Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Debating over ridiculously defined problems... (Score 1) 94

>By their statement they obviously mean directly under...so what area are they using? The area of the soles of your feet? The widest area looking down from a top view? I assume it doesn't matter and they are assuming any area projected towards and through the Earth.

The easiest way would be to define that as the center point of your mass, reducing you to a point, which at the size of a human is not an unreasonable assumption. Humans are not really large enough to have a barycenter.

Comment: Re:Seems obvious now (Score 3, Insightful) 214

Yeah, I read TFS as a big giant "holy cow are police forces actually this damned stupid?"

How can these idiots take themselves seriously when they have such monumentally idiotic ideas? And why should they expect us to take them seriously?

You're talking about someone who managed to make it his paid, full-time job to write X-File fanfic and hang out at Star Trek conventions, most likely putting everything on a government expense account. The word you're looking for isn't "stupid", it's "brilliant".

Comment: Re:North Pole (Score 1) 486

by Minwee (#49743403) Attached to: The Brainteaser Elon Musk Asks New SpaceX Engineers

What is the circumference of a circle with radius r? It is (Pi * r^2), of course.. So a circle with radius of 1 mile would have a circumference of (Pi * 1 * 1).

I'm just going to skip the bit about you calling someone else braindead and asking them to turn in their geek card for displaying poor math skills and leave this bit here while we move on to the bonus round.

In your own words, what is the relationship between the radius and circumference of a circle? Please be precise, as your geek card is at stake here.

+ - Ext4 Corruption Bug Found in Linux

Submitted by jones_supa
jones_supa writes: It seems that an Ext4 data corruption bug has slipped into Linux at some point. Josh Triplett warns about the issue in the Debian bug tracking system. His server machine already experienced major damage to the filesystem. A patch has already been created, which describes the situation as follows: "Currently it is possible to lose whole file system block worth of data when we hit the specific interaction with unwritten and delayed extents in status extent tree. [...] For now we can fix this by simply not allowing to set delayed status on written extent in the extent status tree. Also add WARN_ON() to make sure that we notice if this happens in the future." Consider applying the patch (or simply upgrading to Linux 4.0.3 which incorporates the patch) to prevent filesystem corruption.

Comment: Re:This is good (Score 1) 1076

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) 1076

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) 1076

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) 1076

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.

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?

Working...