Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Transportation United States IT Technology

GM Brings IT Dev Back In House; Self-Driving Caddy In the Works 171

Posted by timothy
from the oh-christine dept.
dstates writes "Want a good job in IT? Detroit of all places may be the place to be. GM is bringing IT development back in house to speed innovation. Among other initiatives, a self driving Cadillac is planned by mid decade. Ford is also actively developing driver assist technology and is betting big on voice recognition. Ann Arbor has thousands of smart cars wirelessly connected on the road. Think about all those aging baby boomers with houses in the burbs and no desire to move as their vision and reflexes decline. The smart car is a huge market. Seriously, Detroit and SE Michigan have good jobs, great universities, cheap housing and easy access to great sports and outdoors activities."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GM Brings IT Dev Back In House; Self-Driving Caddy In the Works

Comments Filter:
  • by concealment (2447304) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @08:52AM (#41892737) Homepage Journal

    I'm fond of Detroit, but it's worth mentioning that it could be a set from Blade Runner.

    • by tgd (2822)

      I'm fond of Detroit, but it's worth mentioning that it could be a set from Blade Runner.

      Well, on the upside, if you enjoy having variety in your living situation, you can buy a whole block fairly easily. You can have a house for every day of the week!

    • by darjen (879890)

      I live in Cleveland, where our motto is... "At least we're not Detroit"

    • I'm fond of Detroit, but it's worth mentioning that it could be a set from Blade Runner.

      The City of Detroit has a population of around 700,000 people. The Greater Detroit Metro area has about 4 million people in it. Most people who say they are "from Detroit" aren't actually from Detroit proper and the suburbs are actually pretty nice for the most part. Oakland County [wikipedia.org] which is the county immediately to the north of the City of Detroit is located has a AAA credit rating and is among the wealthiest counties in the country. Furthermore Michigan is an absolutely beautiful state with lots to r

  • Oh boy... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @08:55AM (#41892767)

    Ford ... is betting big on voice recognition.

    A driver gets cut off, yells "fucking asshole!"
    Car: "Now fucking your asshole"

  • by Nerdfest (867930) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @08:56AM (#41892783)

    The Cadillac still seems to be targeted at old people, and based on the way I see most driven, self driving Cadillacs will be a huge benefit to motorists everywhere. The last time I saw the interior of one, it looked like all navigation and controls had been made large enough to be operated by someone with extremely poor vision. I shuddered. Yes, I realize most of them have a lot of power, but it's exceedingly rare that one is driven like it has.

    • The Cadillac target market seems to be eerily similar to the cognac target market: a combination of old, at least vaguely affluent, white guys and young hip-hop aspirants. I don't know how it happened.

      • by gstoddart (321705) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @09:39AM (#41893221) Homepage

        The Cadillac target market seems to be eerily similar to the cognac target market: a combination of old, at least vaguely affluent, white guys and young hip-hop aspirants. I don't know how it happened.

        Price, and marketing. Cadillac has always been sold as up-market luxury. Hell, the name is almost synonymous with luxury in America ... "this is the Cadillac of (item)" conveys quality and luxury.

        So the slightly older and affluent folks are the obvious choices because they have the money to buy one, and because older affluent folks have always bought Cadillacs. That's how they know they're affluent. :-P

        I think that carried over into the nouveau riche because of the same cachet ... in some circles, if you've made it, you drive a Cadillac. And, since they tend to make larger cars, people who need a little room (like pro athletes) go for them.

        I largely think of them as for old men, wise guys (think Sopranos), people who want to put 21" rims, and mommy-tanks (the Escalade).

        For me though, it's one of the last vehicles I'd want to own, but that's just personal taste. They're mostly massive cars.

        Though, it is always amusing to see a Cadillac or a Hummer that someone has pimped out with huge rims and massive amounts of chrome -- there's a Hummer H3 in my area which has the most gigantic chrome spinners I've ever seen, and every piece that could be chromed has been. Seen the same thing applied to Caddies as well.

        • by Lord Grey (463613)

          You clearly have not test driven a Cadillac CTS-V. 556hp V8, 0-60mph in 4.0 seconds. Not a track car, but it gets the job done.

          Some of the "slightly older and affluent folks" appreciate that.

          • by Nerdfest (867930) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @09:57AM (#41893461)

            That would be especially awesome on a stock car track, with the left turn signal left on.

