This is a problem we know how to fix in "tech," and we're working on it.

    Deaths due to traffic accidents? Computer vision and distributed coordination algorithms are at the core of self-driving automobiles.

    How about 3D-printed prosthetics, or the medical industry in general? Data processing revolutionized drug research and genome work. Sure, there are more people doing silly apps than designing new systems for doing drug interaction simulation because one requires connections to established research labs, years of work, very expensive studies of efficacy, a decade of postsecondary education to have the domain-specific knowledge, and a hardware budget that runs into the millions; the other requires a crappy $300 laptop and some free software.

    If there's a big problem out there that you want solved, either put up, pay up, or shut up.

    --
    Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
    1. Re:What do we need? by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      I'll say it hear that I do not know the answer to what exactly the problems are or the answer, or I wouldn't have asked any questions. I do not know the answer to my own question. Why would I bother asking or expressing any opinion if I already had the answers? I'm earnestly interested in this topic, it wasn't trolling or preaching, I intended this to try to learn more.

    2. Re:What do we need? by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      Do you think climate change is a big problem? Do you think that the amount of power consumed by information technology globally is a terrifying figure in the face of anthropogenic climate change? This is a problem we know how to fix in "tech," and we're working on it.

      What exactly is the solution you propose?
      Jevons paradox is a tough one : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      It might not please the /. crowd, but I think less-tech and low-tech are the answer to global warming and peak oil.

  22. Technology solving social problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't work.

    captcha: subvert
    Sort of fitting I guess.

  23. Um... by Shoten · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, marmot7...why aren't you working to make the world a much better place, if it's so easy? What makes all the other techies responsible for improving your world in the manner you think is most correct?

    Hard problems have no simple answers. Being a techie is not like being Gandalf the fucking Magician...the reason that there's so much discussion around hard problems is that, despite the efforts of many, a solution has not yet been found, and being a techie doesn't grant some mystical ability to solve any problem on command.

    This is not a moral failing of others, it's just the fact that these are hard problems. And the fact that you don't live in a perfect utopia is not because everyone else is greedy, lazy, selfish or short-sighted. Get over yourself, kid.

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    1. Re:Um... by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      So, marmot7...why aren't you working to make the world a much better place, if it's so easy? What makes all the other techies responsible for improving your world in the manner you think is most correct?

      Hard problems have no simple answers. Being a techie is not like being Gandalf the fucking Magician...the reason that there's so much discussion around hard problems is that, despite the efforts of many, a solution has not yet been found, and being a techie doesn't grant some mystical ability to solve any problem on command.

      This is not a moral failing of others, it's just the fact that these are hard problems. And the fact that you don't live in a perfect utopia is not because everyone else is greedy, lazy, selfish or short-sighted. Get over yourself, kid.

      No, I've spent most of my working life working for tech companies doing stuff that was making the world a better place in the sense of widgets or services like most of us. I have been active on various side projects but I'm sure there are a lot of people here who are contributing orders of magnitude more than I am to the world.

    2. Re:Um... by Shoten · · Score: 1

      So, marmot7...why aren't you working to make the world a much better place, if it's so easy? What makes all the other techies responsible for improving your world in the manner you think is most correct?

      Hard problems have no simple answers. Being a techie is not like being Gandalf the fucking Magician...the reason that there's so much discussion around hard problems is that, despite the efforts of many, a solution has not yet been found, and being a techie doesn't grant some mystical ability to solve any problem on command.

      This is not a moral failing of others, it's just the fact that these are hard problems. And the fact that you don't live in a perfect utopia is not because everyone else is greedy, lazy, selfish or short-sighted. Get over yourself, kid.

      No, I've spent most of my working life working for tech companies doing stuff that was making the world a better place in the sense of widgets or services like most of us. I have been active on various side projects but I'm sure there are a lot of people here who are contributing orders of magnitude more than I am to the world.

      That's not much of an answer. Let me give you an example of something that would be more effective, as what my answer would be to the question if it were asked of me:

      I've helped secure sections of the US power grid that service slightly more than 48,000,000 people. Most recently, for a large power company in the Northeast, I helped resolve a challenge regarding the need to securely link their Distribution Management System (DMS) and Transmission Management System (TMS) in a fashion that would be considered compliant with NERC CIP regulatory standards so that they could utilize a feature known as FISR to automate isolation and resolution of power line failures. Without this solution, they either would be unable to use FISR (which was the whole reason for the new DMS they'd implemented) or would have to spend $4.6 million over the next 3 years applying compliance activities to DMS and a significant portion of their distribution infrastructure. (That's compliance...which is basically the paperwork you have to do to demonstrate that you actually secured it...not security. They already have significant security around their DMS, to a standard that is better than most utilities I've seen.)

      Being able to activate FISR, as they have, results in a more stable power grid, better consumer satisfaction, and increased tolerances for them to use renewable resources without risking imbalance between load and generation. This, in turn, also means that they are more cost-effective, and that savings allows them to continue to pursue other grid modernization efforts that they have underway. The cost my company charged for this effort was somewhere under $50,000 (I don't recall the precise number). And this was just one thing I did last year, that I fit in part-time amidst the two primary projects I was working on.

      Just because you don't know specifics about who is making the world a better place doesn't mean it isn't happening. Don't assume that everyone's out there chasing a buck and turning their backs on the world. I would say that the tech industry is far more altruistic than most industry sectors out there. You should check out the financial industry sometime...it defies belief.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    3. Re:Um... by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      If you read what Marmot7 said in the post not any commentary or anything just what's attributed to me, do you see where I say nothing good's happening. If I said that it was absolutely not my intent. I know about the accomplishments. My point, though not made with finesse I'll grant, was that there seems to be a mis-allocation of resources and that's what it comes down to. I've not proposed technical or public policy solutions, I'm listening and probing, something by disagreeing sharply but my feeling is of a person who's earnestly trying to learn more about this topic as I think it's ALREADY IS and and will continue to be part of the solution. There are just some things that are puzzling to me given that we have some very serious problems that are little attention or perhaps inept attention, which can be worse, As for my work, for the last 5 years I've worked in an SaaS platform that's pretty good and businesses buy it and have good success in making certain things work better and marginally more efficient. I don't want to see you on how great it is right now as it's not great enough to be worth bragging about here nor am spectacularly proud of it so I want to rant and rave here. So far in my working life, I've contributed a lot on the micro scale but I'm not super inspired by me. :-)

    4. Re:Um... by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      If I had your list of tangible accomplishments I'd feel pretty proud That's a cool list. I'm not ashamed but I'm not shout it from the roof tops about it,

    5. Re:Um... by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      The honest truth is maybe I am slightly ashamed of how little I've contributed to the well being of human society with mundane business services. I feel proud of having helped many businesses and non-profit organizations that had problems amenable to our solutions. I feel proud of that but overall do I think I made the world a better place? No. I'm trying to be honest here. I really try.

  24. Agreed by wasted · · Score: 1

    Saying that folks aren't making apps that benefit a healthy, functioning, society is a useless statement without specifying what apps would achieve or work toward that goal. Additionally, smart phone apps can't really solve the world's real problems. Violence due to religious extremism isn't going to be negated by a phone app. An app that shows food shortages and food surpluses isn't going to fight world hunger unless someone will pay for the cheap surplus food and transportation.

    In common cases where an app would help, apps are available. Some things are too big for a cell phone app, and generally software is available for those problems. If there is a problem where software is a solution, I wish I knew what it was, as do others who would solve the problem quicker than I, and likely profit from making the world a better place.

    I could be wrong, feel free to disagree.

  25. Look harder by kevinmarchibald · · Score: 1

    Digital Agriculture! * Ohio State U, Columbus * Iowa State U, Ames * U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (MidwestBigDataHub.org) * John Deere, Climate Corporation, GeoSys, others Badly need tech people that can come up with data analysis algorithms to effectively process field/air-sensor-gathered data into prescriptive recommendations fed back into farms manually/automatically for profitable, sustainable results (hopefully without further empowering Bayer-Monsanto).

  26. Demand and preferences by dumky2 · · Score: 1

    It sounds like the majority of people don't share your priorities or preferences, as their actions demonstrate. Resolving the problems that you care about are not on top of their ranking.
    Maybe you should persuade people to see your way. Instead of some spending that you think is not essential, they should spend their money on some more worthwhile project.
    For example, I like Literacy Bridge, which is a device to spread important knowledge in remote and under-developed regions of the world.

    "Literacy Bridge saves lives and improves the livelihoods of impoverished families through comprehensive programs that provide on-demand access to locally relevant knowledge. At the heart of the programs is the Talking Book, an innovative low-cost audio computer."

    --
    These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
  27. Easy answer by backslashdot · · Score: 2

    Most people don't give a crap about their fellow human.

    People think mostly of the benefit to themselves, then their families, their race, their country, their pets, and rarely do they care anything about a random human especially in Africa or some other place. It's human nature, at best some humans care about their family or country more than themselves but mainly this is the order. They actively try to eliminate and discredit anyone who dares care about random humans. That's just the way it is. Humans.

    1. Re:Easy answer by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You're erroneously generalizing from yourself to other humans.

    2. Re:Easy answer by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      Most people don't give a crap about their fellow human.

      People think mostly of the benefit to themselves, then their families, their race, their country, their pets, and rarely do they care anything about a random human especially in Africa or some other place. It's human nature, at best some humans care about their family or country more than themselves but mainly this is the order. They actively try to eliminate and discredit anyone who dares care about random humans. That's just the way it is. Humans.

      I do not agree with you at all. You can find a lot of people that fit what you're saying but I've met enough really good, earnest people. I've had people come through and help me in various ways big and small, sometimes out of nowhere to help. There are a lot of good people if that's where you put your energy. Whenever i'm in a sort of dark place, I attract that sort of action by people that I can understand why someone might even think the world was full of pretty much only people like you describe. But what counteracts that is that when I'm in a good place, I attract good people. And I don't just mean friends, I mean like even just how things go driving from point A to point B, or how positive the interaction at the grocery store checkout line flows. Yes, I think you can see physical manifestations of the energy you put out there at any given time.

    3. Re:Easy answer by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      You're erroneously generalizing from yourself to other humans.

      I agree. It's a mistake that's easy to make and takes real discipline to overcome. Most of us are not there.

    4. Re:Easy answer by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I agree. It's a mistake that's easy to make and takes real discipline to overcome. Most of us are not there.

      The mistake is very easy to avoid: stop trying to tell others how to improve the world and learn something about basic economics.

    5. Re:Easy answer by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      We evolved caring about the people in our tribe or band, and treating everyone else as at least a potential enemy. We're not wired to empathize with tens of thousands of people, let alone billions.

      Also, I can affect my own life considerably, along with the lives of my family members, but my potential influence decreases really fast. I could donate money to African relief programs, and I can support politicians I think will tend to do the right thing, and that's about it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  28. distributed computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    solving real problems, increasing our collective knowledge:

    www.worldcommunitygrid.org - easy to use for everybody out there. health & environment problems solved
    boinc.berkeley.edu - so many projects
    http://www.distributedcomputing.info/ directory of projects

    I think you're looking in the wrong place, marmot.

    What are YOU doing?
    AKA 'do you even lift?'

  29. IT geeks need to join Rotary International by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    Then profitable careers provide the funding for more meaningful activity outside of work, and that allows them to do good in the whole world (local and global). Even for those stuck in day jobs making back-scratcher apps for the leisure class of the ultra-wealthy.

  30. I believe in working to make things better. by ITRambo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a coatings chemist, then Technical Director, I developed the first low VOC waterborne coating for computers that lowered the bake from 30 minsutes at 350F to 30 minutes at 150F. I knew the otherwise thermoplastic resin self-condensed (crosslinked) at 140F, so no hazardous melamine or urea were needed to develop the office chimerical resistance (cleaners, foods) that was specified, either. This was around 1978. It was developed originally for Digital. Customers took forever to approve it even though it met their specs. How could a low polluting. energy saving waterborne acrylic be as good as a high temperature bake polyester coating with 6 pounds of hydrocarbons per gallons? Give the younger techies an opportunity to try new ideas. Let them make a little dent. All the little improvements add up to less energy use and cleaner air.

    1. Re:I believe in working to make things better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a clue what you just said, but it sure made me feel a lot smarter/intellectual by reading it.

  31. Gee I dunno... by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Is there a systematic bias that channels technology workers into more profitable careers?

    What could possibly bias people toward careers that offer a comfortable life instead of poverty!?!?

  32. Its not them, its you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about you go learn stuff and solve these problems yourself?
    You'll learn more about why you dont have slaves doing your bidding and why theres no flying cars yet.

  33. Re:WTF??? Techies have already improved the world by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    That has no value on the human level because the starving kid could have potentially innovated infinitely more and produced gains for the world if he had lived.

  34. oh fuck you by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, if only there techies who spent a bunch of time writing free software. If only there were people who dedicated their lives to making free software. They could start a foundation.

    But no, everyone knows open source is about the money.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:oh fuck you by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if only there techies who spent a bunch of time writing free software. If only there were people who dedicated their lives to making free software. They could start a foundation. But no, everyone knows open source is about the money.

      Dude, what the hell? I'm with you on Linux and open source. How does my question call for an aggressive defense by offense? What's threatening about it to warrant a fuck you not especially nice and reserved I would think for unredeemable assholes, at least that's how I use it. It Seems based on some assumptions on my intentions here.

    2. Re:oh fuck you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've noticed the loss and lack of quality of opensource "free" software over the years. Being financially well off gives you plenty of time to write these applications. Now with so many jobs being lost and exported to other countries, the increased pressure on a lot of engineers and developers, I'm also seeing the effect this is having on a lot of open source software. It seems everyone is in the business of being squeezed to the absolute extremes.

    3. Re:oh fuck you by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Your question in the title is an accusation: the headline accuses 'techies' of not improving the world. Don't go around accusing people.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:oh fuck you by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      Your question in the title is an accusation: the headline accuses 'techies' of not improving the world. Don't go around accusing people.

      Look at the part written by Marmot7 specifically to be fair as to what I specifically asked. And this was not intended as an accusation at all. This is/was an earnest attempt to learn more about a topic that I think it's important and want to understand better than I do now. I've found reading people's responses even the vehement disagreements and even the comments that misunderstood what I was trying to ask were interesting. I don't have an agenda or a specific ideology.

    5. Re:oh fuck you by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Of course. It's about tone. What you say is just as important as what you intended to say.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  35. you mean... by ooloorie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't feel that developers, sys admins, finance people, even policy wonks focus on the problems that we need to solve to have a healthy functioning society.

    You mean why don't techies work on things like giving everybody on the globe to access all the books ever written, listen to lectures from the best minds on the planet, communicate with anybody anywhere, access financial services across the globe, learn how to grow food better, get highly accurate and detailed maps and satellite photos for free (e.g., for improving agriculture), buy and sell pretty much anything from anywhere, create software that allows anybody anywhere to analyze scientific data and write software?

    Is there a systematic bias that channels technology workers into more profitable careers?

    Indeed there is. In a free society with free citizens, we let individuals decide, and vote for, what they find useful. That kind of "voting" is carried out using money: if you produce something that I find useful, I give you money for it; if you produce crap that I don't want, I don't give you money for it. That way, people who produce useful stuff get rewarded and get the resources to produce more useful stuff, while the people who produce crap get fewer resources allocated to them. Does that answer your question? How else would you like things to work?

    1. Re:you mean... by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      I don't feel that developers, sys admins, finance people, even policy wonks focus on the problems that we need to solve to have a healthy functioning society.

      You mean why don't techies work on things like giving everybody on the globe to access all the books ever written, listen to lectures from the best minds on the planet, communicate with anybody anywhere, access financial services across the globe, learn how to grow food better, get highly accurate and detailed maps and satellite photos for free (e.g., for improving agriculture), buy and sell pretty much anything from anywhere, create software that allows anybody anywhere to analyze scientific data and write software?

      Is there a systematic bias that channels technology workers into more profitable careers?

      Indeed there is. In a free society with free citizens, we let individuals decide, and vote for, what they find useful. That kind of "voting" is carried out using money: if you produce something that I find useful, I give you money for it; if you produce crap that I don't want, I don't give you money for it. That way, people who produce useful stuff get rewarded and get the resources to produce more useful stuff, while the people who produce crap get fewer resources allocated to them. Does that answer your question? How else would you like things to work?

      Sure, of course that's how the market works. It's not a fucking religion, though. I don't have to speak softly around it. No it does not answer my question nor really attempt to do so as I'm aware of the accomplishments. That does not mean this is off limits to discussion because people did some good stuff. That's why I posted it here as I respect the readers of Slashdot.

    2. Re:you mean... by Uecker · · Score: 1

      Is there a systematic bias that channels technology workers into more profitable careers?

      Indeed there is. In a free society with free citizens, we let individuals decide, and vote for, what they find useful. That kind of "voting" is carried out using money: if you produce something that I find useful, I give you money for it; if you produce crap that I don't want, I don't give you money for it. That way, people who produce useful stuff get rewarded and get the resources to produce more useful stuff, while the people who produce crap get fewer resources allocated to them. Does that answer your question? How else would you like things to work?

      Except that not everybody has the same vote. And this exactly explains why so many techs work on stuff which is not really useful to the average person at all: They work to make the people who have most of the money (almost all the votes) even richer. This is the reason why advertisement which has only small usefulness to the overall society is so big and basically defines what the internet and mobile industry is today: a huge spying machine with free but only marginally useful content served with lots of annoying advertisement. If money would be distributed more equally, the free market would certainly create a lot of useful tech which would make life much better for average people.

    3. Re:you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aha! So it is all about money, after all.

    4. Re:you mean... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Except that not everybody has the same vote.

      Correct. In a free market, those people who have been most useful to their fellow human beings get the most votes, because they have shown that they are the best qualified in allocating resources productively.

      This is the reason why advertisement which has only small usefulness to the overall society

      Advertising is enormously useful to overall society: it is essential for matching buyers and sellers and for informing buyers of the different qualities of products.

      If money would be distributed more equally, the free market would certainly create a lot of useful tech which would make life much better for average people.

      That argument would work if "money" were only used to determine which products to produce in order to meet everybody's needs; in that case, giving everybody roughly the same vote would kind of make sense.

      But that is only one function of "money". Of far greater importance is the choice people make between consuming something now or investing in something productive, and the different tradeoffs between what people invest in. "The rich" (and that mostly means older people) don't have "money" and they don't consume a lot more than poor people, what they have is investments. People become rich by two simultaneous decisions: (1) to forego consumption now for future returns, and (2) by investing the money they didn't spend in businesses that yield a good return.

      If you take away their wealth and redistribute it, the primary effect is not to give people a more equal vote in what to consume, the primary effect is to shift the economy from investments in jobs, production, and the future towards consumption, which is generally the wrong direction.

    5. Re:you mean... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      It's not a fucking religion, though.

      No, it is settled, basic science. That is, the freer and more capitalist a market is, the better off its members are. The policies your question imply have produced anything from poverty and corruption to feudalism and slavery.

      That does not mean this is off limits to discussion because people did some good stuff.

      People didn't do "some good stuff", people have revolutionized the world in ways that people like you didn't think possible a century ago. According to academics and statists, we'd run out of oil and food, have destroyed the environment, and live in some kind of war torn Mad Max dystopia by now.

      I don't have to speak softly around it

      Your self-righteous indignation and holier-than-thou views are exactly the kind of bullshit that have given us socialism, slavery, poverty, hunger, and totalitarianism. At the root of your problem is that you substitute your judgment as a privileged, wealthy member of society for the simple mechanisms of markets and aggregate choices of billions. So, I don't have to speak softly around it: you are a selfish, ignorant jerk who is trying to elevate his social status by pretending to speak for the good of humanity.

    6. Re:you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree with you if only you showed that you also understand that "simple mechanism of markets" and "aggregate choices of billions" do in no way guarantee that the allocation ends up in the way those billions actually would have wanted it if they had made a conscious choice.
      After all it's not like "The Market for Lemons" is some obscure and disputed paper.
      I think there needs to be far more acceptance that we cannot micro-manage every single thing every human does on the one side, and on the other side that "the market" is no substitute for figuring out where we as humanity as whole want to go in the big picture sense and to make sure we actually take that path.

