This is a use of technology that, done properly, adds value and makes everybody (except the jobless ticket checkers) happy. Reduced scalping, shorter queues, lower hassle, happier event goers.. lots of good things.
I just don't think they can do it properly. I don't think the technology is reliable enough, I don't trust them to adequately protect their database and even if they're that mythical company that does actually want and successfully implement good data security, they'll still have to hand over all that data for misuse by the Government (and local councils).
So I like the idea, I support them wanting to do this, I just have deep misgivings about the whole thing.
so he just assumes that the person answering the phone has nothing better to do than tell people the carpenter is busy
This is a fair point, the poor sod's trying to get his job done but is instead getting constant interruptions from people too fucking stupid to work out how to escalate.
Because jobs are a competitive market and if a company can hire you for 15 hours a week or someone else for 40, they'll pick the option that gets them the same productivity for half the training and management overheads.
I don't belong to the union, so fuck them and their stupid protectionist rules.
You're not allowed to do these things because you'll replace the union worker.
If it's that fucking trivial and cheaper for people to do it themselves, good, replace that union worker.
Also, do you REALLY want just anyone putting up shelves? There's many people that have no clue how to put up a shelf. Odds are some un-skilled person put them up previously, and that's why they collapsed.
Someone that can't enter a room because there's a book on the floor can't be trusted to put up their hand, let alone a fucking shelf.
I do want and expect the facilities department to manage the scenery but the moment they start being utter cocks about it, I'm going to work around them.
They also know how to measure a house, create floor plans, propose a price that will help maximise selling price while still actually selling, know how to use the website to post the house to it and - here's the real value - handle all of the enquiries from prospective buyers, filter out the time wasters, validate the genuine offers and work with you to complete the process.
There is nothing from the 60's that even comes close to 2001 for the story telling.
Look, I can understand you not liking Laurence of Arabia, Spartacus, Dr Strangelove, Zulu, Belle de Jour, Bonnie and Clyde, "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", Planet of the Apes, Once Upon a Time in the West, The Italian Job and "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?"
However every single one of them tells a story far better than 2001, and several of them are far better cinema too.
I find it one of the greatest movies ever made. It's one I often watch again. Except for the 20 min color montage toward the end, I fast forward through that.
How much do you skip from lesser films then? Let me guess, "Back To The Future was ok, except for the bit after the opening credits, I fast forward through that".
People don't seem to like movies that make you think
Films that make you think are commercially successful if they're good films. Films that bore you senseless make you think, "When is this tedious shit going to finish" and you fast forward through 20 minutes towards the end.
Concrete shoes. The coffin tends to be disposal of a corpse so you're past caring, the enema is survivable, whereas the shoes cause pain through excessive heat while being put on, followed by an unpleasant death.
Leaving aside the initial confusion the capitalisation in the headline caused me (not helped by watching the snooker world championships while reading it), fundamental technology essential to the core functions of the device must be worth a couple of magnitudes more than something generic like rounded corners.
There are going to be some very rich lawyers before this one plays out.
I don't give a shit if that's the primary purpose, do not autoplay videos.
When I have 19 youtube pages open at the same time it's kind of important that at least 18 of them are not actually sending signals to my sound card. It's merely sensible that they're also not using system resources processing complex mathematics to the benefit of nobody.
Vimeo, DailyMotion, Twitch.. they can all wait patiently until I'm ready to view their content and explicitly indicate this through interaction with an appropriate control on their web page.
Is it sexist and repugnant for me to insist that the person I marry not be a male? If that is "sexist", then I'd suggest that sometimes it's OK to be sexist.
Would you really insist that though? I think you would insist that the person you marry is someone towards whom you hold strong and romantic feelings.
It happens that the set of people that qualify aren't male.
This helps with your other point too.
the fact that they're white and male already gives them a leg up in getting tech jobs, I don't want to spend my resources to help them because they don't need the kind of help I'm providing. Is that racist?
Fuck yes it's racist. You've labelled an entire demographic and done so because you want to give someone of a specific race a job.