          • by gstoddart (321705)

            You clearly have not test driven a Cadillac CTS-V

            You're absolutely correct, with a list price of FROM $64,515 - $74,910 [cadillac.com], it's a lot more than I'd spend on a car unless I suddenly became a lot more well off. And in that price range, BMW has some fine offerings.

            And, really, my perception is that, like most North American cars ... it can go hella fast in a straight line, but can't corner worth shit. I'm sure that's not true any more, but the few Cadillacs I've ever driven in have that overly mushy ride which

            • by iamgnat (1015755)

              You're absolutely correct, with a list price of FROM $64,515 - $74,910 [cadillac.com], it's a lot more than I'd spend on a car unless I suddenly became a lot more well off. And in that price range, BMW has some fine offerings.

              Actually it is an exceptional price for what it is compared to the German options. Speaking of BMW the CTS-V is a competitor with the M5 which costs about a third more. If you are looking for a high performance (but not track) coupe or sedan, it shouldn't be ignored. And here in the States if you want a bad ass wagen then it's the only game in town. Unfortunately the wagen's cargo area is ridiculously small and the horrid MPG made it a non-starter for me when I needed a new "traveling with the dogs and kid,

              • by gstoddart (321705)

                If you are looking for a high performance (but not track) coupe or sedan, it shouldn't be ignored. And here in the States if you want a bad ass wagen then it's the only game in town. Unfortunately the wagen's cargo area is ridiculously small and the horrid MPG made it a non-starter for me

                Hmmm ... so it's bad ass because it's fast, but not because it's any use as a wagon? Lousy cargo space and horrible MPG aren't exactly selling points -- in fact, they're kind of the opposite.

                Personally I like the German ca

                • by iamgnat (1015755)

                  Hmmm ... so it's bad ass because it's fast, but not because it's any use as a wagon? Lousy cargo space and horrible MPG aren't exactly selling points -- in fact, they're kind of the opposite.

                  "bad ass" meaning it handles well and yes is fast. I agree that the lack of cargo space in a wagen and the overall poor MPG is the opposite of a selling point which is why I said it was a non-starter for me. I like the idea of it and it really does drive like I want a performance based car to drive, but it just fails in the more important aspects of what I needed. There is just something about a 500hp wagen that makes me want one though ;-)

                  Not because it's American, but because it's well out of my price range, and nothing like what I'd be looking for in the first place -- mostly because I'm not qualified to drive 500+ HP of car. A friend took me for a drive in his M5 once, and I quickly realized that would be way too much car for me even if I could afford one. :-P

                  The implication was that one is considering that price range (and hi

                  • by gstoddart (321705)

                    There is just something about a 500hp wagen that makes me want one though ;-)

                    I was out in front of the office one day, and saw a fairly mundane looking Benz wagon parked out front ... then I saw the 6.3L badge on it, then I noticed the size of the brakes and the AMG logo as well.

                    By the time I googled it and realized it was a 500+ HP station wagon, I was in awe.

                    I can only imagine the bandwidth of that station wagon full of mag-tape. And your kid will never be late for a soccer game. ;-)

                    I absolutely get why

                    • by iamgnat (1015755)

                      I can only imagine the bandwidth of that station wagon full of mag-tape.

                      I think that reference wins this thread. Well played sir. Well played.

                      ;-)

          • by cayenne8 (626475)

            You clearly have not test driven a Cadillac CTS-V. 556hp V8, 0-60mph in 4.0 seconds. Not a track car, but it gets the job done.

            You know..if I was to get something with the guts of a Corvette underneath...I think I'd want the exterior to look like one too.

            Those caddie's are freakin' FUGLY....

          • You clearly have not test driven a Cadillac CTS-V. 556hp V8, 0-60mph in 4.0 seconds.

            And 16 MPG!

            No thanks.

    • by tgd (2822)

      The Cadillac still seems to be targeted at old people, and based on the way I see most driven, self driving Cadillacs will be a huge benefit to motorists everywhere. The last time I saw the interior of one, it looked like all navigation and controls had been made large enough to be operated by someone with extremely poor vision. I shuddered. Yes, I realize most of them have a lot of power, but it's exceedingly rare that one is driven like it has.