    7. Re:you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of investments which do not pay off in the short term, or for which the risk/reward ratio is not attractive for private funds. Pure capitalism wouldn't have created a nuclear weapon for example. If at some point the world is saturated in that nothing new can be invented, perhaps that risk/reward ratio would change and it would still work, but it is true that many people are working on rather unimportant problems.

      Arguments have been made how e.g. an iPhone essentially was built with government funding too for the core technologies.

      I think prizes for either specific problems or prizes for obviously inventing something a decade earlier would benefit society. That way the inventor doesn't have to be an expert negotiator and manufacturers won't just wait until the patent is expired. For example the inventor of AES should probably be rewarded as well as the institute he worked at as well as the university he went to (if the inventor actually agrees they contributed to the success), the schools he attended and the teachers he liked as a child. This way there is a feedback loop where positive contributions are reinforced.

    8. Re:you mean... by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      . So, I don't have to speak softly around it: you are a selfish, ignorant jerk who is trying to elevate his social status by pretending to speak for the good of humanity.

      Normally I try to respond to the part of a comment but your close was just obnoxious. Where did I say that I should make these decisions instead of markets in my OP or in any of my comments or responses to anyone? Where did I say that socialism was the way forward in my OP or any of my comments? I intended my original post question to understand something better than I do now. It seems you didn't take the time to try to understand but just attacked me personally, well, really you attacked a Marmot, a high altitude climbing wood chuck essentially. And where did I claim to speak for anyone but myself? It'd be good to read and attempt to understand a question before responding and, if you aren't sure, you could ask for clarification on what someone means. I tried to read as many comments as I could. A lot of people disagreed with me vehemently but this is the only comment where someone insulted me, made assumptions about my motivation, even attributed traits and ideologies to me. I'm impressed that so few people actually use ad hominem attacks here, making yours an unpleasant surprise. I don't mind aggressive disagreement, nobody should mind that, but nobody should pull this sort of thing, either.

    9. Re:you mean... by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify do you think it's acceptable to insult people?

    10. Re:you mean... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify do you think it's acceptable to insult people?

      Not "people" in general, but certainly you: you denigrate the hard work of millions of techies for the purposes of self-aggrandizement and social signaling. And if that weren't enough, your self-serving posturing feeds into a general mood of doom and gloom.

    11. Re:you mean... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      A lot of people disagreed with me vehemently but this is the only comment where someone insulted me, made assumptions about my motivation, even attributed traits and ideologies to me.

      Yes, I did. Not in my first posting, but in my response to your statement: "Sure, of course that's how the market works. It's not a fucking religion, though. I don't have to speak softly around it."

      Techies are working their asses off to make the world a better place, resulting in unprecedented and massive social progress, and you are glibly dismissing their efforts. You don't understand why that might justify that people are pissed off at you?

    12. Re:you mean... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In a free market, those people who have been most useful to their fellow human beings get the most votes [money], because they have shown that they are the best qualified in allocating resources productively.

      Except that many people don't have a shot at being useful (and people are not paid in proportion to how useful they are). People tend to be poor because they didn't get a decent education or a chance to make something of themselves, and the working poor are relatively worse off than they were fifty years ago.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:you mean... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Except that many people don't have a shot at being useful (and people are not paid in proportion to how useful they are). People tend to be poor because they didn't get a decent education or a chance to make something of themselves

      Well, yes. And those outcomes are primarily determined by how parents raise their kids. What are you trying to get at?

      and the working poor are relatively worse off than they were fifty years ago.

      I suggest you check your data. Even using simple family income statistics, "the working poor", roughly the lowest income quintile, are financially about 30% better off in terms of income alone than they were 50 years ago (in comparison, the top 5% are about 85% better off). If you take government benefits and changing demographics into account, they are even better off. But in addition to being financially significantly better off, prices for many goods and services have fallen so much that their standard of living has improved enormously over the last 50 years.

      Of course, "the working poor" isn't really a fixed class of people anyway, it is a stage that many people go through in their life. I was a "working poor" for about 10 years myself.

    14. Re:you mean... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's much more to how parents raise their children at play here, and it's at least arguable that the best way to raise children in the bad parts of town is different from the best way to raise them in, say, my neighborhood. Some things that aren't really in the parents' control anyway are quality of education, health care, and security and stability.

      Relative to the upper classes, the working poor have lost ground, at a time when health care expenses are growing (and the usual working poor jobs don't come with group insurance) and college is becoming more necessary and more expensive. This isn't good.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. Re:you mean... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      There's much more to how parents raise their children at play here, and it's at least arguable that the best way to raise children in the bad parts of town is different from the best way to raise them in, say, my neighborhood. Some things that aren't really in the parents' control anyway are quality of education, health care, and security and stability.

      Correct. And to a large part, it is government intervention that has robbed parents of this control.

      at a time when health care expenses are growing (and the usual working poor jobs don't come with group insurance) and college is becoming more necessary and more expensive.

      College and health care costs are exploding because these sectors of the economy are being subsidized and regulated by government. Most US health care dollars are wasted, and college is mainly becoming "more necessary" to compensate for the failing public education system.

      Relative to the upper classes, the working poor have lost ground. This isn't good.

      To translate this into less tendentious language: young unskilled workers just starting out ("the working poor") now make significantly more than they did 50 years ago, and when they reach the end of their careers and their peak earnings ("the rich") they make disproportionately more than they did 50 years ago. Higher starting salaries and more income growth during people's careers are both good things.

    16. Re:you mean... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I await an explanation as to how a lack of government intervention guarantees everyone access to quality education and health care, and why the disposable worker concept promotes family stability.

      You also seem to assume that someone who is hard working will normally achieve a middle-class income, which is dubious at best.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    17. Re:you mean... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I await an explanation as to how a lack of government intervention guarantees everyone access to quality education and health care,

      I never claimed that "lack of government intervention" guarantees that. Nor is it clear that that is necessary or desirable either, since "quality education and health care" are rather ill-defined concepts. What is, however, crystal clear from decades of experience is that presence of government intervention fails to guarantee access to quality education and health care.

      and why the disposable worker concept promotes family stability.

      I view workers like a business of size one, that is, people who make deals for their own labor. You seem to view them as indentured servants, which is of course what the social welfare state is trying to turn them into.

      You also seem to assume that someone who is hard working will normally achieve a middle-class income, which is dubious at best.

      Not at all. 60% of Americans will be in the top 20% income bracket for at least a few years of their lives. So, not only do hard working people make it into the middle class, they make it into the upper middle class in the US.

    18. Re:you mean... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Government intervention in education and health care produces results in literally every other developed country, frequently results better than ours. Are you claiming that the US can't be made great?

      Most people work for other people as employees, and normally the employer has a lot more negotiating leverage. Providing something like universal basic income and decent health care would even the scales a lot, and lead to better allocation of national resources.

      Got a source for that 60%? I'd be interested in following up.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    19. Re:you mean... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Government intervention in education and health care produces results in literally every other developed country, frequently results better than ours.

      The problem with that argument is that the US already spends a lot more per student and regulates its education more strongly than many countries that perform better (like, for example, the country I immigrated from). The same is true for health care. So the US is actually a counterexample to the idea that more government intervention in education and health care produces better outcomes. The problem with the US is arguably that it spends and regulates so much that it is getting negative returns.

      Providing something like universal basic income and decent health care would even the scales a lot, and lead to better allocation of national resources.

      Experience in Europe and the US suggests otherwise. Several European nations have strongly restricted their welfare benefits in recent years precisely because they discovered that guaranteeing people a basic livelihood with no strings attached leads to the creation of a permanent, government-dependent underclass. And that is also a long-standing problem we see among some populations in the US. The implicit argument underlying your suggestion also confuses correlation and causation and assumes a model of human behavior that is unrealistc.

      Got a source for that 60%? I'd be interested in following up.

      Easy. Of course, next thing you'll probably dismiss NPR as some kind of alt-right hate blog, right? Note that NPR still tries to spin the data ("windfall from a home sale"), but that is misleading, since the criterion is "two or more years", and capital gains from the sale of a primary residence are not considered income anyway.

      Are you claiming that the US can't be made great?

      I don't want to live in a "great" country. Napoleonic France was "great". Bismarck's Germany was "great". The British Empire was "great". Trump and Clinton both behave like little wannabe Napoleons or Bismarcks (respectively) and "make America great again".

      What I want to live in is a free country, like the US used to be. I don't want the US to turn into the kind of stagnant statist states that you find in Europe.

    20. Re:you mean... by Uecker · · Score: 1

      Haha, your post is a great example for "the market is always right and therefor everything is perfect, and perfect is whatever the market does" circular reasoning.

    21. Re:you mean... by Uecker · · Score: 1

      There are two points I would comment on specifically:

      People become rich by two simultaneous decisions: (1) to forego consumption now for future returns, and (2) by investing the money they didn't spend in businesses that yield a good return.

      In an ideal world this would be the only way to get rich. In the real world many people also get rich by 1) inheriting 2) pure luck 3) questionable (illegal or unethical) businesses. Many rich people also slowly get even more rich by investing very conservatively (which every idiot can do)

      If you take away their wealth and redistribute it,

      I have not proposed to "take way their wealth and redistribute it" (nice strawman ) .

      the primary effect is not to give people a more equal vote in what to consume, the primary effect is to shift the economy from investments in jobs, production, and the future towards consumption, which is generally the wrong direction.

      You need both: investments and consumption. If you take away consumption too much, you end up in exactly the situation we are now: People are not primarily investing in things which are useful to average people, but they invest in tools which may make existing businesses slightly more profitable. It is simply not worth investing in a business creating a tech tool useful for an average people if average people do not have money buy it. Instead they invest in a companies which sell tools to other rich people which help them become even more rich (e.g. spying tools for advertisers so that you may be able to sell slightly more products than your competitor by "better" advertisment). Ofcourse, you can now argue that this is somehow the ideal way to spent money for our society, but I do not buy it.

    22. Re:you mean... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      In an ideal world this would be the only way to get rich. In the real world many people also get rich by 1) inheriting 2) pure luck 3) questionable (illegal or unethical) businesses. Many rich people also slowly get even more rich by investing very conservatively (which every idiot can do)

      You're just being envious and judgmental here.

      You need both: investments and consumption. If you take away consumption too much, you end up in exactly the situation we are now: People are not primarily investing in things which are useful to average people, but they invest in tools which may make existing businesses slightly more profitable

      And how do those "existing businesses make profit" if nobody consumes? Your argument makes no sense.

      In fact, the problem in the US is that Americans are incentivized by government to consume too much, instead of saving for retirement and investing in their future. Those other "advanced nations" that progressives always like to point to (Germany, Japan, etc.) discourage consumption and encourage savings much more strongly than the US.

    23. Re:you mean... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Haha, your post is a great example for "the market is always right and therefor everything is perfect, and perfect is whatever the market does" circular reasoning.

      Your response is a perfect example of the folly and totalitarian leanings that opponents to free markets always have.

      Free markets are highly imperfect in terms of the goals that progressives always want to achieve: fairness, equality, justice, efficiency, democratic control. The problem with other economic systems that promise to do better in these areas is that they universally end up even worse than free markets.

      But the real reason for adopting free markets is much simpler: it's the only economic system compatible with a liberal society.

  36. Yeah, Karl Marx was clueless, too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try mises.org for your economics education.

  37. Which problems? by quantaman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Keeping in touch and up to date with old friends? Social networks solved a lot of that.

    Having visual conversations with distant relatives? Video chat solved that.

    Getting lost? GPS navigation solved that.

    Finding answers to factual questions? Search engines (kinda) solved that.

    Giving public platforms to ordinary people? Blogs solved that.

    Just try going back and living in the early 90's and see how you like it. Techies have addressed tons of real world problems, and come up with at least partial solutions to a lot of them. Naturally many remain and some new ones have arisen, we don't live in a utopia, but it's not like they've been doing nothing.

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:Which problems? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Funny

      But other than all that......what have the Romans^W Programmers ever given us?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Which problems? by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      Keeping in touch and up to date with old friends? Social networks solved a lot of that.

      Having visual conversations with distant relatives? Video chat solved that.

      Getting lost? GPS navigation solved that.

      Finding answers to factual questions? Search engines (kinda) solved that.

      Giving public platforms to ordinary people? Blogs solved that.

      Just try going back and living in the early 90's and see how you like it. Techies have addressed tons of real world problems, and come up with at least partial solutions to a lot of them. Naturally many remain and some new ones have arisen, we don't live in a utopia, but it's not like they've been doing nothing.

      I made a mistake in the wording of my question as a common response is to list out the accomplishments that most of us already know as defense. I'm specifically talking about the boatloads of resources going into trivial problems. I made up a the name BeerMe but I could have chosen real life examples too silly to believe. BeerMe actually almost solves a real problem, not really.

    3. Re:Which problems? by Octorian · · Score: 1

      Giving public platforms to ordinary people? Blogs solved that.

      This is actually an enormously important change that's taken place over the past 10-20 years. In the past, you'd need permission from "the powers that be" to get your voice (or creative works) out there into the public eye. Today, if you have the motivation, pretty much anyone can get public (and global) notice.

      This is both good and bad (village idiots are now given attention to on a nation scale, whereas previously they've be ignored), but I think that overall its quite a positive shift.

    4. Re:Which problems? by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

      First world problems.

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

    5. Re:Which problems? by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      Giving public platforms to ordinary people? Blogs solved that.

      This is actually an enormously important change that's taken place over the past 10-20 years. In the past, you'd need permission from "the powers that be" to get your voice (or creative works) out there into the public eye. Today, if you have the motivation, pretty much anyone can get public (and global) notice.

      This is both good and bad (village idiots are now given attention to on a nation scale, whereas previously they've be ignored), but I think that overall its quite a positive shift.

      Hell yes.

    6. Re:Which problems? by Yesimbald · · Score: 1

      * Long-distance highways
      * Julian calendar

    7. Re:Which problems? by Alumoi · · Score: 1

      This is actually an enormously important change that's taken place over the past 10-20 years. In the past, you'd need permission from "the powers that be" to get your voice (or creative works) out there into the public eye.

      Of course now you need permission from the SJWs and the companies running those services but WTF, it's not the gubermint, right?

    8. Re:Which problems? by ickleberry · · Score: 1

      The 90's were much better, despite the lack of technology. Even the internet was better before it went all mainstream and commercial

    9. Re:Which problems? by Octorian · · Score: 1

      Of course now you need permission from the SJWs and the companies running those services but WTF, it's not the gubermint, right?

      Actually, you don't... There are enough ways to get your word out, that pissing off SJWs may add a lot of noise (and maybe some difficulty), but it won't deny you a platform all-together.

    10. Re:Which problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First world problems.

      Agreed. Those are conveniences more than "problems." They're not like smallpox or US literacy. And "solved" doesn't mean what GP implies... many, many people here in the USA have no idea how to do the above, or just say "not good with computers."

    11. Re:Which problems? by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      Oh, you know, people had their techie projects a partial list here of a few: http://www.history.com/news/hi... Even crows use technology so while it may appear I only meant apps, some of the cool stuff on just on random list of the Roman tech industry's accomplishments. Though my original post tried to cover a few areas, I guess it wasn't clear that I didn't just mean apps. You can't really actually build aqueducts though, you know, maybe some day.

  38. Shut up and take your ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Valuable marketing insights are the most important thing. BIG DATA!

  39. Umm, what has marmot7 ? by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see the great achievements done by someone who is being critical.

    So what has marmot7 done to be able to ask something that (my guess) is incapable of achieving?

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
  40. The blame game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it our job to solve all these problems you mention vaguely? What are these major problems you speak of? Give examples. Techies can send a probe to Pluto pretty sure they can solve any problem you can come up with... the real problem is that not everyone likes the answer because of political, financial, or other reasons. Don't go blaming techs for the worlds problems, we have the answers, we're just not allowed to implement them.

  41. Simple answer is money, always has been by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

    If society woke up one day and decided that something other than money would be used to determine relative value, this argument wouldn't exist. Until then, people are going to be driven by money -- for survival at a basic level, but then for lifestyle and status improvement as the levels rise. They're going to do what they think can make them the most money so they're not out on the street or eating macaroni and cheese for most dinners.

    It's all the same problem:
    - During the last late 90s dotcom bubble, people complained that scientists weren't going into research and scientific jobs because the startups stole all the talent away by offering inflated VC-fueled salaries.
    - During the housing bubble of the early 2000s, all the math and CS guys were being stolen away by the banks to be "quants" - because the banks were paying top dollar to have a tiny edge in high-frequency trading or construction of new derivatives.
    - And during the current dotcom bubble (a repeat of the 90s except replacing the Internet and websites with social media, phones and data mining) all the talented people (and lots of non-talented ones) are back in the SV startup crowd again.

    In the end, people will do what makes them the most money for the level of risk they're comfortable with. As a personal example, I work on the systems engineering side of IT. I have chosen the "stable" path of full-time large corporate work over the crazy freelance consulting world. Yes, corporate work has pitfalls, but the paychecks show up every month and you're not constantly hustling for more work, worried about who's going to pay you next. I know freelance guys who are extremely talented, so much so that they make multiples of an average salary. I've often been asked by those types why I don't go this route; I'm actually pretty decent at my job. The answer is safety - If I'm willing to put up with stupid rules and play some politics, I get paid regularly. My family is happy with me, and my home life is stable. The only freelancer I know who is still married has what's basically a mail order bride - everyone else is divorced mainly because they're never home.

    Want to make people more altruistic? Give them a real safety net that ensures one wrong move doesn't ruin their lives. You're not going to kill consumerism overnight, so work around it by coming up with something better than US unemployment insurance.

    1. Re:Simple answer is money, always has been by Orgasmatron · · Score: 0

      Sure.

      Socialism has not only failed every single time it has been tried, but it has also killed something like 300,000,000 people along the way. But next time! Next time, it'll work for sure!

      How about we try this instead: Start by getting government money out of colleges and universities so that tuition and expenses can return to earth and the next generation of young people doesn't start day one of their adult life with a mortgage worth of debt. Then, cut taxes (at all levels) down to something reasonable, like 5 or 10% of total income, instead of the 60% we've got now. Third, put America back to work by cutting job-killing regulations and keep cutting until we every remaining regulation is necessary for (actual) health and (actual) safety. Scrap all of the current federal welfare programs and replace them with a single system focused on getting people back to work, and keeping them afloat until that happens.

      Those four steps will restore the most important safety net of all, the personal savings account. It will also cause an explosion in charity, since the inverse of those steps is what killed it in the first place. Most importantly, by putting the productive classes of society back in control of their finances so that they can raise families, you'll naturally direct their energy towards future-oriented projects.

      The tax and redistribute system makes everyone cheap, greedy and selfish. Growing it is the absolute worst possible thing to do if you want to promote altruism in a society.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    2. Re:Simple answer is money, always has been by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      If society woke up one day and decided that something other than money would be used to determine relative value, this argument wouldn't exist. Until then, people are going to be driven by money -- for survival at a basic level, but then for lifestyle and status improvement as the levels rise. They're going to do what they think can make them the most money so they're not out on the street or eating macaroni and cheese for most dinners.

      It's all the same problem: - During the last late 90s dotcom bubble, people complained that scientists weren't going into research and scientific jobs because the startups stole all the talent away by offering inflated VC-fueled salaries. - During the housing bubble of the early 2000s, all the math and CS guys were being stolen away by the banks to be "quants" - because the banks were paying top dollar to have a tiny edge in high-frequency trading or construction of new derivatives. - And during the current dotcom bubble (a repeat of the 90s except replacing the Internet and websites with social media, phones and data mining) all the talented people (and lots of non-talented ones) are back in the SV startup crowd again.

