Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Why Own? (Score 1) 252

It's only people who don't have a car who see that as a waste, those who do understand that their required associated costs like having insurance on your house or paying for you utilities. Imagine if you were homeless and didn't have to waste so much money on rent, electricity, heating, and water!

A habitable place to live (own or rent) isn't negotiable. Owning a plane, boat --or even a car, is. For many lower-income individuals, transportation is a significant percentage of their disposable income. A car may not be as expensive as housing, medical care, or food, but it's optional and only used 5% of the time. If there was a good alternative at a fraction of the price, most people would use it. This is why most residents of NYC and European cities don't own one.

Comment Re:Why Own? (Score 1) 252

You obviously have never owned a car that is fun to drive. Go out and buy a good used Miata. Get out of the city and onto rural roads. Come back in 6 months and tell us if you would still like to be carted around in a vehicle several other people have thrown up in.

LOL. I can't completely disagree with you. I gave up my Miata seven years ago (to get a "responsible" family car) and now I die a little every time I get in the Prius. The joy is gone and now I'm just getting from A to B.

Comment Why Own? (Score 1) 252

It's odd to me that most people I talk to can't get past the idea of not owning a car. Consider what you could do with the money you waste every year on car payments, gas, parking, maintenance, and insurance. Why wouldn't the future be nearly everyone taking a robo-Uber whenever they need to? In the future, driving or owning a car will be just another interesting hobby.

Comment Re:Raises Don't Keep Up (Score 1) 282

Sure, I can see that. String them along--just as long as they aren't "the guy." (You know, the only guy that understands how the mission-critical systems work. I've seen companies go under when they lose that guy, without a knowledge transfer, which may take months). The replacement coder costs the new going rate, delivering a fraction of the productivity in the months before they have equivalent institutional knowledge and understand the wage refugee's code.

Ironically, even if a penny pinching manager did save a little, it's behaviors like this that drive IT wage inflation.

Comment Raises Don't Keep Up (Score 3, Insightful) 282

The pattern I've seen time and again is that even if you find an employer that gives regular raises, the market rate for programmers moves much faster than a lame 3% cost of living raise. So, unless you're an assertive extrovert, with a high tolerance for uncomfortable moments with your boss, you probably aren't demanding a competitive raise each year. Easier to just interview every few years and get a big salary bump.

And the employers who lost you? They'll pay much more to replace you, learn nothing from the experience, then repeat the cycle again in a few years.

Comment Re:Minor Fluctuation? (Score 4, Informative) 560

As the old song goes, little things mean a lot. You couldn't see the difference between a little botulin toxin and a lethal dose without a microscope. And I'm sure you wouldn't notice a 0.7 C difference between one room in your house and another, but multiply that amount of energy to a global scale and it starts to add up. Consider what climatologist James Hansen said about the current rate of increase in global warming: “(it's) equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day, 365 days per year. That’s how much extra energy Earth is gaining each day.”

Comment Re:Exactly 0% argue static climate (Score 1) 846

Climate change became the more popular phrase simply because so many people refused to accept that just because he planet as a whole is warming doesn't mean that every area also gets warmer.

In other words, the word with more play propaganda-wise got used. I go with the more accurate term.

Actually, it was Frank Luntz, a right-wing political consultant that's credited for the name change. He thought "climate change" sounded less scary and easier to ignore. Here's a quick read on Wikipedia with some of the back story on how climate science became a political football:

Comment Re:Republicans should "go for it" (Score 1) 311

Naturally, the platform has to be mainstream enough to appeal to everyone possible. The reality is that the party has been co-opted by extremists hostile to some important pieces of science that impact policy. Here's your cites:

Exhibit A
Exhibit B (Yeah, it's Obama's list, but most would certainly embrace the denier label)
Exhibit C []

There are enough dangerous nuts in the great GOP Venn diagram (and a considerable overlap with elected officials) that the GP is basically correct.

Slashdot Top Deals

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.