How about you ask the guy whether he even wants a job in tech. If he does, how about you explore and understand why he can't get one. (Hint: Racism is illegal, so that's almost certainly not the answer). Once you've found the underlying cause, address it.
But what you'll find is that the underlying cause is one shared by many people. Is it an educational gap? Is it a criminal record putting off potential employers? Is it a language barrier? Is it suitability for the role?
None of those need me to know the race of the person facing that challenge. But those are things you can address. You can provide training, change policies, change the nature of roles. What you'll find is that many people will respond positively to those changes, and those people will include your black guy and other people that comprise multiple genders and races.
I'm OK with it in this instance
I'm not, and not just because I'm not as racist as you. I also think your approach is inherently flawed and causes too many new issues, all of which can be avoided by doing something more intelligent in the first place that doesn't discriminate based on race.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a use of technology that, done properly, adds value and makes everybody (except the jobless ticket checkers) happy. Reduced scalping, shorter queues, lower hassle, happier event goers.. lots of good things.
I just don't think they can do it properly. I don't think the technology is reliable enough, I don't trust them to adequately protect their database and even if they're that mythical company that does actually want and successfully implement good data security, they'll still have to hand over all that data for misuse by the Government (and local councils).
So I like the idea, I support them wanting to do this, I just have deep misgivings about the whole thing.
Announcing this in Detroit is just a nonsensical political statement that derides any pretence this is about the public good.
The AC pointed out that accepting a 15 hour week would lead to no jobs, and that's why people wouldn't accept it.
You asked why competition for jobs mattered and I answered your question.
If you wanted a response to your main point you should have read the responses to it, not the response to your follow up question.
Plenty of people refuse to use cruise control exactly because it's dangerous.
Combining a number of features without assessing the usage and impact on the driver is shit design. People are dying because of this.
The problem is that the way autopilot is designed, marketed and implemented it's guaranteed to result in inattentive drivers.
Thus the problem is indeed autopilot.
Errors the user is forced to make due to shit design is not user error. It's shit design.
I was describing their role. I didn't say whether they were any good at it.
The role exists. Some people do it well. Some people do not.
so he just assumes that the person answering the phone has nothing better to do than tell people the carpenter is busy
This is a fair point, the poor sod's trying to get his job done but is instead getting constant interruptions from people too fucking stupid to work out how to escalate.
Because jobs are a competitive market and if a company can hire you for 15 hours a week or someone else for 40, they'll pick the option that gets them the same productivity for half the training and management overheads.
In many places this is forbidden by Union rules.
I don't belong to the union, so fuck them and their stupid protectionist rules.
You're not allowed to do these things because you'll replace the union worker.
If it's that fucking trivial and cheaper for people to do it themselves, good, replace that union worker.
Also, do you REALLY want just anyone putting up shelves? There's many people that have no clue how to put up a shelf. Odds are some un-skilled person put them up previously, and that's why they collapsed.
Someone that can't enter a room because there's a book on the floor can't be trusted to put up their hand, let alone a fucking shelf.
I do want and expect the facilities department to manage the scenery but the moment they start being utter cocks about it, I'm going to work around them.
2. Complain, likely resulting in a written warning to the professor.
I'd love that to be tried on me. There would be consequences very much worth a written warning.
But I work in the private sector and avoid highly unionised employers so we just get shit done.
Ah, but you added credibility and also translated incoherent thoughts into something even a CEO can understand.
And the firm was paid $1M/month for it.
Overpriced, but not pointless per se.
They also know how to measure a house, create floor plans, propose a price that will help maximise selling price while still actually selling, know how to use the website to post the house to it and - here's the real value - handle all of the enquiries from prospective buyers, filter out the time wasters, validate the genuine offers and work with you to complete the process.
What, you thought the buyer was their customer?
If used properly
If you used your brain properly you'd understand the fallacy here.
Absolute worst case, autopilot never detects anything ever and we're no worse off than just having a driver behind the wheel.
Except that this is not true, and you've stated why yourself:
Autopilot requires the driver to be attentive.