      In the end, people will do what makes them the most money for the level of risk they're comfortable with. As a personal example, I work on the systems engineering side of IT. I have chosen the "stable" path of full-time large corporate work over the crazy freelance consulting world. Yes, corporate work has pitfalls, but the paychecks show up every month and you're not constantly hustling for more work, worried about who's going to pay you next. I know freelance guys who are extremely talented, so much so that they make multiples of an average salary. I've often been asked by those types why I don't go this route; I'm actually pretty decent at my job. The answer is safety - If I'm willing to put up with stupid rules and play some politics, I get paid regularly. My family is happy with me, and my home life is stable. The only freelancer I know who is still married has what's basically a mail order bride - everyone else is divorced mainly because they're never home.

      Want to make people more altruistic? Give them a real safety net that ensures one wrong move doesn't ruin their lives. You're not going to kill consumerism overnight, so work around it by coming up with something better than US unemployment insurance.

      I'm not arguing for any "ism" least of all socialism. I'm not presuming any grand strategy sort of answer at all. People should feel more comfortable pointing out the difference between shit and shinola with an opinion on which is which. And there's a bit too much shit and not enough shinola. You wouldn't agree after just a quick look at any popular tech magazine for a while, one of those score keeper pubs, that those are important problems? Some are shinola, a whole lot are shit. I was asking why. I do not know the answer.

    3. Re:Simple answer is money, always has been by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      Sure.

      Socialism has not only failed every single time it has been tried, but it has also killed something like 300,000,000 people along the way. But next time! Next time, it'll work for sure!

      How about we try this instead: Start by getting government money out of colleges and universities so that tuition and expenses can return to earth and the next generation of young people doesn't start day one of their adult life with a mortgage worth of debt. Then, cut taxes (at all levels) down to something reasonable, like 5 or 10% of total income, instead of the 60% we've got now. Third, put America back to work by cutting job-killing regulations and keep cutting until we every remaining regulation is necessary for (actual) health and (actual) safety. Scrap all of the current federal welfare programs and replace them with a single system focused on getting people back to work, and keeping them afloat until that happens.

      Those four steps will restore the most important safety net of all, the personal savings account. It will also cause an explosion in charity, since the inverse of those steps is what killed it in the first place. Most importantly, by putting the productive classes of society back in control of their finances so that they can raise families, you'll naturally direct their energy towards future-oriented projects.

      The tax and redistribute system makes everyone cheap, greedy and selfish. Growing it is the absolute worst possible thing to do if you want to promote altruism in a society.

      I'm not sure that it's even useful to promote altruism in society. I could say something like I'd like to influence how people think about things in a small way then that'd be cool but even that's highly unlikely. I'm not promoting anything. I'm trying to learn. We live in very interesting times I'd say and this is one of the many questions I have. It's not answers that haunt me right now, it's mostly questions. I think there's enough flux going on right now that I think being in a bit of a learning mode is useful. I'm not sure if a lot of the ideas apply any more at least like they did before.

  42. Re:Wow. Excellent question /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The fact that so many other posters here don't even see the egregious issues right in front of us is indicative of the need for the question, and perhaps also to some extent of why problems are not being solved but rather exacerbated as time goes on.

    Fine, but a similarly dark, hand-wringing mini-essay could have been written in any literate society at any time within the past 3000 years. The specific problems would be different, of course, but most of these could mention the crushing masses of the poor, the sick, the disenfranchised.

  43. What software is needed? by wasted · · Score: 2

    In your opinion, what software does not exist, but would benefit society/the world if it did?

    1. Re:What software is needed? by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      In your opinion, what software does not exist, but would benefit society/the world if it did?

      I have no idea. Do I have to know the answer to my own question? That kind of sucks.

    2. Re:What software is needed? by wasted · · Score: 1

      The problem would be that developers don't know the answer to that question, either.

  44. Laconic summary by whodunit · · Score: 1

    "Why aren't techies improving the world?

    Fuck you. Pay me.

  45. Because they are being fired and replaced with h1b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    South Africa isn't a cautionary tale but a model2follow.
    https://www.youtube.com/embed/rjhx1-qU9jM

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O7wVsvoM6tE&feature=youtu.be

      Indians are not refugees, Indians have no legal basis to be in the US, they are not american, they are not an ex colony, they are here with the single purpose of taking jobs under a fraudulent apartheid racketeering programme made especially for them

    http://www.computerworld.com/article/3050365/it-careers/how-many-h-1b-workers-are-male-us-wont-say.html

    Obama defending the apartheid policy of using imported Indian guest workers to replace American workers
    âhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O7wVsvoM6tE&feature=youtu.beâ

    FORCE FUTURE PRESIDENT TRUMP TO ADDESS THE ISSUE INSTEAD OF EVADING IT

    BEFORE ITS TOO LATE

    HAVE HIM COMMIT TO CANCELING THE SILICON VALEY INDIAN MAFIA APARTHEID PROGRAMME

    RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING MILLIONS OF AMERICANS OUT OF WORK IN EVERY STATE

    250.000 IMPORTED IN ONE COMPANY IN VIRGINIA ALONE

      http://www.vocativ.com/money/business/theyll-sponsor-american-dream-might-cost-soul/

    Obama will not say Islamic terrorist
    Trump will not say h1b Indian apartheid

    Bernie exposing how horrible bush was with h1b, obama's no better
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=38M9vfg4TPE&feature=youtu.be

  46. Re: WTF??? Techies have already improved the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...Or could have been the next Hitler, or this or that or none of the above

  47. Techie are fixing world at same rate it was broken by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    I think the expectation that the application of tech will fix something that's wrong with the world very quickly is a big part of the problem.

    How long have humans been dumping garbage into the environment? Why would you expect that recycling, composting, reclamation and other technologies will not only stop the poisoning of the environment and clean up the current mess in the order of years?

    Same thing for CO2 in the atmosphere. We've been burning increasing amounts of fossil fuels for 130 years or so, why would you expect that a new technology would stop this within years but also return CO2 levels to their original state?

    Same comments on other issues like the growth of the Sahara desert, deforestation, etc.

    I expect new technologies to help stop the increasing damage and reducing the current level of damage to come about over time, but the expectation that it can be fixed almost immediately with the application of a new technology simply isn't reasonable.

  48. We ARE making the world a better place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    through constructing elegant hierarchies for maximum code reuse and extensibility.

  49. It's the Incentives, Stupid by Trebawa · · Score: 1

    Because it's not being incentivized. Governments that want to get public problems solved should use tools like social impact bonds. They work like this: there's a problem costing the public money, whether that's in cash or years of life lost due to illness or whatever. Fix it, prove you did (that's the hard part), and collect a percentage of the money you saved.

    1. Re: It's the Incentives, Stupid by Trebawa · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re:It's the Incentives, Stupid by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      They work like this: there's a problem costing the public money, whether that's in cash or years of life lost due to illness or whatever. Fix it, prove you did (that's the hard part), and collect a percentage of the money you saved.

      There is another tool to solve these things: the market. Its designed in a way so that solutions with a low cost are prefferred over solutions with a high cost. The problem in many cases though are externalities which introduce an imperfection to the market by not making some costs show up in the price tag of products on the market, thus making those products more competitive and maybe more likely to be chosen than alternative products that do not cause such hidden costs.

      To solve this, externalities can be internalized. Just require the company to pay for the damages their specific product causes to the public, and then send those funds to the people who suffer under the product. Then the company has to raise prices for their product, and on the market customers may now prefer different products instead of the one with the externalities. And if there is no viable alternative, its fine as well, as the people who suffer under the externality are now compensated.

    3. Re:It's the Incentives, Stupid by ThosLives · · Score: 1

      It's not even as simple as just issues due to externalities - markets can fail all the time when there is incorrect or unequal information across all participants in the market. A market can also "fail" if the interested parties in the market are aiming for some effect other than what is perceived as a "success".

      Put another way: markets are not magic and are inherently subject to "garbage in, garbage out."

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
  50. Re: WTF??? Techies have already improved the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or raped a bunch of children and become Hitler 2.0.

    See how that magic thinking works?

    Dipshit.

  51. Re: WTF??? Techies have already improved the world by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    That was a direct contrary case to the failed attempt of the GGP to claim the past successes of firms justified the callous treatment of humans now. Try again.

  52. What are you smoking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're using one of the things that "techies" made that improved the world. It's called the Internet, and it not only has improved lines of communication worldwide, but it has also enabled ignorant opinions like your own to reach everybody for instant rebuttal.

    Unless of course, you narrowly define "techies" to be "those people who make useless technologies". At which point, why the hell are you even asking?

  53. Grow up kid! by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

    Grow up kid!

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
  54. Because of risk by locketine · · Score: 1

    I work in tech and most of my projects have been rather mundane, miniscule improvements for existing services. The ones that really tried to make a difference never made it past prototype phase because the expected profits didn't exceed the cost and risk to go full production with the product.

    If we want big ideas solving big problems we need to lower the risk of failure, and the cost of entry for bold, innovative and possibly disruptive products and services.

    People refer to Tesla and Uber as disruptive companies but was mass producing an electric car or building a Taxi app that innovative or disruptive? Compared to what we're used to, it is, but compared to all the shelved prototypes and pitched ideas, they really aren't.

    When it comes down to it, the people with the money aren't willing to risk losing it on a great idea when they have a guaranteed return on investment on a small improvement to a proven service or product.

    --
    Think globally but act within local variable scope.
  55. Hackaday Prize by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Informative

    Check out the Hackaday prize, over at Hackaday.io.

    For three years running, Hackaday has hosted the contest with a $100,000 first prize and a handful of $10,000 prizes.

    Several of the prize categories would be appropriate for solving world problems, such as "citizen scientist", "automation", and "assistive technologies". (The other two categories are catch-alls which could also contain world-bearing solutions.

    Many of the projects are high-concept. There are about 1000 entries this year, so you will get a wide range of possible project including some risible ones.

    But there are definitely some strong entries this year.

    I follow the Automatic Digital Microscope project, which hopes to automate (and speed up) the detection of tuberculosis in 3rd world countries.

    The Electrospinning machine looks really interesting, could possibly become the next "3d printer" appliance for hackers.

    The very high accuracy tilt sensor is possibly a new technology (I hadn't seen or heard of it before).

    If you want to find techies improving the world, you might include Hackaday.io (specifically: the prize entries) in your search.

    If you want to improve the world yourself, you might consider coming up with a project and entering the prize next year.

    If you want to *help* improve the world, you might consider joining a Hackaday.io team that's entered for the prize.

    1. Re:Hackaday Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great that they would do that. But what's $100'000? One person-year of wages, two if you're frugal? It's hardly enough to fund a serious project.

    2. Re:Hackaday Prize by khallow · · Score: 1

      If you're in the developing world, that could be 10-50 person-years of wages, depending on location.

    3. Re:Hackaday Prize by mi · · Score: 1

      For three years running, Hackaday has hosted the contest with a $100,000 first prize and a handful of $10,000 prizes.

      This seems to imply, there is profit to be made.

      I think, this disqualifies Hackaday from TFA's plea for techies to do something, that is important, but for which nobody would pay...

      Just what that might be, though, remains a mystery...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re: Hackaday Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      slave driver

    5. Re: Hackaday Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's the problem in today's MBA culture. I attended a so called investor meet & greet where supposedly investors wanted to get in touch with startups. One of them publically stated that "technology is what you do on weekends or at night, it's not important and it's cheap to do. I am not investing in it. I only invest if you have paying customers". teah you sucker they pay for technology not for your money

    6. Re: Hackaday Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a joke. By participating you basically waive any meaningful rights to your creation (technically you keep all rights but they have to be open source). So it's work for free and the benefit of the sponsor.

      And then we're surprised people are not interested?

    7. Re: Hackaday Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in America. Work full time have 20yrs experience with same company. I am an auto-tech and that'd be four years wages for me. I call owner slave driver all the time but it is what it is. There is u a problem to work on. How to make income equality an issue across the board, not just a gender thing. In my region everyone's wage are way behind Nat ave and nobody cares

    8. Re: Hackaday Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe cost of living is "way" below national average?

    9. Re:Hackaday Prize by grcumb · · Score: 2

      Check out the Hackaday prize, over at Hackaday.io.

      Actually, you don't even have to get too clever to save lives. In early 2015, the South Pacific country of Vanuatu was devastated by cyclone Pam, a category 5 storm that severely damaged almost half the country. (Full disclosure: the UNICEF photos are mine.). In spite of some islands being completely denuded of shelter, only 11 people died.

      The people of Vanuatu deal with an average of 1.5 cyclones every year, but this was an unique event. There had never been a storm of this intensity measured in the country before, and certainly not one that passed directly on top of more than half the population. 3000 years of dealing with cyclones meant that people knew how to cope, but it was telecommunications that allowed us to warn people in time for them to seek shelter. Ironically, on Tanna (the worst-affected island) the majority of casualties occurred when the wall of a building designated an emergency shelter collapsed.

      One national telco saw its entire national network knocked out. But within 10 days, they had better than 90% of it back in operation. I myself saw the CEO manhandling a microwave antenna into the back of a chopper during the height of the relief effort.

      So yeah, it's not glorious; it's not clever. Sometimes tech just needs to be available to save lives.

      P.S. The owners of a Very Large Internet Company saved a lot of lives in the immediate aftermath of the storm when they sent their superyacht to assist with relief activities. The vessel was small enough to get into the countless tiny passages, and large enough to support a helipad for medevacs. On top of that, the 40,000 litre desalination unit could keep entire villages supplied with water until barges could arrive. They don't want their names to come out because this is one of the few places in the world they can get away and just be people. But thanks guys. You rock.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    10. Re:Hackaday Prize by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      The are some brilliant projects yet simple (elegant is sometimes the word), the sort that I admire the most.

    11. Re:Hackaday Prize by sh00z · · Score: 1

      Great that they would do that. But what's $100'000? One person-year of wages, two if you're frugal? It's hardly enough to fund a serious project.

      ...aaaaand right there is your "systematic bias." Engineering college graduates want more money than the organizations that are improving the world can offer. It's just that simple. Want to improve the world? There are probably dozens of projects at Engineers Without Borders that you could contribute to. Safe drinking water in the third world; building bridges; sanitation projects; power generation and distribution.

    12. Re: Hackaday Prize by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You must be a terrible mechanic. $25k/year wrenching? Work for a junkyard doing disassembly?

      That is seriously below average, not even close.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:Hackaday Prize by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      I've come back to read a little more of the post or the hackaday site. It's a pretty cool thing you have going on there.

    14. Re: Hackaday Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is saving (presumably human) lives good? I'm not trying to troll. From where I sit people are the problem and fewer of them is a good thing.

  56. Because the lifechanging stuff was written for PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The mobile software ecosystem is miniaturization and adaptation to an undersized and clumsy touchscreen. Not progress.

  57. Consider PRISM by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Re Why aren't geeks doing more to improve the world?
    Could that lack of ability start before ever entering the private sector?
    Study hard, pay up or a full scholarship still based on academic results. Get guided to a getting a security clearance just to have access to very advanced crypto, maths? Trips to conferences, talks, corporate funding, gov projects. Any good job later will need clearance, get it early, see the world while still in academia? That security clearance that opened academic doors is now a generational NDA.

    All the big brands offering full access to their networks to the NSA and a few other nations.
    The tech leadership, brands, admins, contractors, academics, lawyers, outside security experts never really understood what was been done on their own networks? Commented on strange data flows or encryption?
    Wifi and OVERHEAD?
    Real problems are not fixed for decades and a brand works so hard to get their perfect photo on social media.
    It would not seem to be an investment risk issue but experts not risking the security clearance club membership.
    Re technology workers are making the world a better place?
    Other nations will just build around such junk exports and weak standards.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  58. Some are, some aren't by OnceWas · · Score: 2

    In this respect, techies are like anybody else. Some are out to help save the world, or at least make it a better place, and some aren't. It's not the tech that makes the savior, it's the person.

    The same can be said about:

    - finance folks (microcredit vs subprime mortgages)
    - engineers (postwar reconstruction vs weapons)
    - architects (affordable housing designs vs Trump towers)
    - builders (habitat for humanity vs suburban subdivisions)

    to name a few examples.

    --
    Laugh while you can, monkey-boy.
  59. Re:WTF??? Techies have already improved the world by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    There are no heroes. It steam engines when it comes steam-engine time. You feed the kid because it's the right thing to do.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  60. They are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me guess. marmot7 is a drama major.

  61. easy by sxpert · · Score: 1

    because the useless short term gain finance people control the whole mess for now !

  62. Techies ARE improving the world by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The headline asks a question that is based on a false premise. Techies are doing more than anyone to improve the world. We have gone 70 years without a major war. Why? Two reasons, better communications and nuclear weapons. Both of these are because the techies that built the Internet, launched the comsats, and split the atom. Today, the Internet is bringing literacy and prosperity to the third world. Better solar cells and windmills are bringing us clean energy. Wikipedia is compiling the world's knowledge, and Google is giving us a way to search it instantly.

    All of this is being done by us nerds. Who else is doing as much to create a better world? Lawyers? Journalists? Politicians? I don't think so.

    1. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      The headline asks a question that is based on a false premise. Techies are doing more than anyone to improve the world. We have gone 70 years without a major war. Why? Two reasons, better communications and nuclear weapons. Both of these are because the techies that built the Internet, launched the comsats, and split the atom. Today, the Internet is bringing literacy and prosperity to the third world. Better solar cells and windmills are bringing us clean energy. Wikipedia is compiling the world's knowledge, and Google is giving us a way to search it instantly.

      All of this is being done by us nerds. Who else is doing as much to create a better world? Lawyers? Journalists? Politicians? I don't think so.

      Give me a break. I don't really want to go down the path but that line about technology has already save the world is a bit much. For example, it's open for debate whether in a post MAD world that nuclear weapons won't end up being what takes us down in the end. I'm no luddite but the opposite of luddite gets just as tiresome. More importantly, I wasn't intending to say look over there at the finance people, they're the real heroes. Look at all that brain power focused on what matters. Or look at the trial lawyers. If only we could put our heads together and figure out a way to double the number of trial lawyers. You don't have to defend nerds from comparisons as I at least agree that this IS where the potential is. There's a reason I'm posting this here. One domain or another of tech is where I'd imagine nearly all of us who even glance at Slashdot have thrown their lot in with. There's no attack here, just geniune desire to grok things that I don't currently grok.

    2. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by Pseudonym · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have gone 70 years without a major war. Why?

      Because politicians managed to avoid nuclear exchange a few times through the careful use of diplomacy. That, and global trade.

      Why, just since the end of the Cold War, techies have supplied us with smarter weapons and drones so we can kill lots more people while pretending that we're not actually engaging in warfare, the ability to perform wholesale surveillance on our own populace (both in the public and private sector!), and a whole lot of snake-oil security theatre machines to remind us all to be scared.

      Thanks, techies!

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      LIKE sYRIA

    4. Re: Techies ARE improving the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your "70 years without a war" comment is a false statement. There have been several wars since WW II where the major powers have been involved

    5. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Global trade is dependant on us techies, networks to make trading easier. Technology in shipping and transportation...
      The same for diplomacy. The ability that diplomats and world leaders could call each other if there is an issue or travel and meet each other in less than 24 hours is amazing.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re: Techies ARE improving the world by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      It was a "major" war. please use your quotes right. There is a feature in computers called copy and paste to make sure you correctly get the text segment it said.
      "We have gone 70 years without a major war."
      Compared to WWI and WWII we haven't been in a major war, we have been in a bunch of minor wars, police actions...

      While we criticize the mess we are in with the Middle East and a lot of of it was due to the US and Soviets playing politics in that area and putting rather questionable people in power over there. It may had been the lesser of two evils, having to deal with the fallout of putting in a dictator of a small country vs. dealing with a fully nuclear armed and equipped soviet union.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The same for diplomacy. The ability that diplomats and world leaders could call each other if there is an issue or travel and meet each other in less than 24 hours is amazing.

      Indeed. When Kaiser Wilhelm left for a holiday in July of 1914, history may have turned out very different if he took along a cellphone.

    8. Re: Techies ARE improving the world by slashrio · · Score: 0

      Please count the number of casulaties that have fallen in those 'minor' wars for the resources that make our financial elite even more rich than they already are, and then tell me again it's only 'minor'.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    9. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by Alumoi · · Score: 1

      We have gone 70 years without a major war. Why?

      Because we've split them into minor wars, police actions, border clashes and war by proxies.

