Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: OK, we've seen this before (Score 1) 376

by AvitarX (#49758959) Attached to: Student Photographer Threatened With Suspension For Sports Photos

It's actually why they codified it. They found it was a technique effectove teachers taught, and how people do it in their head.

I personally think it gets too much focus, it doesn't work for everyone, and different tricks work for different people, but I assume most people that struggle woth getting it are not "math people". I also don't think teaching math people techniques to everyone is necessarily going to work.

Comment: Re:This is good (Score 1) 1082

by glitch23 (#49733035) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour
Redistribution of wealth rewards laziness and punishes success by using the gov't as the sole arbiter for who should be rewarded, regardless of what one did to earn the dollar. The only entity in charge of how much one earns is oneself, not the gov't, not one's parents, not one's employer. If one wants to earn more money it is one's own responsibility to make that happen. It isn't the gov't's job to settle the fairness score among citizens because what the gov't considers fair is not always fair due to bias. One should be able to decide for oneself whether his current wage is fair and if it isn't then to do something about it rather than whine to the gov't that society is against him. The US has been raising a bunch of lazy ass people for the last generation or two. If someone wants lifted out of poverty then they should do more to earn it like everyone else did. Society doesn't pick and choose certain people to hate or to make poor. Being poor is a personal choice due to lack of motivation regarding work, education, responsibility, etc. The only people who deserve assistance are the disabled who can't actually work but any able bodied person should be working and if they want to earn a certain wage then they need a minimum set of skills, knowledge, experience, education and willingness to accept responsibility to earn that desired wage. Giving people money for no reason devalues them and it demotivates them causing less work to be done at great cost to society as a whole.

Comment: Re:Hmm... (Score 1) 1082

by glitch23 (#49732995) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

Except that there's other factors in play as well. A minimum wage increase will give the bottom 60+% of workers more spending power, this increased spending will boost the income of local shops which will help to improve the local economy.

This is economics 101, for an economy to work people have to spend money, the more money that people spend the better the economy works. Increasing the spending power of the vast majority of local residents is a very good thing for the local economy.

Those workers will be spending all their wage increase by having to pay more at, for example, fast food restaurants when prices go up to accommodate higher wages. Or the worker will get laid off completely in an effort by their employer to reduce ever growing costs and to avoid raising prices. In your utopian view of economics you forget that businesses have costs associated with running their businesses. It isn't all profit. So when their labor expenses go up they won't magically see an increase in sales because new sales and labor charges are NOT linked. Someone who makes an extra $1/hr or $8/day won't suddenly decide to buy something new just because of that new found money. If anything they will put the money towards repairs for their 10 year old car or their rent for the month that they are behind on because their child needed new clothes for school.

So all you do is raise the cost of those goods and services and make it harder for minimum wage workers to afford those things. You can't increase the spending power of residents if you just forced them to pay MORE for the same thing they paid $2 less for a week before the new minimum wage kicked in. If you think you can increase spending power that way then you don't know real world economics. You only think you do. What you really know is utopian economics.

Spending more comes from how much one can buy with $1. Giving someone $2 does not increase their spending power. Making goods and services cost less so that more can be purchased with the SAME $1 is what increases spending power. Maybe that simple description is what democrats and socialists really need to figure out just how economics really works rather than how they think it works.

Comment: Re:Stupid reasoning. (Score 1) 1082

by glitch23 (#49732955) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

I love seeing this crap in American articles. "Oh Noes! If we pay people more, it will cost businesses more!"

Lets look at this for a second.... Who are a businesses customers? Hint: It's the people who get paid a wage. These people get more money, more businesses get more customers. More customers mean more sales. More sales means more profits.

Is it really that hard to grasp that concept?

You assume the employees getting a higher wage are going to perform better in order to justify that new wage. If they did then their employer would already be giving them raises and, oh, lo and behold, those special employees aren't considered minimum wage anymore (note: that's how the real world actually works). Only the best employees will do that and by the law of statistics the best employees are a small percentage of the employee base. So you are asking for a business to be able to do more work with the same mediocre employees who now get paid more for being mediocre? Why should the mediocre employees do anything more than they did before if they can get a wage increase w/o working any harder than they did before?

And it now costs that business more money to pay its employees. To maintain profit margins cost either go up or employees are laid off. If costs go up then the employees earning more are now still earning the same amount as before if they are now having to pay more money as customers for goods/services that have had price increases. So the net change is 0 for those employees. If people are laid off then those employees whom you thought would generate more sales are now simply receiving food stamps careof us through the federal gov't. Good job!