      If Cadillac sold a self-driving car for $100k, I'd be in line day one for it, and I'm not old. I just have a very long, stop-and-go, miserable commute. It'd be worth every penny of that kind of price, if not just for my long term sanity.

    • Maybe about a decade ago. Caddy changed focus with the GEN-I sigma platform CTS/CTSV. The GEN-II sigma platform in 08 on the CTS and 09 CTS-V was aimed squarely at BMW 5/M5. In fact until the new M-5 this year, the M was trounched by the CTSV. Now the new ATS is aimed at the 3 series with a V version probably out next year. The new GEN-III CTS is due out next year with a V version probably the year after. The MRC's in the ATS and CTS-V are amazing. They offer a very firm planted ride while not being overl

  • by MyLongNickName (822545) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @08:57AM (#41892801) Journal

    I love the idea of self-driving cars. I will talk about it with people and frequently, I will get the response "the idea of computers driving scares me". My response: "the idea of humans driving cars scares me more".

    • by mwvdlee (775178)

      How about the idea of cars driven by computers created by humans?

    • Not me. I'm a programmer. Most humans have had a mom who, without any commercial "efficiency need", devoted years and years into raising a sensible human who is capable of responding to anything unexpected. A lot of programs do have a commercial "drive" that causes them to be released into the wild long before they are mature and up to the task they should be able to perform. I might trust an open source program, but only if I could test it first in some kind of emulator. Acceptance testing with your life i
      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        All humans have reaction times that suck. All humans will have periods when that time is even longer or they are distracted.

        I agree open source would be best.

      • by Eevee (535658) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @09:40AM (#41893225)

        ...a sensible human who is capable of responding to anything unexpected.

        It must be nice wher you live, 'cause around here the typical driver's response to anything unexpected seems to be to crash. Actually, for a lot of drivers, the response to expected things seems to be to crash as well.

        Acceptance testing with your life is just not, well, acceptable.

        You do realize you're doing acceptance testing of every driver around you all the time, right?

      • by Speare (84249)

        Obviously, lots of testing is going on, and will continue to go on. They use a methodology a lot more reasonable than your "I need to test-drive it" sensibilities, but yes, you'll be able to test drive before you buy your own autocar.

        Walk into any Wal*Mart, Tesco, or other low-end mass market department store. Look at the way they communicate, how they decide on things to buy, and how they deal with navigating the aisles. Realize that over half of the people you see in that store drove cars to get there

      • Not me. I'm a programmer. Most humans have had a mom who, without any commercial "efficiency need", devoted years and years into raising a sensible human who is capable of responding to anything unexpected. A lot of programs do have a commercial "drive" that causes them to be released into the wild long before they are mature and up to the task they should be able to perform.

        Acceptance testing with your life is just not, well, acceptable.

        This.

        Self driving cars are a foray into something never reall

      • by slew (2918)

        Most humans have had a mom who, without any commercial "efficiency need", devoted years and years into raising a sensible human who is capable of responding to anything unexpected...

        There are humans that didn't have moms, or humans that had moms that didn't raise sensible beings, and many human aren't particularly capable of responding to unexpected driving events (in the various mental states that they choose to drive), yet the state still issues these humans driver's licences, and people willingly get into cars with those humans as drivers.

        The point of fear that many folks have about turning their lives over to machines is that folks don't feel that they can predict what they will do

      • by Belial6 (794905)
        I think you are vastly over estimating the "mom" goal in raising humans. We are are decades into the "MY happiness is important, so don't bother me." era.
    • I was involved in a big debate about this. A lot of people said that even if self-driving cars were proven to have a fraction of the accident rate of human drivers, people still wouldn't trust them because of those few times something *could* go wrong. It makes no logical sense, but I suppose it's similar to flying in an airplane (which is also significantly safer than driving, statistically) - it's that lack of control that's the scary part. If something goes wrong, you want to be the one controlling it.

      • by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @09:37AM (#41893203) Homepage

        A lot of people said that even if self-driving cars were proven to have a fraction of the accident rate of human drivers, people still wouldn't trust them because of those few times something *could* go wrong.

        Many if not most accidents are caused by someone being careless, stupid, tired, distracted, drunk or high. That means most people most of the time think they're driving much safer than average, either because they're not any of the things above or think they're not - that particularly applies to careless and stupid. To gain public acceptance you must beat "idealized" humans, that even if you're cautious, forward thinking, well rested, alert, sober and in every way fit to drive a car an AI has 360 degree vision, millisecond reaction time and all sorts of advantages that you can't beat. You're not competing against the actual accident rate, you're fighting people's perceived - and often imaginary - risk of an accident.