    10. Re: Techies ARE improving the world by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 2

      Compared to WWI and WWII there have been hardly any major wars in history. Techies take the credit for that too?

    11. Re: Techies ARE improving the world by khallow · · Score: 5, Informative

      Please count the number of casulaties that have fallen in those 'minor' wars for the resources that make our financial elite even more rich than they already are, and then tell me again it's only 'minor'.

      It's worth doing that exercise. The author of the linked webpage claims about 22 million war deaths including genocide and non state-based warfare from after the end of the Second World War through to 2007. That's about what the First World War killed in four years (not counting the 1918 influenza epidemic which was greatly expedited by the war). And of course, the Second World War killed at least three times as many people in an eight year period.

      If we look at per capita, war deaths in the current period of peace are even more pronounced. The Second World War is thought to have killed at least 3% of the people alive at the time. That would be well over 200 million people now. We are nowhere near that.

      Do the numbers. See for yourself.

    12. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by naubol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think you're trying to grok in good faith.

      You addressed his comments about nuclear weapons in a dismissive way without overwhelming evidence on your side.

      You ignored the comments about google, wikipedia, literacy, prosperity, solar cells, and wind mills.

      You straw manned him by suggesting his position was that technology has already saved the world, which you followed up by using to paint him as an extremist (the anti-luddite).

      So not only do you begin from questionable premises, but you don't really read to understand.

      --
      Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
    13. Re: Techies ARE improving the world by naubol · · Score: 2

      Your comment is so glib that I shouldn't respond, but I will give it a go.

      Europe itself was basically in a never ending war for quite some time. WW1 really destroyed a lot of old organizational principles, these empire like entities. WW2 smacked down the next wannabe empire-like entity and we've gone since then without one on the world stage having any real sort of first world power. Technology and industrialization seemed to make both 'major wars' possible, but they also, I would submit, made the environment inhospitable for pre-industrialization empires. I think we can safely say techies made it possible to reorganize along lines that ended eternal war in the first world, even though the reorg itself was particularly gruesome.

      --
      Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
    14. Re: Techies ARE improving the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is a feature in computers called copy and paste"
      No there isn't, that feature is in some of the software. The computers has no such functionality. Did you sleep a lot during classes?

    15. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today, the Internet is bringing literacy and prosperity to the third world.

      Because of CenturyLink's Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), ad & pr0n injection, I don't see a whole lot in the way of literacy on the Internet.

    16. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better solar cells and windmills are bringing us clean energy.

      Sorry for being pedantic, but "windmills" are strictly used for mechanical processes (such as crushing grain). The term you should use is "wind turbines".

      As for the rest of your comment, I concur.

    17. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      techies have supplied us with smarter weapons and drones so we can kill lots more people

      Precision weapons don't kill "lots more people", they kill a lot fewer. They have also led to fewer and smaller nukes. If you can put a SLCM through a particular window of the Kremlin, you don't need big city-destroying bombs.

    18. Re: Techies ARE improving the world by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Compared to WWI and WWII there have been hardly any major wars in history.

      The Thirty Years War (1618-1648) killed a greater fraction of Europe's population than WW1. The Mongol expansion in the thirteenth century, especially their conquest of China, also killed more.

    19. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get off the fucking high horse. Techie nerds aren't the ones responsible for not having any war.

    20. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many little wars have we fought, overturning democratically elected "Regimes"

    21. Re: Techies ARE improving the world by Trongy · · Score: 1

      WW2 was also beneficial to financial elites.

      See for example: Ford and GM Scrutinized for Alleged Nazi Collaboration
      and IBM and the Holocaust

    22. Re: Techies ARE improving the world by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      The one part of your response that I'll completely concede is that I did straw man your argument as "already solved.," That nuclear weapons *coukd* lead to say societal collapse seems manifestly true. I didn't assign a probsblhiity but would anyone disagree that's it's a possibility? That refutes your ststments placing nuclear weapons so firmly on the good for humanity side of the ledger.

    23. Re: Techies ARE improving the world by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      All wars are beneficial for (at least some) financial elites. Wars that would genuinely hurt the elites don't happen. Elites always have way too much influence in politics for a war to happen that would not, in some way, make them richer.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    24. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deaths from Vietnam War: ~440,000
      Deaths from Iraq War: ~110,000

      You are obviously full of bullshit. Drones, smart missiles, target surveillance has clearly resulted in fewer deaths. The only ones killing civilians en masse are terrorists, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the like.

    25. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have such a skewed world-view.

    26. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have gone 70 years without a major war.

      What fairy land reality are you living in? We've been at war for around 50 years now since Vietnam. Sure the media hides this fact. Right now that this moment we are at war in Syria. Sure you don't see the blood and guts on the media everyday but its there its real and people are dying and yes funded by YOUR tax dollars. It is even being hidden by the great tools us techies have made.

      Google is giving us a way to search it instantly.

      Sure Google will give you searches but let's talk about the level of surveillance we have today by the likes of Google and Farcebook second only to the NSA and you says techies have made this a better place? Hell you can't make a phone call without a thousand systems analysing the who, what when where and why you called that person. You can't walk through a store with a smart phone without your trip being analysed and your location sold to others.

      You need to quit looking at the unicorns and look at the deep shit you are really sitting in. Sure something's tech has made has made our world better but a lot of it has turned us all into slaves.

    27. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ignored the comments about google

      Google is one of the largest privately owned surveillance machines in the world and you call this a good thing??? Just because they give you searches doesn't make it all alright.

    28. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by Keith+Henson · · Score: 1

      "We have gone 70 years without a major war."

      Why did people fight in the stone age?

      Over resources (mostly food).

      When did they fight?

      When things looked so bleak that fighting was better (on average) for their genes.

      https://www.academia.edu/77738...

      Low birth rate and any economic growth keeps the future from looking bleak and the mechanisms off that lead to wars and related social disruptions. This is the what happened in first world for most of the second half of the 20th century.

      Most depressing science subject I know.

      --
      End MGM. Get prospective parents of boys to Google: Men do complain
    29. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      You ignored the comments about google

      Google is one of the largest privately owned surveillance machines in the world and you call this a good thing??? Just because they give you searches doesn't make it all alright.

      Yeah, that's the thing I have noticed is that people tend to have black or white thinking at least in discussion. Things are rarely that simple as here's the good side of the ledger and here's the bad. Personally, I would not put google on the bad side of the ledger but I think putting them on the good side would be a mistake as well. They use the info they gather to serve us relevant ads, and then they provide us service in return. Are there substantial costs to privacy? Yes. I have a hard time making the call on which side it falls though as it's hazy and gray to me.

    30. Re: Techies ARE improving the world by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      WWII left two empire-like entities, the US and the Soviet Union. The US of this period is rather reminiscent of the early Roman Empire, in that both avoided taking over for direct rule but made it very clear what the people in the empire not under direct rule should do.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    31. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      We have gone 70 years without a major war. Why?

      Because there is more money to be lost now than ever before. Sure we might get short term heavy manufacturing boost but can you imagine the cost of rebuilding New York City today compared to Dresden 70 years ago? A lot of influential (rich) people all over the world really don't want that to happen.

    32. Re:Techies ARE improving the world by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Deaths from Iraq sanctions and collateral effects of war: 500,000 (only counting those under the age of 5; UNICEF figures)

      Sorry, what were we talking about again?

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    33. Re: Techies ARE improving the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And to think I've been using the wrong word all these years. This pedantry is getting paid forward.

      Also, this means that the Dutch historically did not reclaim land with windmills and dykes; they used wind pumps and butch women.

  63. Some jobs just need to be done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are doing a mundane job that requires tech skills, you are at least freeing up a tech person somewhere to work on something more glamorous.

  64. i reject the premise by Nova+Express · · Score: 1

    Hey look, it's Slashdot concern trolling their readers again!

    I reject the premise.

    "Why are software developers working on this trivial Internet thing rather than solving world hunger?"

    It's the Von Mises knowledge problem, aka the economic calculation problem. You don't know what the most important problems to solve are because you (and by "you" I especially mean "any government body") can't see the future. One person can only be an expert on their own life, not everyone else's lives. You don't necessarily known what the real biggest problems today are, because when you read or watch the news you're watching edited abstracts of selections of other people's limited knowledge, with biases conscious and unconscious at every step of the process.

    You have no way of known that specific technology you're working on won't have far greater benefit to society than whatever our cultural elites have decided to focuses on for clickbait concern trolling this week, especially ones with easy emotional appeals ("Show me rain forests! Show me police killing black people!") rather than more difficult or abstract ones ("Show me how deficit financing eventually destroys economies!").

    It turns out that creating the Internet probably did more to help solve world hunger than, say, studying how to make krill into food patties.

    Work on the problems that interest you and that you have the capacity to solve, not what other people think are "more important," because there's a good chance they're wrong.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:i reject the premise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy.
      Bosses and Managers are taking ALL the credit from the people who do the work.
      While corporate council and HR then steal it off the bosses.
      As much of it is backroom - it is even easier steal credit or dump blame on the techies.

  65. Forum sliding by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 0

    Why must so many geeks be filthy bigots? Every article is littered with racist and otherwise bigoted garbage. It's a shame that Slashdot is morphing into Stormfront.

    It's an anchor for forum sliding.

    They use bots to get these comments in at the very top, knowing that they'll be voted down to -1.

    Then when an inconvenient or embarrassing discussion happens that they want to bury, they log into another account and respond to their own topmost comment, and log into further accounts to upvote the new comment.

    The end result is that the inconvenient or embarrassing discussion gets pushed down the page.

    They know that few people read past the first couple of comment blocks, so they use this technique to adjust the conversation to their own benefit.

    Check out Correct The Record for info, and note that HRC spent $1 million on these sorts of techniques.

  66. Learn what a solution is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tech is a tool, not a solution in and of itself. Techie's can't help it if those that use tech don't solve shit with it.

  67. Ridiculous by thecombatwombat · · Score: 1

    This is the most vacuous rhetoric I've ever seen here.

    With no definition of what would satisfy making the world better and how tech isn't doing it, these words are basically meaningless. I could just as easily ask why aren't the medical, financial, media, or any other field not making the world a better place. Seriously, consider:

    "I don't feel that doctors, nurses, administrators, even policy wonks focus on the problems that we need to solve to have a healthy functioning society. It seems like it's mostly about short-term gain and not much about making the world better. That may be just the way the market works.

    Is it that there's no profit to be made in solving the most important problems? I'm puzzled by that as I would think that a good solution to an important problem could find some funding from somewhere but maybe government, for example, won't take investment risks in that way?"

    Now, medical professionals everywhere, defend yourselves from . . . completely hollow rhetoric.

  68. They are by dumky2 · · Score: 1

    Consider how cheap cellphones are helping pretty much everyone (even the poorest) across the world, with communication, texting services and payment.
    Or real-time translation, educational resources, or even sign language.
    Not to mention drug design, logistics, financial services, weather forecasts, ... The list goes on.

    --
    These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
  69. Cancerous economics = bad financial models by shanen · · Score: 1

    Good question, but I can't write the book this morning unless some techie gives me a time warp machine. If I only had the focus and sustained motivation, then it would probably take me several months.

    Short answer is that most of them are nice people and would like to, but they respond to the economic pressures to do otherwise. The economic rules of the business game (especially in America) focus on the single metric of money, so maximizing that single dimension results in cancerous growth that doesn't consider such trivialities as making the world better or even the long-term survival of humanity. The only thing that matters is a bigger profit number next quarter unless the thinking is shortened down to today's stock price. Both stupid numbers.

    Time to flog my dead horse again:

    I think we should have a kind of charity share brokerage for people who are willing to try to make the world better 10 bucks at a time. It could even be used here on Slashdot. After an article that describes a problem, there would be several links to proposed solution projects. If enough readers decide to support it, then it would get the money and of course Slashdot would be able to report on how well it worked.

    Detailed suggestions available upon polite request.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:Cancerous economics = bad financial models by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Detailed suggestions available upon polite request.

      You're always spamming us with that crap, such a fraud. Stop trying to 'bate people!

  70. This topic hurts my head by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    Well lets see...Electric cars, encrypting communication to keep governments from spying on people, Working to find cures for cancer, and AIDs, mapping the human genome, exploring space and other planets, improving crop yields, working to reduce carbon emissions, identifying genetic disorders, building a vast world network to improve communication, are a few things that techies are working on that I can rattle off without really thinking deeply about it. Coders and network engineers aren't usually working on solving problems directly, but the infrastructure that supports solving problems much more efficiently. Most interesting problems require teams of people with differing backgrounds to get things solved, and not some single savant coder working on the perfect algorithm for 36 hours straight. Its kind of like asking Albert Einstein's auto mechanic what has he did to improve the state of physics. A lot and very little,depending on your POV.

    If you are just asking a stupid question like what sort of cool Iphone apps are single handedly saving humanity from oblivion, I really don't know what to say to you.

    Articles like this speak volumes about where Slashdot's editorial quality is going....

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  71. Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Capitalism is a great tool, leveraging people's own self interest. The problem is, it's a lousy master, because it leverages people's own self interest. As such, tech (tools that make doing repetitive work easier) tends to be used to gain greater wealth for a few people, funneling the greater wealth into a few people's pockets, whilst the average working joe/jane sees little or none of the benefits. There are however some, and I'm sure in many cases, big trickle down benefits for society as a whole... still, instead of focusing the efficiency gains tech enables into the famously quoted (Keynes) 15 hour work week, instead you can just work longer and achieve more in the same time.

  72. For godsakes don't take the bait by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    There have been a steady stream of articles asking questions along these lines trying to get people to reveal what they are working on. Don't do it. It will only be used against you.

    If you have something with potential of being even mildly disruptive and your end goal isn't cashing out then for god sakes keep your mouth shut until your shit is ready.

    1. Re:For godsakes don't take the bait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that they aren't looking for specific things, its probably input for some goddamned correlation bot. Your advice is still good though.

  73. Techies are like construction workers by ET3D · · Score: 1

    'Techies' are just people who do a job that happens to be technical in some way. Jobs in general don't have anything to do with improving the world, they just help your employer (which may be you) earns money, and in turn give you money for that.

    'Improving the world' just isn't what construction workers do.

    Besides, OP, if you have any inkling of a thought how tech can make 'a healthy functioning society', feel free to offer them. If you can say what that even means in your opinion, please do. Ask a democrat or republican, you'd get different answers.

  74. The worst problems have already been solved by hawguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Technology has already solved most of the world's worse problems - sanitation, water purification, food production, vaccines, health care, birth control, basic education, etc are all "solved" problems, but the implementation is not a technological problem, it's a social and political one. It's not even a case where it just takes more money since more money largely ends up being misdirected.

    1. Re:The worst problems have already been solved by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Techies should be solving this.

      The solution seems to be on the internet. Craigslist eliminates middlemen. Kickstarter gives cool ideas a chance. Aliexpress gives manufacturers a store with little markup.

  75. Or by g36054 · · Score: 1

    Why aren't billionaires playing Batman?

    1. Re:Or by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

      Alternatively we could invent a smart content filter that allows us to simply not hear idiot conspiracy nutters that are SO batshit crazy that there's an exact zero chance that any of their "predictions" can ever come true that we can put more focus on the real problems.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Or by justthinkit · · Score: 2
      When the normally reasonable Opportunist gives a reply like this, you know this world has no chance.

      Let's break down, point by point, what he dumped on:

      Imagine the following way to help your own folks, and the victims of your elite:

      That there is an elite is not debatable. Also called the 1%, they have HALF the money in the world. If anyone should be doing great things with tech and everything else, it is the 1%. End Of Thread.

      Score one for "batshit crazy"

      Just expose the lies of the 1%, the war industry, the Cultural Marxists and their fellow Devil Worshippers. Those who literally want to make our children cut off their own balls:

      Once again, none of this is debatable. 1%? Check. War industry? Check. Cultural Marxists? Check. Devil Worshippers? Check.

      Anyone on slashdot claiming that any of these don't exist is part of the problem, or stupid. But you know what? Slashdot has less stupid people than any other place on the net. So back to the more likely possibility.

      Score 4 more for "B. Crazy"

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Ok, I took one for the team and loaded this link. Title is "Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight." The only quibble I have with stuff like this is, why don't they make a 26 minute youtube and give equal time to both parties of the duopoly? Maybe even show them both making the same lies. That would be fun.

      How do you know when a politician is lying?
      Right, when their YouTube is streaming.

      Score 1 for Opportunist, because Dr. Crazy didn't provide equal time.

      Obama and his goons tortured this boy until he wanted his own testicles to be cut off:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Once again, into the valley of YouTube... Video is called "Gender Transformation In A US Military Prison".

      Didn't play the video but simple point to be made. We'll never know. Stranger and sicker things have happened. In China, prisoners get their organs harvested while they are still alive.

      Calling this "idiot conspiracy nutter" material is unbecoming, Opportunist. You. Don't. Know. (in part because I'm sure you, like me, didn't watch it).

      Points awarded? None, because none of us will ever watch the video. Even though it could be as great as the Vimeo suggestion I watched some four years ago now. Found on Slashdot, it truly and profoundly changed my life. Thanks "thoughtlover", whoever you are.

      So, something that is bin spam to you, may be priceless to someone else.

      Score another point for the batlover.

      Regarding Computers, they are Insecure By Design. The 1% want them to be hackable:

      https://www.techdirt.com/artic...

      Probably the most obviously factual points of the whole post. No additional comment needed.

      Score: Two more points to the batshit crazy idiot conspiracy nutter. Who obviously cares. It is a thankless path these days. Whistleblowers used to be protected, today they get fired. People used to have "ABC sucks" web pages. Facebook routinely removes such "hate speech" today.

      The people more batshit crazy than this alleged idiot conspiracy nutter are the 1% shills or karma whores who say there aren't conspiracies.

      Life is saturated with conspiracies. Do something about them and you will be improving the world.

      --
      I come here for the love
    3. Re: Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with being a devil worshiper? He seems like an OK guy to me TBH. If I didn't believe that he is imaginary, I'd at least give him some pretty major respect.

    4. Re:Or by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

      That there is an elite is not debatable. Also called the 1%

      Yep, we call them Americans around here.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  76. Political muscle and being taken seriously. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    We are not taken seriously for what we do because we don't have organizations acting on our behalf to look after our interests at a political level.

    If we had that then when representations were needed on important decisions like infrastructure, education, employment conditions, research and development - a relevant organization would be there to respond. It's our failure to recognise that as individuals, we don't look after each other as a group. The consequence of that our common interests are treated like those of a group of individuals instead of an individual group.

    Technologists already know certain infrastructure decisions are important if innovation is to occurr. As economies around the world are finding out, the only way to sustain growth in an economy is innovation. If you stifle the ideas by undermining the lives of the people who are suposed to create that future, how can you move forward?

    The world is again changing, this time from the impact of the net. Government and business are still absorbing the fact that they have to adapt and, that to adapt, they have to relinquish enough control so that people have the freedom to innovate. Police states don't innovate. That is their dilema.

    I suspect it will take a few more years for the realizations to finally sink into governments about how important these things are as we move from the industrial to the knowledge age. Prosperity is tied to the freedom to innovate. Governments that stifle that freedom, stifle that prosperity.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  77. Re:Capitalism is charity by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    I would argue a tastier ketchup is worth more. People value it and are willing to pay for it which in return employees people to boot as well. A VC that attracts customers is worthy to the employees and the customers. All which re-invest the everyone else to help eliminate hunger as the trajectory and speed of the money supply being moved in the economy are signs of economic growth and everyone benefiting from it

    You didn't starve tonight did you? Someone gave you food or the ingredients to make you food just like helping a poor person. You received that for your contribution to society determined by your worth your employer sets for their needs.

    Any business that creates a job is the best humanitarian there is!

  78. I have a contribution by vikingpower · · Score: 1

    BGF, or binary graph format. My invention. A revolutionary new way to represent graphs (i.e., the mathematical structure known as graphs). File layout = memory layout: a bgf file can be loaded as-is into memory. Even in Java, if you load bgf into off-heap memory, graph traversal time can be as low as 20 nanoseconds/edge, when using bgf. If anybody knows a problem that can be stated as a graph problem, and where extremely fast graph processing makes the world a better place, ping me.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  79. Because humans, including techies are the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can only fix the world by disappearing. As species, that is.