Comment: Re:Minimum Wage (Score 1) 1082

by glitch23 (#49732925) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour
ganjadude didn't claim that the people earning just above minimum wage will have a reduced wage.But he is claiming that reduced incentive to do good work occurs when people get a raise for no good reason. What's worse is that with a mandated minimum wage increase there is bound to be people who don't deserve it get a raise anyway all the while someone working their ass off who were earning just above that wage don't get a proportional wage increase. Do they not work hard to earn a living? The same excuses for raising minimum wage can apply to those earning just above minimum wage but those people are left out in the cold. Anyone who believes raising minimum wage helps the min. wage workers is a socialist who relies on the gov't to even the playing field. Since when was the job or the job's wage ever the problem? I had a minimum wage job when I was in high school. Pretty much everyone did. Did I like getting that amount of money? It was fine at the time but everyone always wants more. But the mechanism for getting more is to do more work, accept more responsibility, gain to new skills, etc. to *JUSTIFY* the wage increase. It's typical immaturity that motivates people to demand a higher wage w/o providing their employer a requisite tradeoff in more output for that wage increase. The real world doesn't give raises just because you have a child to feed or have a car payment. The real world gives raises when you do something to earn it. And if your skills, experience, etc. outpace what the employer can pay you accordingly then YOU move on to fix the problem because the problem isn't the job in that case, and it never is. If someone wants more money they find the job that pays more but employees have to realize that they have to do a proportional amount of work to earn that money. Too many people nowadays except so much for free and expect it now. To use your logic, do they want to get reimbursed everytime they have another child to raise? Minimum wage is just that. It was never intended to be a livable wage. Livable wages are those above minimum wage that people move up to, at least those people who have the initiative and intelligence to do so.

Comment: Re:Minimum Wage (Score 1, Insightful) 1082

by glitch23 (#49732863) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour
Hmm sounds like Hostess. They kept paying the demanding wages of the union workers but never raised prices (God bless them for that) but eventually the workers demanded too much and so Hostess decided to close up shop instead (the assets were eventually purchased). That's one of 2 scenarios that happens when workers demand raises. The other is prices go up. Now, on a single company scale that isn't much of an issue but if businesses across the board raise prices due to hikes like a federal, state or city minimum wage increase then we're talking about adversely affecting a lot more people when those prices go up because now more people have to pay more than they did before for goods and services. How many of those people are minimum wage workers? Probably most of them. So now those people are back in the same boat they were in before.

Comment: Re:A Lot of Software Defies Easy Explanation (Score 1) 244

by Ash-Fox (#49696349) Attached to: RTFM? How To Write a Manual Worth Reading

A UI is part of the system architecture, and architecture fundamentals do need to be defined early in development

I am inclined to agree and disagree. I have been on one Agile project that had significant UI redesigns (a mostly mock application). This was done as part of R&D to understand what was an optimal UI as the client had difficulty knowing what they really wanted. From this, requirements were fully fleshed out with the client. Documentation tended to be written post fleshing out of documentations at the end of a development cycle (where it would go into two detatched iterative processes for manual testing and documentation writing).

Agile is definitely not "making stuff up as you go along".

But Agile methodology can certainly be used to figuring things out and rapidly delivering mock applications that can then be developed into more solid fleshed out requirements.

Comment: Re:A Lot of Software Defies Easy Explanation (Score 1) 244

by Ash-Fox (#49696331) Attached to: RTFM? How To Write a Manual Worth Reading

Fuck you, Agilisita.

You do realize there are development methodologies this is incompatible prior and post creation of Agile, right?

What that means for a technical writer is that if you UXtards are still fucking with six UX designs in 12 colors, I'd much rather let the screenshots get out of date for a couple of weeks while you fuck around with the UX, than to spend every fucking day taking 100 screenshots that will be obsolete by tomorrow's standup.

I only ever had one project doing that (constant UI redesigns) and that was while the product was still going through significant R&D work before it would ever reach real world users. Nobody was expecting user documentation to be produced for that stage.

You give me a shippable product, I give you docs.

Funny you should complain about Agile then, considering the ethos behind it is to deliver something frequently. Personally, as someone whom has done documentation, I found Agile easier to work with, small changes to documentation for each cycle, rather than blatant complete rewriting of documentation that has to be rushed for each release due to significant changes which often don't quite match the documentation that was written against original requirements since the original requirements were insufficient / badly architected / didn't take certain things into account.

Comment: Re: Someone is doing something really wrong (Score 1) 167

by AvitarX (#49695895) Attached to: How Spotify Can Become Profitable

Certainly Spotify has less staff per a station, but someone needs to keep the equipment running, ans I suspect more than one person is involved in programming their literally infinite stations, trying to keep the radio features, and the new music discovery better than that of Pandora, Google, and Beats. The app needs to be maintained and kept better than the others too. I could be wrong though, Wikipaedia says 1500 employees.

They are not one radio station, but infinite radio stations, and they need to negotiate for their music, in multiple jurisdictions.

The real problem they will have though, is that unlike radio, the [Spotify] stations are good enough that they replace owning a collection. Streaming services aren't a substitute for radio, they're a substitute for a music collection, and it's a business model that's having trouble taking off. Early systems were too restricted (both by technology of the time, and contracts) with too limited a selection, then came services that really work, but they provided it all for essentially free (less ads than real life radio). The internet streaming can't extract enough money to keep the labels happy, while simultaneously cutting into their sales. I don't know what the solution is, because people are going to be hard pressed to buy a track at a time when they had access to almost everything.

Nobody will pay Spotify to play this or that single, because Spotify won't generate sales for them.

I know I'm done buying CDs and tracks (I do pay for Google's service though), if they kill streaming, I'll be a pirate.

"You show me an American who can keep his mouth shut and I'll eat him." -- Newspaperman from Frank Capra's _Meet_John_Doe_