Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:If you're sending something "worth $5000"... (Score 1) 167

I work in the logistics industry and truly, whatever you ship you should ASSUME it's going to be tipped on every side. To go from point A to point B, *generally* you should assume that's going to be handled (loaded/unloaded) at least 6-7 times - from you loading onto local truck, unloaded at local terminal, loaded onto route truck, unloaded at next terminal, loaded onto local truck, delivered at local place.
All handled by people who, even if reasonable, are in a tremendous hurry all the time. Some - for example, if someone has to move your THING out of the way to unload his company's THING from the truck - doesn't give the faintest shit what happens to yours.

"Do not stack" and "No Stack", while some conscientious handlers will respect them, usually only cause one to hesitate before loading that 1000lb pallet atop your crate. If yours has a flat smooth top, it WILL get loaded on.

No, I wouldn't use fedex for such a shipment, either. I'd find a good local LTL firm where you could make special arrangements - the larger/more anonymous the freight company, the less anyone cares about your stuff: after all, if it's broken insurance will pay for it.

Comment Won't work everywhere, or really anywhere else (Score 4, Interesting) 180

The article omits a critical point: that Swedish (Nordic) culture has an almost unique approach to authority that is particularly collaborative and consensual.

This model is not exportable to other contexts without a wholesale change of the destination culture as well...a bit more of an undertaking.

Cf the work by Geert Hofstede

Comment well... (Score 1) 225

"...which would make it low enough to clear gas and sewer lines and to be undetectable at the surface.."

First, you probably mean DEEP enough?

And "undetectable at the surface" Sure - unless you nick things like the Aliso Canyon Gas Storage facility (which stores gas as far as 9000 feet down....)

Deep-tunnel digging is pretty much 90% about dealing with the unexpected, because that's the part that fucks you quickly, catastrophically, and often lethally.

That said, I wish him the best. The only thing I see as a barrier is, as usual, the lawyers. I don't believe that the current legal regime as far as who owns/uses/profits from subterranean 'property' is anywhere near where it needs to be to cope with what he's talking about. It's very much a wild-west show, because most of the law seems to deal with MINERAL rights, not access/use rights. Can Musk tunnel 100' under my house without my permission? How about the state capital? What if he's 1000' down?

Good luck, Elon.

Comment Re:What this also proves (Score 1) 106

Let's be clear - I didn't blame it on the scientists.

I simply said that this is an example of "why people are taking scientists less seriously".

I totally agree it's science writing; part of it may be endemic to the democritization of information in the internet age. Formerly, these sorts of fascinating, cutting edge science information would be confined to the pages of discipline-specific journals (who were well able to cover it). If something was really big news, it might show up in the NYT or on the wire, to be parsed and conveyed to other publications by a few credible, experienced 'science' writers.

Now, there's a gajilliion science magazines out there (in print and web form) so there's no possible way that they can all have competent journalists. Further, the news outraces the discipline and shows up on everything from Gizmodo to Slashdot, at BEST getting a half-assed summary from someone who spent 2 mins speed-reading the exec summary of the (as you experienced) paywalled ACTUAL paper.

Comment Sjw's (Score 0) 85

The fact is that SJWs cannot seem to comprehend that inequality in result isn't itself proof of some bias, PARTICULARLY if the bias-factor isn't even part of the algorithm.

Further, the fear is that simple objective analysis will occur without human intervention, and thus lack someone to call racist, sexist etc (in essence, so they're pre-labeling the author of algorithms as racist, sexist etc.).

For example
Your algorithm shows that people below a certain income level fail to repay loans at the normal rate, so it calculates the interest rate upcharge needed to offset the lower rates of repayment. Said upcharge seems to be applied more frequently to minority borrowers = "racism" (even though it's based entirely on income, not skin color)

Comment What this also proves (Score 0) 106

"... to some speculation that the Earth may be losing its magnetic field -..."
Since the data ultimately suggests that fluctuations are completely normal, I submit that this also starts to explain why people are taking scientists less and less seriously.

I suspect that the cadre of researchers crying that the sky was falling was probably a small percentage, yet because of the synergies of such predictions, commercial media, & natural human histrionics, THIS was the narrative being discussed in the broader discourse.

Cf the Cry Wolf syndrome

Slashdot Top Deals

You can do more with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word. - Al Capone