  80. Technology is a tool by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    Like every tool it is up to the individual on how to use it. A technology designed for great good can also be used for great evil. The internet allows us to communicate with people around the world and openly share ideas and make people realize that in other areas they are human being too. Or you can use internet to spread you regional biases and hate across a broader area and recruit others to join your hatred group.

    Also every technology comes with a trade-off. That smaller communication device means you will need to lose other features, such as a full size keyboard. There are always people not willing to lose what they have. So that technology that could save the world may have a trade-off that most people find acceptable, is unacceptable for others.

    In short people are a problem, technology is a tool for the person to solve a problem they are trying to fix, but technology cannot solve society's problems.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Technology is a tool by naubol · · Score: 2

      It seems that your point is that technology is a zero-sum game where advancements are never net-positive good for humanity.

      I think, as a generalization, this is entirely wrong. Pasteurization, automobiles, the cotton gin, antiobiotics, modern farming techniques, etc, all seem to me to be dramatically net positive. The US requires only 3% of its population to work on food supply and has, compared to history, a miraculous food security. This is a marvel of technological progress.

      Specifically speaking to your comments about the internet, it is bringing down the cost of consumer goods, it is giving global communication to new areas (even if asymmetrically), it was used to organize arab spring, it was also used to help bring down the USSR, it gives us GPS, it gives us the ability to connect with friends and family, it makes small businesses easier to start, it makes it possible to trade on the market without a human broker, and on and on and on. The fact that it's used to also recruit for ISIS seems like an anemic negative. It might be radicalizing politics or politics maybe undergoing a messy reorganization. Either way, my position is that the bounty of positive consequences of the internet currently seem to outweigh the speculative and definitive negatives in such a manner as to be patently conclusive. Time and retrospective should improve our understanding of this.

      --
      Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
    2. Re: Technology is a tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet gives us GPS? I'm not sure it works the way you think it does... :)

    3. Re:Technology is a tool by Elfich47 · · Score: 1

      Instead look at the difference in tools the world has since the 1950s to now.
      Communications is instantaneous around the world. In the 1950's if you were lucky you could make a long distance phone call. Anything else was by post (days or months).

      Travel is cheap, plentiful and you can go almost anywhere in the world within 24 hour. In the 50's cars were just becoming a household tool. Overseas travel was long and expensive (and by ship).

      Computational power and data storage has exploded. Smart phones are a personal supercomputer in your pocket that you can use for huge number of tasks. In the 50's it was paper, pencil and a slide rule. Calculators were barely an option, hard drives were experimental (at best). Any body know the dewey decimal system?

      There are many other fundamental changes that have occurred in the last 80 years. And they have led to a multitude of downstream changes in how we live our lives, our society, corporations and the world operates. World-wide supply chain management, cell phone reporting of anything (cats, police, family reunions), ability to get anything delivered to your door within 48 hours (and sometimes same day), ride-sharing, mp3 players, digital cameras, cell phones, the list goes on and on and on.

      Many of these changes took a while to grab hold, and suddenly several of them have grabbed hold all at once and it is affecting how the world works (both for good and for ill). People who cannot adapt are being swept away (them whipper-snappers and those fangled new things, its just a fad) while the people who were born with the new technology are exploiting it to its limit.

      No technology is not "good" or "evil" it all depends on how you use it. At the same time people should be cognizant of the fact that any new technology can and will be disruptive to part of the old guard. Be it automation putting workers out of work (automatic looms and textiles), the postal service shipping more boxes and fewer letters, Eastman-Kodak going out of business due to digital cameras, self-driving cars putting pressure on taxi drivers (this is just starting now), the rum triangle between England, Africa and the colonies putting English workers out of work because of cheaper US goods, or US workers being put out of work because of cheaper workers in China, India, and the Pacific Rim.

      --
      Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    4. Re:Technology is a tool by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Communications is instantaneous around the world. In the 1950's if you were lucky you could make a long distance phone call. Anything else was by post (days or months).

      Never heard of the telegraph? It has been argued that the telegraph made more of a difference then the internet as it allowed close to instant communication for the first time in history. By the 1950's it was mature technology that combined with phones made same day communication normal though not cheap.

      Travel is cheap, plentiful and you can go almost anywhere in the world within 24 hour. In the 50's cars were just becoming a household tool. Overseas travel was long and expensive (and by ship).

      While travel has become faster and cheaper, the train was not that slow and was usually a pleasant experience and crossing the Atlantic was only a week and if traveling 3rd class, not that expensive or unpleasant.

      Many of the other technologies haven't been game changers but incremental improvements. Paper and pen worked well for many things, Moon rockets were designed with slide rules and mechanical computers. Having a phone booth on almost every corner made fast communication common. Libraries were common and the Dewey decimal system allowed easy searching, in a broad sense.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    5. Re:Technology is a tool by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      None of your examples come without major downsides - and in some cases the prices are not yet fully known. Modern farming techniques come at the price of the greatest cruelty in the history of animal domestication. Animal domestication used to be a symbiotic relationship - which animals and humans alike chose because it was mutually beneficial. Even the cows we ate were okay with it because the species as a whole prospered and before we ate them they got a quality of life far beyond what they could otherwise achieve - the lions were not offering a good life before eating them.

      Today - the way factory farms operate, humans are no longer symbiotes with domesticated animals, we are flat out parasites now, and this is a very different thing. I would argue that, by itself this is a massive downside. And one we're not making any real effort to change. Personally, I've switched to only veal for my meat - I won't eat factory farmed meat because my conscious will not allow me to participate in a parasitic relationship. It could get much worse though. Nature has a tentendency to evolve strong defences against parasites - and the more deadly the parasite, the stronger the defence becomes. Do you really want to see what happens when cattle, pigs and chickens start evolving defences against us ? Are you 100% certain you can prevent that ? Bet your species on it certain ?

      Antiobiotics ? Great invention - saved untold lives. And now it's giving us superbugs which have the potential to kill far more people than the antibiotics ever saved. The tech served a great purpose but overuse is turning it into perhaps the single shortest term risk to the survival of the species we face.

      Automobiles ? Have led to urban sprawl - which causes a whole slew of problems, made wars far more deadly and fronts much bigger, is currently one of the biggest driving forces behind our second most urgent existential threat. I'd say we haven't begun to see the full downsides of that one - and the electric car only addresses one aspect. We're still just beginning to understand how the car already changed our entire human experience - you can't say something is better or worse before you understand what it entails. For example - the car offered a previously non-existent level of comfort and privacy - and as a result a significant percentage of the next generation was conceived on the back seat of model-T's. Henry Ford, without meaning to, probably did just as much to start the sexual revolution as the pill did. The combination of both has changed the shape of society for ever. While, overall, I think that change has been for the good - we're still dealing with the fallout of the major backlash against that change, which is a problem the scale of which we haven't come close to enumerating. It also removed horses from our daily lives. The removal of a major symbiotic animal from daily contact is a massive and radical change with unimagninable consequences which we simply don't know yet. To give an example of what it COULD mean. Europeans gained their high degree of resistance to smallpox from living with cows. It was a cow virus initially, we got it from them - and over centuries developed a strong immune response so by the time of the explorers we mostly survived it. It got to the Americas and killed 95% of the entire population there, because they had no prior exposure and so, no resistance because they didn't keep cattle.
      Who knows what disease could arrive in a few decades or centuries because we took horses out of our lives - what may show up and kill 95% of us as a result ?

      Now this post seems extremely pessimistic, I'm not really such a pessimist - I don't think all these scenarios will happen and a lot of smart people are actively working to try and avoid them as far as possible. We may avoid them all. But you are so excessively optimistic in your view that just giving some examples of what you are overlooking inevitably sounds pessimistic.

      Everything has upsides and downsides. Plastics are probably the only reason we h

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  81. What? I think we're doing a great job... by Phydeaux · · Score: 1

    You'll be able to thank Techies, GG'ers and the Alt-Right for systemically rending the lies of HRC and keeping her from getting elected to POTUS. Yeah, yeah. Whine about Donald, but look at the mottos- "Make America Great Again" (about you and me and other Americans) versus "I'm With Her" which is not only all about Hillary, but suggests that you condone, nee, support her lies, obfuscated truths and definition of what "confidential" is. Techies have dredged emails, freelanced journalism and asked a slew of tech questions which have not only helped reveal the lies of a presidential candidate, but will also make sure President Donald Trump stays on the straight and narrow and doesn't fsck over the American people like the last 3 or 4 have.

  82. Because... by Mats+Svensson · · Score: 1

    all your requirement specifications specifically asked for "MOOAR KILLINGPOWERRRR!!!!"

  83. Rotary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to make the world a better place for everybody, join up with others such as the Rotarians (www.rotary.org). Hiding in your mom's basement isn't going to be much use.

  84. You mean like this? by Humbubba · · Score: 1

    Techies Improving the World? You mean like the Farmbot (an open source agriculture robot) or the X Prize's Tricorder (a non-invasive health diagnostics package)? For more ideas - make products that address Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Except for the Intimate Relationships thing - Japan is already way ahead on sexbot technology.

  85. FALSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We do work against the wicked evil of our days:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNZSmrRTDcQ

  86. Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's work against the wicked evil warmongers. See this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNZSmrRTDcQ

  87. Re:Techie are fixing world at same rate it was bro by marmot7 · · Score: 1

    I think the expectation that the application of tech will fix something that's wrong with the world very quickly is a big part of the problem.

    How long have humans been dumping garbage into the environment? Why would you expect that recycling, composting, reclamation and other technologies will not only stop the poisoning of the environment and clean up the current mess in the order of years?

    Same thing for CO2 in the atmosphere. We've been burning increasing amounts of fossil fuels for 130 years or so, why would you expect that a new technology would stop this within years but also return CO2 levels to their original state?

    Same comments on other issues like the growth of the Sahara desert, deforestation, etc.

    I expect new technologies to help stop the increasing damage and reducing the current level of damage to come about over time, but the expectation that it can be fixed almost immediately with the application of a new technology simply isn't reasonable.

    You make some good points here. Could that rate of progress increase if more money were put on more important problems and less on bullshit?

  88. Bingo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The internet has helped to shed serious light on the criminal elite who runs the show in many countries. If it were not for the internet, we would already be in a 1929 style depression. The internet has enabled the good people to shame the banksters into at least some amount of compliance. We have fended off the worst.

    Look at this video for the next big problem we have to fend off:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7syNUYAXHwo

    I count on you men and women to spread the message about the wickedness of these folks. Keep doing the good work !

  89. Re: Because the only "geeks" with money are Jews. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enjoy your -1! Nobody is allowed to criticize j-ws.

  90. Meaning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me give you some meaning. Help defeat this evil employee of the rich, corrupt and warmongering:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7syNUYAXHwo

  91. Governments are in the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However, thanks to companies like Uber and AirBNB we now know we can ignore the laws and do as we please.

  92. "Progress" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is usually a codeword of the Spartans/Cultural Marxists who already screwed up Russia. Now they plan to destroy the U.S.

    See their "candidate": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

  93. Not my job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And Von Neumann gave me an interesting idea: that you don’t have to be responsible for the world that you’re in. So I have developed a very powerful sense of social irresponsibility as a result of Von Neumann’s advice. It’s made me a very happy man ever since. But it was Von Neumann who put the seed in that grew into my active irresponsibility."
      - Richard Feynman, in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!

  94. YOU Can Easily Make A Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just expose the lies of the 1%, the war industry, the Cultural Marxists and their fellow Devil Worshippers. Those who literally want to make our children cut off their own balls:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

    Obama and his goons tortured this boy until he wanted his own testicles to be cut off:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNcsf5yGIYA

  95. Dang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just expose the lies of the 1%, the war industry, the Cultural Marxists and their fellow Devil Worshippers. Those who literally want to make our children cut off their own balls:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

    Obama and his goons tortured this boy until he wanted his own testicles to be cut off:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNcsf5yGIYA

    Regarding Computers, they are Insecure By Design. The 1% want them to be hackable:

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151220/08101633141/hillary-clinton-wants-manhattan-project-encryption-not-back-door-that-makes-no-sense.shtml

  96. Because . . . by hduff · · Score: 1

    They are not in charge.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  97. Yes, I mean it literally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oooh, an actual example of begging the question in the wild... how fun!

  98. Re:Capitalism is charity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ketchup market is a zero-sum game. Any jobs that Tastier Ketchup Corp produce are necessarily taken from Less Tasty Ketchup Inc. Most apps and startups are trying to likewise shoe in on zero-sum markets; that seems to be the summary's main complaint.

    None of that goes towards expanding the market downward to people who have no saleable goods or cash to trade for basic necessities like food. You are willfully closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and saying "It makes money so it's good, it's solving the problem, I can't hear you!"

    Your carelessness perpetuates atrocities, but god loves you anyhow. Maybe you should start thinking differently about your life.

  99. Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Imagine the following way to help your own folks, and the victims of your elite:

    Just expose the lies of the 1%, the war industry, the Cultural Marxists and their fellow Devil Worshippers. Those who literally want to make our children cut off their own balls:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

    Obama and his goons tortured this boy until he wanted his own testicles to be cut off:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNcsf5yGIYA

    Regarding Computers, they are Insecure By Design. The 1% want them to be hackable:

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151220/08101633141/hillary-clinton-wants-manhattan-project-encryption-not-back-door-that-makes-no-sense.shtml

  100. Reality Check by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    Solving big problems is a great way to get yourself summarily dismissed as a nutcase. There was a doctor back in the 60's who said the evidence presuming a cause/effect relationship between cholesterol and heart disease was flat-out wrong.

    He was practically disbarred.

    Just today I heard that the manufacturers of Tylenol will have to put a warning on the bottle about drinking and taking it. Check out the death toll from people who didn't know any better.

    There are many other examples, mainly in medicine and pharmaceuticals, but also elsewhere.

    Very rich corporations are raking in billions of dollars every year by not solving problems. They don't appreciate it when somebody comes along and actually solves one. It puts the brakes on the gravy train.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  101. Most techies have no real free will to do so by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Most 'techies' are wage slaves, and do what their employers pay them to do -- and if that's the 457th version of Candy Crush, then that's what they work on. The exception, I suppose, is the self-employed, and the Kickstarter types, but they are a tiny minority. Also last time I checked many things that are innovative and/or revolutionary or that will 'change the world' either get sued out of existence, or gobbled up by some mega-corp, and then either twisted into something else, or buried. We live in a nascent dystopia, after all. Ther'e's still some hope, but it's dwindling.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Most techies have no real free will to do so by Casandro · · Score: 1

      Well most 'technies' are also unable to solve any decently complicated problems because of incompetence.

      You don't need to be a good software developer to write the 457th version of Candy Crush, but you may need to be one to actually solve an important problem.

      I mean there would be lots of things like building a secure mobile device. The problem is that your average "Java jockey" won't understand that their desire to make everything complicated is part of the security problem.

      Also most problems in the world cannot be solved by technology. You cannot solve the problem of few people owning most of the world with technology. In fact if you are an incompetent "techie" you commonly even make it worse. A typical example are websites today. HTML used to be something simple, something everybody could do. Today it becomes more and more complex, so complex that there's just a hand full of working browser engines around.

    2. Re:Most techies have no real free will to do so by kheldan · · Score: 1

      When I'm talking about 'techies', I'm including the entire spectrum of them; competent, and INcompetent.

      Point: Even a 'competent' techie doesn't necessarily have the 'spark' necessary to solve a problem that will improve the overall quality of life for humanity in general; if it was a common trait, we probably wouldn't have many of the problems we have today.

      Point: We agree, most problems aren't and can't be solved by technology alone -- but try explaining that to someone with a Masters in Business or to a Marketer; usually, it's like talking to a brick wall, and sometimes a brick wall is more intelligent. These types tend to have one thing and one thing only in mind: making more money. They don't care about (or, sometimes, even seem to be able to conceive of) 100 years down the road, they only seem to be able to think in terms of next fiscal quarter, and whether they'll get their bonus this year. Solving the real problems that face humanity require social solutions, that perhaps are enabled by technology -- but, again, there's usually little to no money (if not a flat-out loss) in solving these sorts of problems, thus nobody other than charity organizations are interested in solving them. It's capitalism gone bad, yes, but sadly that's the world we live in. I can easily see the 'competent' techies, who actually have the spark necessary to do some real good and cause some real change, not doing so because of money -- because when you wife looks at you with that look, that says "I'm not so sure I want to keep being married to you if you're going to go off the rails like this", and he knows he has to provide for his family, often such high-minded ideals go out the window in favor of earning a decent paycheck.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    3. Re:Most techies have no real free will to do so by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      You do realize that one of the problems is the whole 'Better living through science' meme and its offspring, right? So we've got an inherently flawed assumption that science will save us all--usually accompanied with the idea that we don't actually have to change, or that a perfect solution is obtainable.

      Most of the people who are out to implement these things are motivated by what is fundamentally a religious mindset--and, sometimes, you've got a better chance of a foamy-mouthed fundamentalist follower of a traditional religion being willing to change methods that don't work. If your belief system insists that the reason your efforts are failing is a lack of enough people believing and throwing money into your solution--you just are not psychologically in the position to truly accept even the possibility that the reason your solution is failing is because your solution is simply not ever going to work.

      One of the best examples I've seen is from socialist countries.

      The bottom line is that for some problems, we may just have to accept that the 'ideal' solution is impossible--and sometimes no 'good' solution is possible, and we should be honest about picking 'least bad.'

      And, frankly, the first problem techies probably ought to tackle is science as a religion. That lovely little meme has gotten a death toll in the millions, and that's just if you set the meme's birth to the turn of the last century. If you include its earlier formulations...

  102. Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want a real answer:

    Capitalism.

    We, for the most part don't own the means of production. I don't know what you think this is chief, but we live in a system where most of us have to go to work and pay bills.

    We do make the world a better place when given the opportunity, but at the end of the day, with few jobs, when the bank calls we go to work. And when given our own resources we find time to work as much for the people as possible.

    We have techies into activism, heck the latest round of whistleblowers were all techies. We have techies giving out not minor, but major pieces of software for Free. Entire operating systems, toolchains, all the real heavy base platform-level stuff. We had to fight tooth and nail for that. When possible we've helped bring technology to the people. We made bittorrent and the pirate bay and other sites for file sharing. Those recently included downloadable instructions for drugs and physical items. We've made all kinds of communication software and hardware. We've released Free high grade crypto to the public, at risk of scorning large governments. When we are not whistleblowing ourselves, we've supported other activists.

    Oh, and take a look at ever last piece of machinery you see right now in front of you was made by an engineer. At this level, its not "What have we done for society", its "We are society". Scrape away all the bullshit artists and we are the ones who do everything useful.

    Now, go ask "Why aren't X Improving the World?" to every other group in society.

  103. Here Is Some Help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1.) Sell off your TV on Ebay

    2.) Stop consuming Cultural Marxist Bullshit information. I think you got already a heavy dose of that. For example Fukushima killed nobody. They only used it to scare the Bejesus out of you.

    3.) Get a girl, move to a place outside the cities. Make three kids. Because America has actually too few kids. Because too many people indulge in the Marxist nonsense from Hollywood.

    3.1) Learn to respect women. Don't run away for the slightest problem. Be a man, think for the family. Do not let the Marxist Penis-thinking take over. Care for the family, for the kids. Then she will love you and the kids will love you.

    4.) Walk in nature, learn to recover from work pressure there. The forest has been your ancestors friend for millions of years.

  104. Mercenary without ethical purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have no obligation to sacrifice my unpaid free time simply because I have a set of skills.

    I'm surprised that you are not embarrassed to state it. You are in effect admitting that you are just a mercenary with no ethical purpose of your own when it comes to applying your skills.

    Your ethics are those of the lowest level in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. You have probably never heard of this concept because nobody offered to pay you to educate yourself. It's really sad to witness such a deficit of higher goals in an age where barbarism has mostly been supplanted by civilization and ethical values have been growing in esteem for quite a few centuries.