      • by jabberw0k (62554)
        Airplane control systems need not concern themselves with discerning between a ball bouncing across the road (probably to be followed by a child) and a bouncing discarded Big Gulp (to be followed only by a raccoon)... nor are they concerned with whether it is better to brake, or accelerate, or where to pilot the vehicle in the case of the aforementioned ball. Nor are they concerned with attempting to guess which, if any, of the pedestrians on a crowded sidewalk might suddenly jaywalk, or drop a bag of groc
        • Baby steps. Perhaps the first self-driving systems would only be permitted on highways where there are no pedestrians (or if there are, they're there in violation of traffic laws).

          Five monotonous hours on the interstate? Self-drive.

          Five blocks on city streets? Drive yourself.
          • The first steps have already been taken - see VW's City Emergency Brake. Other manufacturers are developing similar tech.
      • but I suppose it's similar to flying in an airplane (which is also significantly safer than driving, statistically) - it's that lack of control that's the scary part. If something goes wrong, you want to be the one controlling it.

        Then I suggest you never fly in a modern commercial airliner. From an uncle's stories flying many an Airbus for United, you have 0 ability to perform an evasive maneuver in one that is outside the bounds of 'comfort for the passengers.' Want to throw it into a dive or a hard corner? Nope, that must be an incorrect command from the yoke, we'll just go ahead and give you the predetermined limit for that action instead. Here you go, a nice steady decline, that's what you really meant.

        Your garden variety Ce

        • From a passenger's perspective, they have just as much control in an Airbus as they do in a Cessna - zero. It's that lack of control (as a passenger) that makes people nervous when flying that is analogous to being a passenger in a self-driving car.

      • even if it was perfect you still have the problem of the AI deciding to Kill You or Somebody Else or...

    • by Izmunuti (461052) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @09:56AM (#41893425)

      While oftware bugs will probably cause some catastrophic accidents from self-driving cars, in the grand scheme of things they would probably be safer.

      What will really kill them in the US, at least, is lawyers. If I rear-end someone, who's at fault? Me, and my insurance company gets to pay. When a computer-driven Google-car rear-ends someone, who's at fault. Me? Nah, I was half-asleep, listening to music, brushing my teeth, watching videos, etc. _I_ wasn't driving. Hey, Google wrote the software....they have a lot of money....

      Case in point: the media coverage and lawsuits of the supposed Prius accelerator malfunction. That was just a single drive-by-wire element. A fully autonomous car will get trampled flat by the thundering herds of lawyers.

    • by cayenne8 (626475)

      I love the idea of self-driving cars. I will talk about it with people and frequently, I will get the response "the idea of computers driving scares me". My response: "the idea of humans driving cars scares me more".

      Not me...

      Frankly, I've never owned anything in my life but two seater sports cars....driving is FUN to me....

      Maybe if you bought cars that were solely for utilitarian use, you might find joy in it too?

      Every day I fire up the engine and scream out onto the road...it is an adventure for me wai

  • by fustakrakich (1673220) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @09:02AM (#41892841) Journal

    With turn signals that are always on? And will they remind the "driver" where he is going and why?

    • by nschubach (922175)

      And will they remind the "driver" where he is going and why?

      You are going to your in-laws because you hate yourself.

      You are going to the store because you need food to live.

  • by RocketScientist (15198) * on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @09:03AM (#41892843)

    Michigan is a beautiful state. Once you clear Detroit you get a sportsman's paradise with fishing, camping, and hunting in some very scenic and well tended state and county parks. The summers are very temperate (rarely gets into the mid 90's) and the humidity is pretty comfortable.

    The winters are...more interesting. Not horrible, but lots of snow and cold.

    • by vlm (69642)

      Basically, its Wisconsin, but with a couple more feet of lake effect snow, and the eyesore / mindsore of Detroit. Wisconsin has a couple neighborhoods in Milwaukee and Racine and to a lesser extent Madison that you need to stay away from and those neighborhoods drag our demographic stats down, but at least we don't have an entire city as a sacrifice zone (although Milwaukee is getting worse every decade). I believe Wisconsin has something like 10 lakes for every 1 lake in Michigan.