We know that the drive is not going to be attentive, so we're already worse off than just having a driver behind the wheel.
Car bombs are effective but difficult to get through checkpoints and next to high value targets.
Get 20 home built $400 drones to suddenly pop over the right fence and you've achieved global headlines.
There is nothing from the 60's that even comes close to 2001 for the story telling.
Look, I can understand you not liking Laurence of Arabia, Spartacus, Dr Strangelove, Zulu, Belle de Jour, Bonnie and Clyde, "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", Planet of the Apes, Once Upon a Time in the West, The Italian Job and "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?"
However every single one of them tells a story far better than 2001, and several of them are far better cinema too.
I find it one of the greatest movies ever made. It's one I often watch again. Except for the 20 min color montage toward the end, I fast forward through that.
How much do you skip from lesser films then? Let me guess, "Back To The Future was ok, except for the bit after the opening credits, I fast forward through that".
People don't seem to like movies that make you think
Films that make you think are commercially successful if they're good films. Films that bore you senseless make you think, "When is this tedious shit going to finish" and you fast forward through 20 minutes towards the end.
Oh, wait.
Paying $5,000 for a watch is vanity, aka More money then brains.
I spent a little more than that. The watch is worth more now than when I bought it. I've also had the pleasure of owning it.
Why would that qualify as more money than brains? Come to that, what's vain about liking cutting edge precision engineering?
Concrete shoes. The coffin tends to be disposal of a corpse so you're past caring, the enema is survivable, whereas the shoes cause pain through excessive heat while being put on, followed by an unpleasant death.
Leaving aside the initial confusion the capitalisation in the headline caused me (not helped by watching the snooker world championships while reading it), fundamental technology essential to the core functions of the device must be worth a couple of magnitudes more than something generic like rounded corners.
There are going to be some very rich lawyers before this one plays out.
The tech industry doesn't have equal opportunity, but only because so many opportunities are denied to men or to white people.
I still don't support discrimination to supposedly help them. Discrimination is bad, and you've just revealed your own immorality.
I don't give a shit if that's the primary purpose, do not autoplay videos.
When I have 19 youtube pages open at the same time it's kind of important that at least 18 of them are not actually sending signals to my sound card. It's merely sensible that they're also not using system resources processing complex mathematics to the benefit of nobody.
Vimeo, DailyMotion, Twitch.. they can all wait patiently until I'm ready to view their content and explicitly indicate this through interaction with an appropriate control on their web page.
Pale Moon. So potentially Firefox too.
Autoplay isn't disabled by default, but it's trivial to toggle.
Congratulations on missing my point.
Damore has been publicly castigated for being supposedly misogynist, despite at no point actually being sexist.
Is it sexist and repugnant for me to insist that the person I marry not be a male? If that is "sexist", then I'd suggest that sometimes it's OK to be sexist.
Would you really insist that though? I think you would insist that the person you marry is someone towards whom you hold strong and romantic feelings.
It happens that the set of people that qualify aren't male.
This helps with your other point too.
the fact that they're white and male already gives them a leg up in getting tech jobs, I don't want to spend my resources to help them because they don't need the kind of help I'm providing. Is that racist?
Fuck yes it's racist. You've labelled an entire demographic and done so because you want to give someone of a specific race a job.
How about you ask the guy whether he even wants a job in tech.
If he does, how about you explore and understand why he can't get one. (Hint: Racism is illegal, so that's almost certainly not the answer).
Once you've found the underlying cause, address it.
But what you'll find is that the underlying cause is one shared by many people. Is it an educational gap? Is it a criminal record putting off potential employers? Is it a language barrier? Is it suitability for the role?
None of those need me to know the race of the person facing that challenge. But those are things you can address. You can provide training, change policies, change the nature of roles. What you'll find is that many people will respond positively to those changes, and those people will include your black guy and other people that comprise multiple genders and races.
I'm OK with it in this instance
I'm not, and not just because I'm not as racist as you. I also think your approach is inherently flawed and causes too many new issues, all of which can be avoided by doing something more intelligent in the first place that doesn't discriminate based on race.