    1. Re:Mercenary without ethical purpose by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      For any third graders out there.

      Maslow was a navel gazer who stated that navel gazing was the highest form of human achievement. Other navel gazers agree with him. That is all there is it: Philosophical fapping.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  105. Re:Wow. Excellent question /. by thsths · · Score: 1

    Yes, those are all appropriate observations, but how would a smart phone app change that, or even any technology? These are cultural and social problems, and they need cultural and social answers.

    Asking for a smart phone app to solve drug problems in the Mid West is like asking a Star Wars toy to deliver peace in the Middle East. The framing of the question is wrong.

  106. Re:...what is not getting attention? by slashrio · · Score: 1

    Peace and prosperity instead of war and austerity?

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  107. Because solving real problems is hard. by Yesimbald · · Score: 1

    First nobody agrees on what is a "healthy functioning society".

    How could I write an App that make irrational people to think rational. Do I have the right to do that ?
    I think it will quickly be called propaganda by people with different opinions.

  108. Re:...removing the doctor by slashrio · · Score: 1

    How about a healthier lifestyle? No charge either.
    I heard a boy once say: "Pay the [organic] farmer or pay the doctor, your choice."

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  109. Re:...polio by slashrio · · Score: 1

    By the way, ever heard of Dr Frederick Klenner?

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  110. Re:...too many people by slashrio · · Score: 3, Funny

    We don't have too many people. We can feed 12 biliion people and that is where the world population is going to stabilise at.

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  111. It's a political issue, not a technical one by Archtech · · Score: 1

    marmot7 displays a charming naivery and desire to help everyone who needs help. Excellent qualities! However, this is expressed rather the wrong way round: "Is it that there's no profit to be made in solving the most important problems?"

    On the contrary, it is that there is so much profit to be made precisely by NOT solving the most important problems. Poverty, inequality, discrimination, war, pollution... all those evils are directly caused by the extraction of profit from the world and its people by certain elites who are already very rich and powerful indeed. It comes as a shock when one first understands that the rich, as a rule, grow steadily richer by taking money from the poor. After all, the poor are the most easily exploited. They are the ones who have to buy necessities in small batches rather than saving money by buying wholesale. (They can't afford fridges or freezers, and have very little storage space). They are the ones who have to use expensive coin-fed meters for power, rather than saving money by paying regularly by electronic means. They are the ones who are so desperately busy, trying to survive from each day to the next, that they have no leisure or disposable income left with which to find out ways of living more economically. They are the ones, overwhelmingly, who play lotteries - that "tax on stupidity" (or rather "tax on ignorance and desperation").

    Just as a fridge makes its interior colder by pumping heat out into the external world, the rich contrive to become steadily richer by exporting poverty to those who are already poor. To solve the most important problems, as marmot7 suggests, is not a technical challenge: it would be a political challenge, and would require a revolution.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    1. Re:It's a political issue, not a technical one by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      marmot7 displays a charming naivery and desire to help everyone who needs help. Excellent qualities! However, this is expressed rather the wrong way round: "Is it that there's no profit to be made in solving the most important problems?"

      On the contrary, it is that there is so much profit to be made precisely by NOT solving the most important problems. Poverty, inequality, discrimination, war, pollution... all those evils are directly caused by the extraction of profit from the world and its people by certain elites who are already very rich and powerful indeed. It comes as a shock when one first understands that the rich, as a rule, grow steadily richer by taking money from the poor. After all, the poor are the most easily exploited. They are the ones who have to buy necessities in small batches rather than saving money by buying wholesale. (They can't afford fridges or freezers, and have very little storage space). They are the ones who have to use expensive coin-fed meters for power, rather than saving money by paying regularly by electronic means. They are the ones who are so desperately busy, trying to survive from each day to the next, that they have no leisure or disposable income left with which to find out ways of living more economically. They are the ones, overwhelmingly, who play lotteries - that "tax on stupidity" (or rather "tax on ignorance and desperation").

      Just as a fridge makes its interior colder by pumping heat out into the external world, the rich contrive to become steadily richer by exporting poverty to those who are already poor. To solve the most important problems, as marmot7 suggests, is not a technical challenge: it would be a political challenge, and would require a revolution.

      It's possible that I'm naive but, if what you say is true, the die is cast... Go study your dystopia novels for inspiration, I guess. But I'm an idealist and an optimist. I don't really subscribe to any ideologies at all unless my faith and optimism that we can build a better future are an ideology. It's possible. I've got a son who's got to deal with this world we are building. I have some skin in the game beyond myself at this point. I choose to believe that a better future is possible. I hope I'm not lying.

    2. Re:It's a political issue, not a technical one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't really subscribe to any ideologies at all unless my faith and optimism that we can build a better future are an ideology.

      How one defines "better" is at the heart of what we call "ideology". There are few, if any, things or events that absolutely everyone can agree is unambiguously "better".

  112. Poor requirements by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

    You sound like you would write terrible requirement documents. What do you want this app to do? Why is it not there already? Is an app really the answer?

  113. Re:Wow. Excellent question /. by meadow · · Score: 1

    No, but at this point in time when humans are supposedly so intelligent, trumpeting their amazing technological achievements, why is the world so totally fucked up?

    Don't you think - if we are all so smart and there are all these technologically advanced things - that thing would be getting better, not worse?

    Of course I don't expect a smartphone app to be able to solve major problems. But why, at a time when we have smartphone apps and all this other highly advanced stuff, is it that things are careening on a crash course, in the wrong direction?

    There are so many replete examples of things going wrong to pick from.

    And personally I think there is a connection between people being motivated for more noble purposes, such as the creators of many of the foundational technologies which underlie so many things we use, and the world improving, vs. people with low motivation - ivy-leage Enron types who want to cash in - and things getting worse.

  114. What? With like, technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Techies should really invent transports to move people about, medicine to cure them, methods to grow stuff, some kond of machine to keep track of stuff and do math... But I guess that will never happen; we are stuck in the hunter/gatherer hamster wheel forever! I wish techies would get of their asses and invent shit to improve our lives!

  115. I help improve the world every day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure it's only beneficial to the company I work for. But by making a better, more efficient, more productive business, we do help in small ways.

  116. we're all monkeys after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can't expect much of a society that evolved from discussing animals like monkeys. we're here because of our ability to use tools, not for our intellectual skills. pigs think better than monkeys...

  117. Give fish to feed a day; Teach fishing is for life by Kjella · · Score: 1

    My impression is that techies for the most part dismiss most immediate help as not being sustainable or productive in resolving the underlying issue, unless it's a temporary crisis caused by exceptional circumstances like a natural disaster. This is often mixed with a determinism that people will keep doing stupid things and that attitude campaigns is Sisyphus forever trying to roll a boulder up the hill. We build safer and safer cars with seat belts and airbags and ABS and emergency brake systems, people keep finding innovative ways to maim themselves. We make the cell phones so you can dial 911. We make the systems to dispatch and manage the ambulances. We make the medical equipment so the EMTs and doctors can save your life.

    Obviously the bulk of the credit should go the EMT who patched you up when you were bleeding out, but s/he is at the top of a very long pyramid supporting it. I work with collection of healthcare data for secondary use, that is to say not treatment but administration, research, public statistics and so on. My contribution is more on the order of showing that this hospital needs another ambulance or we need to educate more cardiologists or researchers used our data to discover something that led to a new treatment or better practice that maybe ten steps down the road gave you a 1% quicker recovery or higher rate of survival. It will go totally unnoticed, but if I can on average help 5 million people live one minute longer I'll have saved 10 lifetimes.

    To being it down to a whole other level, we even see this in IT projects where often the firefighter is the visible one, the one solving the crisis and becoming the hero. All the people who wrote robust, defensive code that didn't catch fire not so much. It's never glamorous to be the one making sure things don't happen, that disease you didn't get because of vaccinations? The food poisoning you didn't get or cancer-causing additive you didn't eat because the FDA shut them down? For the most part you don't even know that it happened, and if you did you wouldn't give it a second thought and if you did it'd just be that they were doing their job. That's how it is when you move the bar one inch at a time.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  118. This headline can fuck right off by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ask Slashdot: Why Aren't Techies Improving The World?

    Slashdot reader marmot7 isn't impressed by "the latest app that solves some made up problem. I'm impressed by apps that solve real problems..."

    Jesus Christ. If the first thing you think of when talking about solving the world's most problems is apps, I don't want you on the funding committee.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:This headline can fuck right off by marmot7 · · Score: 1

      Ask Slashdot: Why Aren't Techies Improving The World?

      Slashdot reader marmot7 isn't impressed by "the latest app that solves some made up problem. I'm impressed by apps that solve real problems..."

      Jesus Christ. If the first thing you think of when talking about solving the world's most problems is apps, I don't want you on the funding committee.

      That's me, a total fucking moron looking to go punk rock on your goddamned committee with some stupid fucking ideas. When someone asks me a question, I always answer "there's an app for that." There's not? What? And it's not possible to solve that problem with an app? That's an opportunity not a problem. Let's get on it.

    2. Re:This headline can fuck right off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When someone asks me a question, I always answer "there's an app for that." There's not? What?

      Ah, so you are the fellow that the "app guy" is satirizing. Go app some apps, apper.

  119. got better things to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...

  120. Sure there are by johanw · · Score: 1

    Like Moxie Marlinspike, the author of Signal and the Signal protocol who brought strong encryption to the billions. Now all WhatsApp messages are strongly encrypted, and this makes dragnet surveillance imposssible. It also solves the problem that encrypted messages used to stand out and attract attention: if everyone encrypts it's no special attention grabber.

  121. The Good Ones are in a Box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A talented engineer with scruples is marginalized in today's environment. Therefore, lower talent and/or lower morals advances, acquires resources, and creates opportunity cost for the good guys.

  122. We're asking the wrong questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We cannot possibly know whether we are making the better place. The reason is that 'better' is a baseless, subjective concept without an agreed upon definition of what is good. We all have different ideas about what we think is good. What is better is relative to what is good and without knowing what is good we cannot know what is better.

    The first world seeks fame, comfort and power. They have convinced the rest of the world that the appearance of wealth is what we all should seek. That comfort and power is what a better life looks like.

    We are loosing sight of what it means to be a human being. We not longer want to be free in the world so we build ourselves into a silicon cage.

    Our puppet master knows what he is doing. The power of the prince of the air. Convince them to worship that which they made with their own hands so that their destruction is made certain. Good for us that his days are numbered.

    We know what to do to make the world a better place. We've just been spending our time in idol worship and the pursuit of wealth and power.

    We were told over 2000 years ago what to do. Love your God. Love your neighbor. You know exactly who said that. You know exactly who it was yet, you reject to even hear his name because you are your own God and you are ruled by what you have made. This is the path to destruction. You know it. We all know it, we are just too proud to admit it.

    A better world is one that operates as it was designed to. Just like any other intelligently engineered thing. The lead engineer of all that is said: love your God and love your neighbor. Let us do that.

  123. -1 Flamebait by asylumx · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I mean the whole 'article' is -1 Flamebait. But I guess it worked, there are more comments on this article than most others I've seen lately.

  124. Improving the world is a political problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The worlds most important ills are caused by political problems, and aren't readily resolved by technological solutions - in fact, proposed technological solutions for world problems are often used as a rhetorical method for supporting the status quo - "Why fix our political problems, when technological advances will solve them for us?".

    "Why do anything about unemployment/underemployment/work-conditions? Most of our jobs will become automated anyway."
    "Why do anything about climate change? Technological advances will solve that problem for us anyway."
    "Why do anything about starvation/malnourishment in the third-world? Technological advances in GMO's will solve that for us anyway."

    You also have the example of technological advances making the world a worse place to live, and people arguing - in a Borg-like 'resistance is futile' manner - that political action for resolving those ills is a waste of time, as technological advances will always stay ahead of regulations:
    "Why do anything about Ubers monopolization of the Taxi industry? Technological advances will keep them one step ahead of the regulators."
    "Why do anything about AirBnB's sidestepping of zoning laws? Technological advances will keep them one step ahead of the planning authorities."

    When you think about it, a reliance upon technological advances to solve the worlds ills like this, is a bit like a Free Market Fetishist saying "let the markets sort it out for us!" - because if we are avoiding correcting political problems, by waiting for technological advances to make them irrelevant, then that's implicitly arguing against government political intervention.

    The key to solving the worlds ills is not technology - it's solving the political problems underlying the worlds problems - and a lot of the time this requires government intervention.

    A good example of this is climate change, because at its root that is a political problem, and if we actually wanted to seek out technological solutions for it NOW (which we should be, as we're already past the point of inevitable damage due to climate change), then we'd have to first solve the political problems holding governments back, from providing Manhattan-Project style investment/funding/development in technological and infrastructural development.

    This political problem is almost impossible to solve though, because the public have been trained into being fooled by the rhetorical question "Where will the money come to fund that?", because the economic paradigm people are taught in the modern western world, fools them into believing - even when there are ample resources and labour available - that government funding is fundamentally restricted (under threat of impending economic disaster), when it is not (the only sense that it is restricted, is for political reasons, not for economic reasons).

    This is the biggest political problem on the entire planet, and there is no technological solution to it - this problem is in fact, they key to unlocking the funding that would be needed for resolving our biggest technological problems - and it's a problem that is almost impossibly hard to solve, because it penetrates so deeply into the public psyche throughout the world, due to decades of political indoctrination in economics.

  125. We're done by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    Let's see. . .

    I'm dry. I'm warm. I'm cool. Year-round.

    I'm clean. I'm safe. I'm secure. From every danger, always.

    I've got a giant tvision, with infinite entertainment. I've got access to all the world's knowledge and communication with anyone on the planet within seconds from my pocket.

    I've got food, year-round, in a clean kitchen, at the touch of a few buttons -- be it the stove, the oven, or the microwave, I can cook food in minutes.

    Instead of spending my like canning to preserve food, I have winter-in-one-box-and-the-arctic-in-another.

    I've got laundry machines that can wash every piece of cloth in the entire house in one day. The only reason I don't use it every day is because I'd need to fold it all.

    I've got porn, fast-food, and a couch actually called a lazy-boy.

    I've got infinite music for pennies. Infinite movies for a few dollars. Infinite tvision for a few dollars more.

    I've got an inexpensive sports car.

    I've got farm-fresh food minutes away.

    I've got friends and family and neighbours readily available for fun times, or to help me when I need help.

    I've got as few or as many pets and children as I'd like. Which reminds me, I've got free healthcare and free education too.

    You've got problems? Really, the laundry folding isn't that bad.

  126. REMOTE CONTROL OF NERVOUS SYSTEM (UNRELATED) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TJKSvW5_lw

  127. defining techies as programmers? by hydrodog · · Score: 1

    I would have assumed that techies would include technical people of all stripes, and if so, then I think you can see that people working on clean energy technologies and biological technologies are generally making the world a better place, at least for humans. The people making it cheaper to get into space, like SpaceX could also be defined this way. If you are defining techies as programmers, then people here have posted examples of programs that are not trivial, and of course that's a minority. It seems like an unfair standard though, why aren't you complaining that most authors write books you don't consider important, or most movies are trivial rewrites and extensions of nonsense franchises? Not everything has to be altruistic and highbrow. There is enough to choose from.

  128. Re:...removing the doctor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a healthier lifestyle? No charge either.

    I heard a boy once say: "Pay the [organic] farmer or pay the doctor, your choice."

    For decades the American healthcare system has focused on "repairing" the issue versus preventing the issue. Combine that with the fact that most of the
    babyboomers, gen-xers, gen-yers and millenials have never been able to seriously compare price versus outcome and you get the mess we are in
    now.

    A system the pays the specials the most money to "repair" and injury/illness, rather than pay a generalist to prevent it. Unfortunately, preventing illness and
    disease is always cheaper than treating.

    Until this turns around, healthcare will never function as people want.

    Additionally, in today's culture, taking time away from work to get preventative healthcare is typically frowned upon as is staying home when one has "the sniffles" (yes, there is a difference between allergy sniffles and cold/flu sniffles. and there will always be someone that takes advantage of the situation). In the winter months, the spread of colds and flu could be dramatically impacted if those that think, I'm not that sick would just stay home and get well.

  129. Finding Investments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it that there's no profit to be made in solving the most important problems? I'm puzzled by that as I would think that a good solution to an important problem could find some funding from somewhere but maybe government, for example, won't take investment risks in that way?

    See various government technology funds, programs and innovation centers. Lots of things are happening in various countries beyond the public eye.

  130. That's not our job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like it or not, techies are the glorified janitors of this digital world we live in. Artists and Scientists create. Engineers assess and improve upon design. Techies maintain and repair.

  131. Re:...too many people by stud9920 · · Score: 1

    I didn't know your needs for resources only amounted to what you can eat. But if that's the case, maybe we should ban all food but Soylent and try to get another 50 billion people join the fun.

  132. We are. The others keep f*cking it up. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    We are improving the world. It's just that the ignorant idiots keep f*cking things up.

    Examples:
    We build free open architecture computers and advocate them. They buy iPhones.
    We build and promote free software. They use Windows and pay bizar abmounts of subscription fees for office programms. (Hardly believable but, seriously, no joke.)
    We tell them man-made climate change is a real thing and we need to react and they say it's all made up because of ... reasons ...
    We build and promote electric cars and high-tech bicycles. They buy the next big Porsche Cheyenne.
    We explain to them that a public transport system built with half the money spent on private cars would be something like a Star Trek utopia of transport. They clog up the cities with stacks and rows of parked private cars.
    We tell then not to use Facebook and WhatsCrap, but rather Diaspora and Jabber. They don't give a flying f*ck. (Well, my daughter does. Smart girl. Daddy loves you.)
    We tell them nuclear fission doesn't add up, but they just do what energy powermongers want.
    We tell then voting machines are a very very bad idea. What do they do? Build and deploy voting machines. ...

    It's like I've always said:
    Powerful tools in dumb hands is always the biggest problem of technological advancement.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:We are. The others keep f*cking it up. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      For most people, iPhones are excellent (if expensive) solutions to their smartphone needs, and a Windows computer with the same office software that the vast majority of the rest of the world uses is an excellent (and relatively inexpensive) solution to their computer needs. Diaspora is a really bad solution to their social networking needs and desires. As long as you maintain that your priorities are the correct ones, and only ignorant and dumb people would disagree, you're not going to understand the world.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  133. Religion is the big problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tech to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies has been around for a hundred years (condoms).

    But no, it's against the rules of Jeebus, right there in the book of... the book of... oh it's there somewhere. Or if it's not, it oughta be.

    We have STEM cell research, which is most promising against a host of maladies, but no, that, too is against God's will, because God tells some folks directly, dontcha know.

    We have the Ken Ham types who would rather build a 900 cubit ark of stupidity to promote a myth (and attack science) than do anything else with all that money.

    We have billions of people who spend next to nothing on figuring out anything real, but lots of time and money on forcing other people to believe that a 7th century cave-dweller rode to heaven on a horse, and that THEIR holy book beats YOUR holy book.

    Until we, as a species, are able to shake off this mantle of stupidity, we have little hope to make real progress, and increasing probabilities of self-destruction.

  134. Because You Keep Distracting Us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, please figure out your own email clients, your own operating systems, your own driver installations, your own printers, your own routers, your own internet service/bill/speed, your own phone setups, your own PC shopping trips, your own PC repairs, your own Wifi password/bandwidth/signal-strength, your own bluetooth..... I feel like I made my point clear.

    Techies can't end world hunger because everyone else refuses to catch up. Techies could be saving the world, but they are stuck trying to keep Grandma's @aol.com email address free of spam.

    Also, the submitter of this post is clueless. One of the biggest breakthroughs in AIDS/HIV research, mapping the virus protein structure, was done by implementing a free 2 play game and it was solved by a massive community of gamers, but this is a drop in the bucket.

  135. That begs the question by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The question "why aren't techies improving the world" begs the question, "aren't we"? And we are. We're helping people exchange information freely, for example. We're making new products and services possible.