      You can get the best of

      • Basically, its Wisconsin, but with a couple more feet of lake effect snow, and the eyesore / mindsore of Detroit.

        Detroit proper has a population of just 700,000 people. Most people who say they are "from Detroit" don't actually live in the city itself. The Metro Detroit area is much larger (population 4 million) and actually is a nice place to live. Oakland County just to the north of Detroit has a AAA credit rating and is among the 10 wealthiest counties in the US. There is a huge amount of engineering talent in the state and the businesses that need it. (Hint, the auto industry uses a LOT of technology)

        I believe Wisconsin has something like 10 lakes for every 1 lake in Michigan.

        Wisconsi

      • by gr8_phk (621180)
        I like both Wisconsin and Michigan. In the W, winters are significantly colder. In M you are correct that the west side of the state gets lots of lake effect snow, but in the greater Detroit area well I typically shovel my driveway twice a year. OTOH I believe W gets more sunshine than M (lake effect clouds?). Detroit proper is crappy, but the burbs are fine (similar to those around Milwaukee) and also where most of the jobs are - jobs which the W doesn't have. M leads the nation in second homes - often on
    • by PPH (736903)

      Yeah. But you can't drive only a couple of hundred miles and get from desert, through alpine wilderness (good skiing and hiking) to an ocean. With a huge salt water sound that has lots of great places to sail, scuba dive, etc.

      • No, we don't have an ocean. But, we do have the Great Lakes, which contain 20% of the world's fresh water. I've actually done offshore sailing on Lakes Huron, Michigan and Erie. The upper peninsula of Michigan contains great wilderness areas for hiking and hunting. We don't have a desert, though.
    • by EricWright (16803)

      The winters are...more interesting. Not horrible, but lots of snow and cold.

      Does not compute. Lots of snow and cold is my exact definition of a horrible winter.

      • Hear hear. As a southern California resident, I like my snow way up on the mountains, far away from me. It's really pretty when it's way over there.

        • As a southern California resident, I like my snow way up on the mountains, far away from me. It's really pretty when it's way over there.

          Wimp. Personally I prefer a bit of snow over living on a major fault line.

  • by neokushan (932374) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @09:04AM (#41892863)

    As someone with a bad enough sight problem that I'll never ever be allowed to drive, I yearn for the Self-driving car. For the love of almighty fuck, I just want to be able to get to work without having to deal with buses and trains. And yeah, fuck you, other commuters, fuck you all.

    • by ledow (319597)

      If you don't earn enough to take a taxi everywhere, then you'll be unlikely to ever afford a self-drive car even when they are legalised across your entire country.

      Seriously, it's nice to dream, but you'll probably be retired before you can afford a self-drive car if you're not already earning enough money to. And that's ignoring the problems of insurances, recalls, etc. that are almost bound to hit the self-drive industry at some point after they are "approved".

      You're more likely to work from home before

      • by neokushan (932374)

        There is not, on planet Earth, a single self-driving car that works in all conditions and is capable of navigating any road (Even without a map). However, just because it doesn't exist does not make it impossible. The same goes for the licensing/testing/insurance aspects - it may not exist today, but the same could be said about cars themselves when they first existed. Self-driving cars have the capacity to be safer, more efficient and faster than current cars are. Most accidents are caused by humans in som

      • by gl4ss (559668)

        cost of taxis varies greatly from place to place.

        plenty of people can afford nice cars who coudn't afford to take a cab everywhere because the cab costs 120 euros an hour.

      • by FatAlb3rt (533682)
        You should probably write GM, Google, and any number of other companies working on this a sternly-worded letter of advice. They probably don't even realize that you have it all figured out already.

        Meanwhile, learn to think outside the box, dream a little, and believe that things can, and do, actually change. We'll see this stuff by the end of the decade. Maybe not full-fledged self-driving cars, but more stuff will become automated: interstate driving, car following (we're already seeing this!), and t
      • by hawguy (1600213)

        If you don't earn enough to take a taxi everywhere, then you'll be unlikely to ever afford a self-drive car even when they are legalised across your entire country.

        Seriously, it's nice to dream, but you'll probably be retired before you can afford a self-drive car if you're not already earning enough money to. And that's ignoring the problems of insurances, recalls, etc. that are almost bound to hit the self-drive industry at some point after they are "approved".