    If you want an answer, though, it's this: we'd be doing a lot more if it weren't for the influence of shitlords like Apple or Microsoft. These assholes are holding back computing. Obviously, Microsoft more than Apple, but them too.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  136. Greed && Envy by sciop101 · · Score: 1

    Techies want money, fame/notoriety, and to be adored/envied. Silicon Valley startups (successes && failures) typically have a dynamic CEO that would do as well starting a church.

    --
    The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
  137. Why arn't ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bankers doing anything to improve the world?

    Entertainers doing anything to improve the world?

    Hoteliers doing anything to improve the world?

    Cleaners doing anything to improve the world?

    Law enforcement doing anything to improve the world?

    Why are you picking on nerds? What about the others who are the majority?

  138. Aww C'mon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...we can't insure everyone has decent healthcare, but we can deliver burritos by drone.

  139. Dont' blame it on Techies... by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    Don't blame it on Techies...blame it on the lazy millennials. They cannot handle cereal, let alone attack the important issues!
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/trendin...

    1. Re:Dont' blame it on Techies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever the bankster loudspeakers of NY Times have concocted.

  140. Wrong question by tensigh · · Score: 1

    The real question he's asking is "With all of the technology at our disposal, why haven't we solved society's problems?". The answer is simple; society is run by human beings and human beings are inherently flawed beings. No amount of technology, communication, luxury or education can save us. There's going to be people that are going to try to control, dominate or otherwise harm other people, and this is never going to change. Technology and done MUCH to improve the world; look at what organ transplants and other medical breakthroughs have done. But we'll never have a utopia despite our best efforts. We need to try for such a goal but need to accept that it will never happen. It's the pursuit and effort that counts. Incidentally, the world HAS gotten better, hasn't it? More people can choose their own destinies than previously before; racial prejudice is on the run even though it's sadly still with us. Societies are generally becoming more free; many items that were luxuries are becoming items shared by more people around the world. We obviously have problems like war, greed, limited health care, unequal education, and other problems, but can you say we haven't made great strides in the past 100 years?

    1. Re:Wrong question by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Your post makes more sense than all the others added together.

      We have a lot of people, generally younger than 40, who have no perspective on history and how far we've come. And those under 25 have even less. I tend to blame the schools for not teaching history properly, but the blame may lie with our culture in general. There's too much focus on "me" and not enough focus on "thee".

      I don't know were the idea came from that our goal should be utopia, because we're never going to get there. Humans are just not evolved enough to handle a utopia. We probably never will be.

      Techies should just do what they're good at and enjoy doing. Leave the rest up to those with a broader education. I don't want any group of specialists trying to run the world.

  141. Techies WANT TO improve the world, but... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    At any given time, techies are involved in projects ranging from the trivial to the really useful, but the applications that get funded and come to market are those which pass the Great Filter imposed by anti-technology activists. Investors know that they have no problem rolling out the next smartphone feature, while developing Golden Rice to feed the poor is going to have to pass a gantlet of terrorist activism. We're talking about people who will rip up your test fields and assault your workers.

    To get the big world-changing projects done, someone is going to have to be willing to go full Duterte.

  142. Re:...too many people by naubol · · Score: 1

    The carrying capacity has continuously gone up. We might never hit it because the reproduction rate is going down in prosperous countries, often below the replacement rate, at the same time that the number of prosperous countries is increasing.

    --
    Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
  143. My contribution = faster & safer internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?...

    Ads rob speed, security (malvertising) & privacy (tracking).

    Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) natively.

    Works vs. caps & PUSH ads.

    Avg. page = big as Doom http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... & ads = 40% of it.

    Hosts != ClarityRay blockable (vs. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slow usermode addons)

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus (slows you) + less security issues/complexity.

    Compliments firewalls (blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lightens dns load).

    Gets data via 10 security sites.

    APK

    P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "seen the code & it's safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )

  144. More wealth can be accumulated ... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    ... transferring money from the masses to the few and in the harvesting of personal data.

  145. The Bias is real, and it is here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The systematic bias is on what gets reported as discoveries and innovation. "Techies" ARE out there saving the world, you just don't report on it. You report on the latest iPhone app instead of clean drinking water solutions.

  146. The push to tech is about $$$ by Shados · · Score: 1

    Don't forget that all the efforts to push everyone to go in tech is only happening because it's perceived as a "get rich quick" scheme.

    So of course a significant portion of people going there will only do so for the $$$. It was the entire value proposition sold to them!

  147. my better or your better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you knew what I was doing to make the world better, you probably wouldn't approve - whose definition of `better` are we using?

  148. Management! by TimSSG · · Score: 1

    Management! Tim S.

  149. Re:Capitalism is charity by naubol · · Score: 2

    Capitalism is at it's best when it is taking more jobs than it replaces. Take AWS, for instance. It takes less people and capital to run a web app in AWS than it does to build a traditional data center. More DC techs lose their jobs than gain one any time a large web app is moved into AWS.

    And, this is a great thing. It makes it easier and cheaper to build web apps in AWS. Moreover, freeing people from a role may seem harsh to those people, ie it removes from them an income and gives them security issues, but in the larger scope of society, it means those people are free labor to work on something new, something different. Capitalism has historically also created new markets and 'created' jobs when there is a combination of cheaper labor and cheaper platforms (like AWS). All this leads to innovation in products and services which benefit us all.

    I'm not saying capitalism is without ill, but it's hardly a zero sum game. The top five largest cap companies have all brought us innovations that make everyday life easier in the last 10 years. Apple has provided solid consumer electronics, Google has indexed information better than anyone else, Microsoft has provided office productivity and an OS with a remarkably stable API/platform (yes, yes, it sux0rs compared to linux's beautiful, ever evolving arch, but it does have this one good property), Amazon has brought down the price, increased the selection, and increased the availability of consumer goods and also provided the world with a cheap virtual data center for small businesses.

    Each of these top 5 companies have some seriously questionable business practices, sure. Still, they all have delivered products or services that their respective consumers consider significant advancements in their lives or places of work. They all created new markets and cannibalized old ones, simultaneously. It isn't zero-sum. While we may debate this point, and on slashdot many would, I would submit that most people consider our lives better for the existence of these five companies.

    I definitely agree that food security should properly be going up and that it is disturbing when it goes down. Hunger in America stats suggests food insecurity increased in 2008 but has been going down steadily since then. I'm in agreement that bull markets and exotic derivatives were a significant ill our capitalist system. We've done some things to reverse or prevent those trends, and I'm willing to agree we haven't gone as far as we should, maybe even that we've significantly missed the mark. In the context of history, these trend lines exist in a very short window and the history of the United States and post-perpetual-war Europe shows a miraculous increase in quality of life and food security. What atrocities capitalism commits seem over-matched by the miracles it induces.

    --
    Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
  150. unemployment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the USA sees of recent tech is that it is lowering the family income of many (in the USA) by eliminating a large number of good paying jobs. Smart phones are great toys, and it is nice they are cheaper today, but families still need to pay for food and housing... which have become more expensive.

  151. Who says they aren't? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    Why Aren't Techies Improving The World? We can ask this question to the human population in general.

    "the latest app that solves some made up problem. I'm impressed by apps that solve real problems

    Well, technology is not just apps. And techies aren't strictly in the world of app development. There are all types of development in this world going on making a difference. If you can't be bothered doing a single fucking google on it, then there is not one goddamned reason to spend time giving you some real-world examples.

    Furthermore, techies aren't solely in software. Oncologists and chemists, physicists, scientists and engineers of all disciplines are techies in their domain. It takes a very stupid, uneducated and shallow mind to think techie == software, let alone techie == app development.

  152. big ebough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bomb can solve all problems. I agree we got a bit negligent about building it.

  153. A counter-opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a ton of great material pointed out on this thread, but they are micro-exceptions to a larger, unsurprising fact. Tech is a job, and jobs are there to make money. Yes, the Gates' and Zuckerbergs' of the world get to pursue lofty philanthropic goals with amazing results, but they are WAY up maslow's hierarchy of needs. The rest of us still need to feed our families, and if people can do that by making a stupid mobile app that people will pay me to play, then they are going to.

    Second, I work in government, a place that is ostensibly about making the world a better place, at least for our citizens. Tech, in general, wants VERY little to do with government. There are certainly little companies trying to get off the ground that would love some government money, but the big dogs view it more as a liability than an opportunity, and THEY ARE RIGHT. The government's acquisition process is so slow, bloated, and self defeating that they will just frustrate the people that they wanted to have work on stuff. Then there's the international blowback. Got a successful relationship with any western government? Congratulations, your competitors will eat you overseas by casting FUD on your products as "tools of the NSA" or whatever bullshit that they think will help them win the next contract. (happens all the time)

    Most importantly is the fear of failure. SiIly-con valley encourages failing fast, but that's a terrible strategy for most things in government that actually matter. Look at the Obamacare website debacle, and you tell me if it seems like a good idea to take on hard government problems. What about Theranos who has medical technology that doesn't actually work and people die as a result? How about Tesla Autopilot? When stuff REALLY matters, the entire concept of how modern tech works really falls flat. It's not that it CANT be done, but it really takes a whole different approach that modern tech is just starting to understand.

  154. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because while they do improve the world with tech innovation their Progressive tendencies cancels it all out.

  155. Wars depend where you are in the cycle of history. by Elfich47 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Incorrect.

    The world has a history pattern of how wars work. Follow along for a minute before saying I am off the wall. Its all in pattern analysis. I am paraphrasing from the book "The Fourth Turning" by Strauss and Howe.

    The world works on a 80 year cycle (I'm skipping the generational stuff and going right to the wars.). The wars reflect what part of the cycle you are in.
    First turning wars occur after the last big war and settle any left over issues from the last big war. Example: Queen Anne's War, War of 1812, Korean War. No major changes to the world dynamic. People are happy to settle things down for a while. These are often proxy wars between the winners of the last major conflict.

    Second turning wars go no where fast, drag out for a while and are a quagmire. Example: English Civil war, King George's war, Spanish-American War, Vietnam, Afghanistan (Russian intervention). These wars tend to be guerilla wars, don't get a lot done and no one is quite sure why they are being fought. These are potrayed as police actions or proxy wars (or both).

    Third Turning Wars are preparatory wars for the fourth turning. These wars are based on new conflicts that did not exist when the last big war occurred. Examples: French and Indian Wars, Mexican War, World War I, Operation Desert Storm. These wars are fought but don't fundamentally change the underpinnings of the world structure. They do point to how the next major war will unfold. These are often interventions or peace keeping expeditions.

    Fourth Turning Wars are decisive and to the end. Example: War of the Roses, Armada of Triumph, King Philips War, Bacon's Rebellion, King Williams War, Glorious Revolution, American Revolution, American Civil War, World War II. During the fourth turning wars are brutal and to the end. Have any new powerful weapons you were afraid to use before? Now is the time to use them.

    It is all in pattern analysis. There have been major conflicts, wars and political realignments going on throughout the last 15 years (starting in 2001). The number of governments that have fallen or realigned during that time is breath taking. Europe, the Middle East and Africa are all coming apart at the seams. China and Russia are working very hard to keep their countries battened down hard. The US has its own troubles, notably a big push towards fascism (government take over of corporations and oppression of minorities fits the bill).

    Everything is pointing toward large countries being willing to see how far they can push the envelope on any problem they encounter, which leads to larger wars. I expect there to be an expansion of the middle eastern conflict into Europe, Africa and Asia before it calms down again. Case in point: If Russia runs out its currency reserves next year (and it is on track to), it won't have the money to do anything and the Russian state will have to lash out or pull back and lick its wounds. Right now the posture that Russia has is not toward licking its wounds. If Russia lashes out and starts something major things will get serious quickly in Asia and Europe. And Russia will drive it until it runs out of money or collapses either way is not good for Asia, Europe and the World.

    Will it unwind this way? I don't know. But I do see something on the horizon that ain't pretty.

    --
    Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
  156. Wounderful Posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I learned a great deal from reading the posts, but there is a slight problem.
    If you look at the list of Nations where the citizens are most happy & productive, it's not USA. [Due to Laws created = direct impact on society]
    We are missing a key point that is a major factor. Every STEM techie, scientists, engineers, etc needs to vote & participate in law creation.
    Yes. I agree that techies has created a better life for most, but which country has forward thinking laws where life can actually be better.
    Example [Open Source]:
    USA/Feds are still giving $Billions/$Trillions of dollars just to some few players && some countries are now creating laws to use Open Source in Government && Military to create better life and spread $Billions of dollar to lots of players allowing the monies to flow in every part of the economy.
    If we have $5 Trillion to spend, are we going to give it to the Military Industry Machine or is the monies going to be spent to to give the citizens a better life Starting With Rebuilding the Infrastructure of the country so that we can really compete & new techies can really enrich our lives.
    Reading the posts, I understand how techies are making a dent in societies but we really need forward thinking types of laws.
    Example 2:
    An engineer in Thailand created an Advance Toilet but then he was stuck because there is no advance laws in Thailand like in Europe.
    So the Engineer sold his Top Secret Toilet Design to Japan.
    Now it's up to Japan to create laws to better the life of their people. As China has done in creating Higher Middle Class from Poverty due to forward thinking laws.

  157. Nukes and Quants by Baby+Duck · · Score: 1

    In Carl Sagan's Cosmos, he lamented that for decades 50% of the world's scientists were devoted to the nuclear arms race. Today the best mathematical minds are financially enticed to become quants. There isn't as much leftover to solve the world's problems.

    There is already 3D priniting of cheap disease detection kits. This will be a big game changer in developing countries.

    --

    "Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins

  158. Because the Techies are not in charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In charge are laywers, politicians and corporations.

    And they just want more money, not to make the world a better place.

  159. Because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't understand people and seem to be utterly lacking in a connection to anything resembling deeper intelligence, and consequently aren't great at creating legitimately useful, broad-based solutions. to much of anything. Silcon valley's provincialism, ageism, shortsightedness, and greed pretty much ensure their failure.

  160. Why aren't techies improving the World? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    Q: Why aren't techies improving the World?
    A: Patents, copyrights, lawyers, money.

    Not necessarily in that order.

  161. Re:...too many people by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    But will they all be able to have two cars in their driveway? Will they all be able to have shelter?

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  162. FSF by inhuman_4 · · Score: 2

    What about GNU, Linux, and the FSF? Does providing millions of people with free (in beer and speech) software not count for anything?

    Or how about the EFF defending people's rights online. Helping educate people about the importance of encryption and stopping big business from tracking your every move.

    Has wikipedia not become a central source of free information the world over? Has wikileaks not provided a safehaven for whistleblowers the world over?

    Techies have done a lot for the world in the last 10 years.

  163. Re:...removing the doctor by aliquis · · Score: 1

    It would had made more sense if there was evidence for the organic food being more nutritional dense or the poisons and chemicals applied being dangerous for you in the levels which is around once you eat them.

  164. Re:...too many people by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    But will they all be able to have two cars in their driveway?

    That is a North American thing. Prosperous countries don't all fall into the habit of wasteful over-consumption. Singapore has a per capita GDP higher than America, yet most families there don't even own one car, much less two.

  165. Re:...too many people by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Then they have much better publicly funded transportation than we do here.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  166. Is there a systematic bias? by bitbucketeer · · Score: 1

    Yes. It's called Socialism. It distorts market prices and thus causes misallocation of resources. Don't look to Keynes or Krugman for your economics.

  167. Re:...too many people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then they have much better publicly funded transportation than we do here.

    That's likely, in quite a few places, given that so many of us here hate anything publicly funded, regardless of how useful it is. Because socialism, or something, I guess. Weird.

  168. I'm trying. Here's my current project. by sichbo · · Score: 1

    Figure the main problem in the world today is its monetary system, so have built this:

    https://civil.money/about

    The trick will be convincing anybody to use it.

    Features:
    - A generous universal basic income. Basically the equivalent of USD $60k/yr.
    - Seeding based on regional productivity (inverse taxation.) Tax is actually a money "creation" process and happens implicitly.
    - A democratic voting process for any fundamental changes to the system.
    - A low barrier to entry. Should work just as well for a village in Kenya sharing a single smartphone as anybody standing at a Point-of-Sale terminal.
    - Transparent transactions and accountability.
    - Implicit dispute resolution.
    - A consensus-based scalable distributed P2P architecture.
    - An efficient and easy to work with messaging format.
    - End-to-end TLS between all peers and user clients.

    Draft technical bits here: https://civil.money/api

    Should be releasing it for general "server download" availability and source code on GitHub until around December. Currently held back waiting on critical bug fixes in .NET Core 1.1 to be released.

  169. At least one organization is doing some of this... by werepants · · Score: 1

    Living Goods is a pretty cool charity that I just started supporting recently. They focus on educating and equipping community health workers that sell basic health and sanitation products in impoverished regions. It's pretty awesome, actually - the health workers fund themselves by selling these products, it grows the local economy by creating jobs, it spreads information and supplies to stop the spread of avoidable disease.

    The tech comes in because they've developed an app that assists in diagnosis of common, treatable ailments, and provides info and scheduling about checkups on prenatal care, all of which can have a big impact on health. Also, they've actually run some randomized trials that have shown something like a 30% reduction in infant mortality in communities that are served by this charity, which also qualifies as a "nerdy" IMO because many charities are driven by ideology and dogma and aren't interested in gathering quantifiable evidence that their services actually make a difference.

    If you want to check them out: https://livinggoods.org/what-w...

    I'm not affiliated with them except that I recently became a donor. I thought their approach was truly unique in the world of charitable giving.

  170. CODE FOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How has no one posted this?

    First - do a quick Google - you'll probably find one in your city:

    http://www.codefordenver.org/WantToHelp
    http://openseattle.org/
    http://www.codeforboston.org/
    http://codeforsanfrancisco.org/

    So go get involved. Or start one in your city if you don't have one.

    Second - coding is hard volunteer work that takes dedication AFTER work hours. The people in my local chapter are amazing, I can't keep up with their commitment. You'll see a lot more techies helping LIKE EVERYONE else. Soup kitchens, volunteer programs, etc - mostly because *most* of us can't stay in front of a monitor after working all day, nor commit to maintaining a volunteer coding project (SO much work, kudos to all you volunteers above)

    So basically, OP - stop spreading FUD about techies and go get involved.

    Mic drop.

  171. Simple by CptLoRes · · Score: 1

    Because world problems are not technical, they are political (including religion) and economical.

  172. not everybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a lot of techies out there improving the world - they're just not the type that's working at a Bay Area startup, trying to make it easier for two people to walk their dogs together. Those people are about a quick buck.

  173. Techies are improving the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are trying hard to make computers easier to use for the rest of us......

    Getting rid of the techies will make the world worse... the problem is in the priorities.

  174. We are and we're not by DriveDog · · Score: 1

    Who says we're not? Lots of things have been improved. However, many have allowed their efforts to be directed towards profit-making ventures that improve nothing more than some "entrepreneur"'s wallet size. This is where a strong union with a lot of participation could help. Not one like UAW that's focused on money and wages, but one that focuses on preventing techies from being abused (and eliminating H-1B).

  175. yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Is it that there's no profit to be made in solving the most important problems?" ...
    "Is there a systematic bias that channels technology workers into more profitable careers?"

    Yes. Or more accurately, there is a fuck ton of profit to be made in PREVENTING the solving of the most important problems.

    This isn't the real big, or even real example, but consider it like this- Humanity could invent robots that allow the same number of cars to be produced per year (or many more) but that would 'destroy' many jobs held by humans and thus increase poverty. Or rather, perhaps over a long period of time that segment of humans actually infiltrated local and national government to such a point that it becomes possible for them to use politics, and other methodologies of deploying systematic bias, to prevent the growth of such 'disruptive technology'.

    Twitter should never have existed. It's great that it employed a lot of people, fed a lot of families children. But it's just fucking recentralized IRC. If the world were interested in problems being solved, a truly decentralized and non-directly-commercially-profitable for the developers and contributors could easily become a much more beautiful (and ugly, but all ugliness hidden by a default config option for users) free speech platform for the world than twitter ever has been or ever will be.

  176. Suprisingly hard to find ways to do it by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    I look for ways to volunteer my coding talents, even if it just means teaching poor kids. But I don't really find anything to do.

    Whenever I fill out a form to volunteer tutoring, no one ever replies. And I've kind of looked for "good" open source projects. I haven't found much. This might be a terrible answer, but it seems the projects that would take on volunteers are in PHP, and I just really don't want to learn PHP when it's completely goofy and is probably not going to be around that much longer.

  177. Re:...too many people by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    that projection is based on dangerous assumptions.

    1) the amount of arable land remains constant. (It isnt. It is in decline.)

    2) Use of fertilizers can continue unabated (It cant. Fertilizer use degrades farmland quality in just a few decades.)

    3) The amount of fresh water for agricultural use wont suffer shortages (Again, not th case.)

    So, forgive me if I call bullshit on that.

  178. We aren't? by codr4life · · Score: 1

    You mean attempting to materialize a secure, distributed, open source social network isn't enough? https://github.com/codr4life/a... Damn, I thought I had my bases covered with that one :) Joking aside, this world is not very forgiving against people who try to do the right thing; we tend to nail them to crosses and spit at them to feel better about being spineless cowards ourselves.

  179. It's simple. None techies don't get it. Period. by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

    Non-technical people don't understand how technology works, the effort that goes into making it, what's needed to make a program just 'Do what you want it to'

    The problem is you all think it's fucking magical and just should work the way you want it when you want it and you don't think it should cost a lot of money.

    You think the time and effort of people who develop, contribute software hardware that you use every day is practically dirt. you snear at them for being 'smart' and treat them as arrogant because they understand things you don't.

    TL;DR
    1. You won't pay enough for what you want.
    2. You don't appreciate what is done.
    3. You don't understand what / the work that is needed to make it work.
    4. You replace high quality techies with people who are financially desperate and do shoddier work due to pressure (Foreign workers).
    5. You consider IT / Technies disposable cheap peons do make the super simple thing you just want done that isn't simple, fuck you.

  180. Re:...too many people by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Then they have much better publicly funded transportation than we do here.

    Yes, they do. The American model of two SUVs in every garage, a Big Gulp on every desk, and massive amounts of corn-subsidy-driven obesity is not inevitable and many other prosperous countries are already going down a different path. Rising prosperity does not automatically mean a bigger environmental footprint.

  181. Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is my pet peeve -

    Our transit agency here that covers 4 counties is more interested in building shitty apps, and PRing them selves on Twitter at every chance rather than fixing basic things like - having trains ontime per the time table, not 5 to 10 minutes late all the time. Very few connector buses from train stations, makes getting the "last mile" home a paint in the a$$, their solution to that is to build even bigger park and rides. Duh.

  182. Replicators by DMJC · · Score: 1

    RepRap project here: http://reprap.org/wiki/Metalic... is working to bring (almost) Star Trek style replicators into your home, which will free millions from having to work crummy manufacturing jobs, and will crash the price of Titanium and metal manufacturing. It is 100% open source and is being designed by engineers and programmers working together. It is also capable of printing solar panels which will help alleviate the world's energy and carbon problems.

  183. Techies cannot improve the world by tp_xyzzy · · Score: 1

    The reason why techies cannot improve the world is that attempting difficult problems with a small team is causing more damage than it can fix. You need large teams of 200 people or more to tackle anything that would prove to be useful to society. Thus all techies cannot do anything but create games or other entertainment which isn't going to be useful... but at least the activity isn't causing significant amount of damage..

    If you want to improve the world, you should figure out a plan of how to build teams of 200 people or more. But unfortunately, it costs significant amount of money to do that, and your only option would be to apply for EU or government support for handouts, if you want to organize such teams. Or get lucky with starting a business and get a success product out to generate enough money that you can finance a research team that can change the world. Unfortunately, people's life is over by the time they get their business up and running and enough money collected for setting up companies necessary.. So only option is to find existing company and try to work for their large team... But everyone does not have that option, so their only chance of making a dent in world's problems is by creating entertainment or other stuff that doesn't cause damage, which allows other people to focus on things other than entertainment.

  184. NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is you Marxists posing as if your wickedness were not a religion. And maybe more important is that you crave for the importation of the wicked Muselmans with their brutalist ideology.

    1. Re:NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think I'm "wicked" ?

      You know nothing about me except that I don't believe in a fairy godfather, but that simple fact is enough for you to condemn me.

      What makes you think I'm "Marxist" ?

      You know nothing about me except that I don't believe in a fairy godfather, but that simple fact is enough for you to condemn me.

      What makes you think I want to import "muselmans" (Muslims) ?

      If you had read my post correctly, you would have seen that the "7th century cave-dweller" and "winged horse" references were to Muslims and that i put them in the very same category.

      So, you prove exactly what I was alluding to; religion is a poor substitute for understanding.

  185. Because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The nerds must be kept on precarious wages. Only then the groups you mention can play the bloodsuckers of the dumb-as-stone nerds. The goal of this article was to evoke the reaction "we are so privileged so I will not demand a rise next month. Rather I will do some B.S. project to please one of the ideologies they have created for me. Agile Free Effects Driven Something".

  186. Click bait by fredness · · Score: 1

    AMZN, GOOG, TSLA

  187. high school student by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a question posed by a high school student. More specifically "improve the world' is so vague as to be meaningless. Not to mention verschlimmbesserung

  188. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brave hackers like Weev are doing their best to change the world for the better - really inspiring work when you look up what they do.

  189. No time by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

    Who has time to fix the world when you're busy geeking out?

  190. The question is the f*cking answer by b783719 · · Score: 1

    "Why Aren't Techies Improving The World?"

    It's because "improving the world" is relative and political. Techies 'resolve' technical problems, not political problems.

    Techies are like scientist. They resolve technical problems like how to make the iphone's touch keyboard, just like scientist uncovering lithium battery's potential. People like you decide politically whether it 'improves' the world or it makes more people walk into walls while using iphone.

    We don't need FBI vs Apple again to prove why 'Improving the World' or really 'Improving Your World' is relative and political. #FirstWorldProblems

  191. More Elon, More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone get Elon Musk on the phone and let him know that saving humanity isn't good enough.

  192. the answer by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

    Why? Lawyers.

  193. The biggest problems aren't technical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the reason is because the biggest problems in the world aren't technical they're caused by the selfishness of people. The government, financial problems all demonstrate this.

  194. Its just a matter of incentives by luisgdelafuente · · Score: 1

    People are always the same (more or less), but they respond differently to different environments. If entrepeneurs are focused on growing fast and getting rich quick its because the hole system is designed to prefer the short vs the long term.

  195. What does it mean? by marmot7 · · Score: 1

    My story has 420 points... I mean in general where do those points come from.

  196. Re:...removing the doctor by slashrio · · Score: 1

    Haha, you want 'evidence'?
    Just look around you.

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  197. Re:...massive amounts corn-subsidy-driven obesity by slashrio · · Score: 1

    Wow, I really liked that one. :)

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  198. Re:...too many people by slashrio · · Score: 1

    I didn't know your needs for resources only amounted to what you can eat.

    I didn't say that, I merely replied to a post suggesting we don't have enough resources to feed 'all those people'.

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  199. Re:...removing the doctor by slashrio · · Score: 1

    A system the pays the specials

    Let me read that as "A system that pays the specialists...", ok?

    In the winter months

    Winter months? Why winter months?
    Ah, let me guess... In winter the sun shines less, let alone on our bare skin, so our bodies produce much less vit D3 than in summer.
    Hmmm, vit D3 deficiency during winter months maybe? Impairing the immune system, making people (much) more vulnerable to all kinds of virii?
    Then the solution would be to supplement with Vit D3, no? Or take regular sun baths under appropriate UV lights.
    I for example supplement with 5,000 IU vit D3 per day and I'm feeling quite well, thank you. :)

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  200. Re: minor wars by slashrio · · Score: 1

    First many thanks for that sublime link.
    But, I didn't mean to suggest that the number of casualties from 'minor' wars was actually higher than that of what are considered major wars.
    Every casualty counts. So saying that a minor war is no problem is a sociopathological statement in my eyes.

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  201. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course we're working on making this world a better place. First of all, automation - it is going to finally exterminate this pest, this scourge of this world - the *low*. Without the morlocks the world will become much more tolerable.

    Second stream is working on accelerating the human evolution: cyborgisation, genetically engineered humans, etc.

    If we all work hard, some of the benefits of those advancements can become apparent in the next few decades. Ain't it great?

  202. Tech is not the solution to everything by damaki · · Score: 2

    Sure, technical skills may improve some parts of the world, where the VCs do not corrupt everything. But we should start by making the world around us, our home, our family, our beloved people, our workplace, our towns, better places.
    If you want to change the world, try to change your neighborhood for a start. Be nice to people. Even if your are not able to change the world, you can make some places on it nicer and some people happier.
    Choose the solution, it may be technical, or not. Tech people know how to create stuff, investigate issues and solve problems. These are fine assets to change what sucks around you.

    --
    Stupidity is the root of all evil.
  203. Help us out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are a techie and you want to work on projects that make a difference, things that make the world better, then help us out at any of these events! http://codeforthekingdom.org/index.html

  204. Techies aren't? Or the ones you hear about? by ruggard · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you should be asking: why aren't the THOUSANDS of techies trying to help the world getting as much press or glorification as those trying to make it to a big buyout with a fickle/obnoxious app?

  205. English is Human Software by Ruralhack · · Score: 0

    We have not applied 2 Time Class Physics to English. We been patching instead of Updating.

  206. Isn't it Obvious? by tmjva · · Score: 1

    Every techie who made it big is into their own little pet agenda. Even Bill Gate's foundation is mainly focused on just Education, and he's retired. So he no longer counts as a Techie, no?

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  207. Re:...too many people by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Singapore has a population density of 8000 people/km^2 you halfwit.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  208. Techies are solving problems by cevioux · · Score: 1

    You just don't know about it. For example, you might read Stephen Kotler's, "Abundance."

  209. The problem is the problem. by Verdatum · · Score: 1
    You seem to indicate in the comments that you can't exactly point out what these problems are that we should be solving, or what sort of solutions we might come up with to solve these problems. Innovation constantly has the same problem. Two things drive innovation: identifying the root cause of something out there needing improvement, and other innovations. The way you come up with new stuff is by being aware of new technology and innovations, and being aware of problems that these innovations could apply towards. This is extremely difficult, and often massively speculative.

    If you start to innovate by first trying to identify a problem, then with enough investigation, you'll find out that the problem hasn't been solved yet for darned good reasons. There's often a topic that gets discussed along the lines of Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court: What could you "invent" to change the world if you suddenly found yourself trapped a few centuries in the past?

    Lots of knowitall people will show up and claim things like they'd be able to build a working steam-engine in the early iron-age. But no, even among talented engineers, most of them couldn't. And it's not just because they don't remember how to build one; it's because the state of metal fabrication was such that you wouldn't be able to afford the sheet metal needed to make the boiler; and even if you could; there's a good chance you'd have a boiler explosion. Also, you'd need to build a decently high precision metal lathe; which again, would require massive resources.

    To solve something, you need a problem, you need a solution that will actually work (which is an uncertainty until you've implemented the solution), and you need the resources, either acquired by yourself, or someone who you've convinced to invest in your idea to both pay for the resources needed to make the solution, and that includes enough money to cover your basic survival needs while implementation takes place.

    So, finding a solvable problem is hard, knowing the solution to the problem is hard, the implementation is usually hard, because it tends to involve unknowns, and finding backing is hard. Compare that to a company willing to pay you enough money to buy a house and raise a family for doing something useless like re-implementing Candy-crush so that it works on your smart-fridge. So some people choose comfort, some choose to fight the good fight. Among those people, some of them have selected a problem that will be solved better by someone else, or a problem that isn't nearly as big of a problem in the world as they though. Some people will have a solution that turns out to fail. Some will have a working solution that depends on an innovation that won't exist for decades to come. Some people will have a great problem and a working solution, but they can never communicate their ideas to someone to the extent that they are willing to back the endeavor.

    So yeah, we aren't solving important stuff because pretty much by its very nature, important stuff is Hard to fix, or it would've already been fixed.

  210. Confused. Tech is helping! by rhyous · · Score: 1

    With internet and IT tech we are improving many aspects of the world by:
    1. Improving communication world wide.
    2. Improving entertainment world wide.
    3. Improving education world wide.
    4. Make banks and credit card readers available online to everyone (so even poor person from a 3rd world small town can run a business)
    etc.

    With DNA/Gene manipluation we are trying to end world hunger:
    1. Creating GMO food that can grow where no plant has grown before.
    2. Determining causes of diseases and how to stop them
    3. Finding ways to kill weeds without pesticide
    etc.

    I could go on . . .

  211. If you think... by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    If you think that tech is not solving problems, then maybe you have the wrong set of friends?

    Maybe you should solve your own problems, instead of waiting for "superman" to show up... ;-)

    Hey, that sounds like a goood idea! Wait a moment, while I post it so the -entire world- can see the new idea! 8-)

  212. Re:...too many people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you also house them , find them work, handle sanitation, educate them all, treate them so that the all live as long, give them all that you have now?
    We now want to trade-off land for energy-harvesting against land use for food, housing etc. The economic system is a shambles with QE being the latest bizzarre twist - ie the transaction engine is also failing. The wars are not so global, but there may be more of them. The climate is being put under stress by "global warming" but which is a direct consequence of too many people ... Feeding 12 billion and hoping that the environmental system will stabilise ... we will never get there, the system is already breaking and no amount of science or technology can solve it - it is a closed environmental-system problem - the techies should be trying to persuade the vast populations to not do what they currently do - perhaps then the techies will understand the nature of belief or even blind faith and how population-inertia will always dominate - until the system breaks no one will offer to take any unpalatable "medicine". The amount of land per person (at 12billion people could be about 2.5 acres each ) - and that includes housing , work sites, energy farms, ponds, mountains, lakes, roads etc ...we would have to eat each other as in Soylent Green! or some other nighmare SciFi scenario. But let us be clear Science is not the solution - the solution is a change in all of us and action now. We are, all of us, running rampant and hiding behind a vague belief in Technology to perform a stewardship miracle for this planet with any effort from ourselves.

  213. Re:Wars depend where you are in the cycle of histo by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Your classification of wars is dubious at best.

    The most obvious issue is how you characterize WWI. That war decisively altered the fundamental structure of Europe. It destroyed Austria-Hungary, created several smaller and more diverse states in its place, and toppled a lot of major monarchies, including Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary. It effectively destroyed the idea of strong kings or emperors as foundations of governments. All available weapons were used, bringing in chemical warfare, large-scale sinking of merchant ships by submarines, and aerial bombardment. Really, it's what you classify as a Fourth Turning War.

    IIRC, the Glorious Revolution was not particularly brutal. The American Revolution was not all that brutal, as wars of the period went, and wasn't pursued to the end, but only to the point where the Brits thought it not worth continuing. It was much closer to the Vietnam War.

    Your Second Turning Wars don't make much sense either. The Spanish-American War and English Civil War were decisive and to the finish in the affected areas, had fairly clear war aims, and changed things a lot. They weren't guerilla wars (the Philippine war after the Spanish-American was).

    You appear to be projecting periods on a timeline and classifying wars by periods, ignoring what the wars actually were and how they were fought.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  214. Re:Capitalism is charity by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    You seem to be claiming that what happens to poor people doesn't matter, since they don't have the money to pay for things and hence have no effective demand. Not everyone benefits from economic growth.

    I'm not starving partly because I make much more money than the median US worker, so that's not a good argument.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  215. Re:Techie are fixing world at same rate it was bro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Garbage sifting robots.

  216. Re:Wars depend where you are in the cycle of histo by Elfich47 · · Score: 1

    As I noted, I consolidated a 400 page book into four paragraphs and left out a great deal of other subject matter supporting the discussion. May I recommend you pick up "The Fourth Turning" by Straus and Howe.

    --
    Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
  217. ...so Conspiracy Fact, again...Re:Or by cboslin · · Score: 1
    Justthinkit,

    Loved how you laid out the statements made and how real they actually are.

    These days its more likely to be Conspiracy FACT, than a Conspiracy Theory....especially when it comes to the 1%.

    Don't know if they control 50% of the Wealth in the entire world, it would not surprise me. Do know that 9% of Americans control 90% of the wealth in our country. And the fact that they get such a large percentage of Americans to think that they have a shot at getting were they are just proves the fact that marketing works.

    I took that Smallest Little Political Quiz a while back, it highlighted a couple of facts:

    • 9% of Americans are truly Conservative, the rest miss-identify themselves.
    • 19% of Americans are truly Liberal, the rest miss-identify themselves
    • 72% the rest of Americans, are very effectively prevented from organizing to upend the status quo.

    Before someone chimes in that the Smallest Little Political Quiz has problems, I say to you, it is much more RIGHT than it is WRONG.

    The 1% are extremely effective at maintaining control. Should you become successful enough to become a threat, they will either co-opt you or block you from success through new state laws or the courts. They will not let you join the party, you (and I) are useless to them and just consume resources they greedily want for themselves.

    The Tea Party was co-opted by the time they had their first convention by the Koch brothers. (Remember there candidate for President was the Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker, Republican whose biggest contributor before the Koch brothers was the largest polluter in the state of Wisconsin, amazingly he held onto his seat)

    The Republicans are almost 100% co-opted due to their need to raise money to run for election, the 1% have more than enough money to buy you and they do.

    The Democrats are not as largely co-opted as the Republicans, not because they are any better, but only because the 1% control the Republicans and Tea Party, they don't need to control more than half the Democrats.

    Thanks to their pushing Citizen's United vs FEC, should that BS progress, they will not need either the Republicans or the Tea Party...and thanks to so many 1 issue votes (true evil to any Democracy) they are pretty close to getting their majority on the Supremes. Than it is game over.

    The 1% are no different than any other hate group, they love themselves and hate everyone else.

    For my kids, I am working hard to set up businesses that will provide them and their descendants lifetime incomes, basically what the 1% have done since the beginning...I can't join them, don't want to join them, but do want my own descendants to have a shot at a decent life where 'Right to Work' for less states, 1H1B Visas and other Anti-America-Job activities will effectively kill any possible career they can try for before they can obtain a salary high enough above poverty levels so that they have a shot at continuing to build what I have started for them....in the long run it is about cash flow (what ever cash the current economy uses) and food independence (so that they do not spend everything they have just to survive.)

    Sadly with Agencies that police clean air and clean water getting regulatory captured and their budgets devastated to the point they can not possibly enforce laws that protect are air and water....the chances of our descendants staying healthy enough not to be raped by health care is getting harder and harder.

    And speaking of rape, should my daughter get raped, heaven forbid, I would counsel her to abort the baby, why reward the rapist, however should my daughter decide to keep the baby inspite of the horrendus crime done to her, I would support her decision, though IT MUST BE HER DECISION! You A-holes that want to make a raped woman a criminal SUCK! YOU ARE EVIL AND EVERYTHING YOU DO IS EVIL, no matter how you spin it...get off my yard and stay out of my bedroom.

    1. Re:...so Conspiracy Fact, again...Re:Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since they operate "By way of deception...", I too must be minimal in what I say about my own strategy(s).

      Best of luck,

      Floyd
      Just-Think-It.com

  218. Wrong question! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Correct question:

    "Why aren't polticians, lawyers and other rich and powerful people improving the world?"

    Short answer: They don't care.

  219. Re:Wars depend where you are in the cycle of histo by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Thing is, you were claiming things that I can't believe in the summary. Any evidence supporting the idea that the Glorious Revolution is pretty much the same sort of thing as WWII is suspect at best. Add to this my basic distrust of cyclical history, and it doesn't look worth following up to me.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  220. A Problem of Presuppositions by Doctrinsograce · · Score: 1

    The reason that techies are not changing the world for the better, is because the problems in the world are not simple problems of technology. We are engineers. If we do not know what the problem is, how can we possibly craft a solution?

  221. zap a dickhead app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what the world needs is an app that will identify when someone is being a dick and electrocute them

    1. Re:zap a dickhead app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That requires a V-chip

  222. A virus to target Politicians /religious fanatics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And neuter them. Also prevent loud speech. That would definitely reduce the crap floating around in the world today. All we need is to find the right genetic markers :)