        I can't (reasonably) afford to take a taxi everywhere today - I'd be spending about $1000/month in cab fare to get to work every day, and that ignores longer weekend trips. But I fully expect to be able to buy a self-driving car when they become common.

        When self driving cars become common, they won't be significantly more expensive to build than non self-driving cars. By then, cars will already be "fly by wire", so with the addition to a camera pod on the roof, maybe some other sensors (laser rangefinders?)

  • WSJ recently reported average base salary for Google engineers as $128K. You can finance the same lifestyle in Ann Arbor with $79K.

    http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salary=128336&city2=52603000&city1=50668000 [bestplaces.net]

    • Re:Cost of living (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DriveDog (822962) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @09:59AM (#41893475)

      Well, no, I can't finance the same lifestyle in Detroit at any price. It's not available in Michigan. For those who like what I consider bad weather, go for it, by all means. But aside from the bombed-out Detroit proper, the area is bitterly cold and grey in winter without a break. Living there year-round is not for everyone no matter how much they clean it up. Cities in cold climes grew 60-120 years ago because it was easier to generate heat than escape it, but now the warmer climes have A/C, so such places will never again see their former glory.

      Some people like that climate. That's wonderful. They might love it there.

      • In the 80's 3M spent a lot of time and effort recruiting engineers out of California. 2% were still there at the end of the second winter.

      • by sjbe (173966)

        Well, no, I can't finance the same lifestyle in Detroit at any price. It's not available in Michigan.

        I'm pretty much guessing you have never actually lived in Michigan making a statement like that.

        the area is bitterly cold and grey in winter without a break.

        Bitterly cold? Maybe if you are a big old wimp. Grey with out a break? Yeah, not so much. Sometimes it is grey, sometimes it isn't. Comes with having 20% of the world fresh water within 80 miles of you at any time. Plus we don't have to deal with earthquakes that will level the city.

        Living there year-round is not for everyone no matter how much they clean it up.

        Yeah, almost 10 million people live in Michigan because it is such a hell hole...

        • by DriveDog (822962)

          Relax. I'm saying it's not for me. Some like it hot. I like anything from 60F to 95F at 90% humidity, and up to 110F at

          Then again, 50 years from now Great Lakes states might be downright balmy.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    GM is just hiring all the HP (formerly EDS) contractors that already work for GM. It's not as if they creating thousands of new IT jobs.

    • Good thing someone is. EDS is a resume stain. Straight to the bin.

    • The delicious irony is, of course, that GM bought EDS back in the 80s and then transferred all of their IT staff to EDS. What goes around, comes around.
  • It's a trap! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anon E. Muss (808473) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @10:06AM (#41893587)
    Anybody thinking of getting an IT job at GM should talk to somebody who worked under Randy Mott at one of his previous gigs (e.g. Wal-Mart, Dell, HP). You won't find many fans.
    • by Virtucon (127420)

      So start 'splainin Lucy! How is this a bad thing? Are you saying that it will turn Detroit into the new Bangalore? Having worked in Detroit this year and seeing the burned out houses, neighborhoods that have been mowed down it would seem to me that any kind of economic investment that brings jobs to the community is a good thing regardless of who's leading the charge.

      • At the macro level, adding employment to Detroit would be a good thing. At the micro level, it could be a bad thing for individuals who take a job at GM, and then find themselves working in conditions that make Dilbert look good by comparison. I understand "any port in a storm, and any job in a recession." But if you have a choice, would you really want to go to work for somebody who is absolutely hated by many of his prior employees?
        • by Virtucon (127420)

          Okay I can agree with you on that however there's been very few places that I've worked where the boss or his boss or somebody in the echelon is hated by his staff. It's a sad fact today that management doesn't appreciate the contributions of their employees but in reality. If you go back 100 years would you find it better or worse with the likes of Carnegie or Rockefeller? IMO, it would be much worse and despite the modern labor movement and workers rights along with laws enforcing guarantees of protect

  • I know of many sub-50-yr-olds who hate driving and would welcome the chance to buy a self-driving car. Aside from the absolute fact that these cars will be statistically far safer than most or all human-driven cars (there have been a dozen flamefests on that topic in previous /. threads), being able to read the paper, text your BFF, or just plain nap on the way to work sounds great to me.

Optimization hinders evolution.

Working...