Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Why do this? (Score 2) 112

Because people aren't good at math and normalizing data for comparisons. Verizon offers a tack on plan that lets you essentially do the same thing as before, it is just that you can now see the actual impact on your bill. Back in the olden days, if you didn't upgrade your phone at the end of two years, you were getting ripped off because your monthly bill didn't drop. Now it does.

Comment Re:It is what it is (Score 1) 332

Lets not be deluded. Killing 80 000 civilians in one go (and many many more because in the aftermath of the bomb ) is a war crime.

So the American war crimes started way before the atomic bomb was dropped then? Let's be consistent, the commanding generals of most of the air forces in WWII were war criminals is, I believe, what you are trying to say. The type of weapon is a red herring, the cities would have been burned to the ground anyway, with probably similar loss of life (see the firebombing of Tokyo). Most of the Japanese cities were already bombed or burned out, the only difference is with the weapons used. The only reason those cities remained at all was because they were slated for the atomic bombs. And make no mistake, the type of weapon used saved American lives on those two days, probably a few hundred in those raids alone. Prior bombing campaigns were conducted with massive numbers of bombers and some were always lost. This was done with just a few B-29s and no American airmen were lost.

Also note that in Japan war manufacturing was located in civilian population centers, much of which was distributed into the residential areas in mom and pop shops with only a few employees mostly to make small components that would feed the major factories. Japan knew full well what it was doing when it set up that way, they were trying to hide war production behind civilians.

Curtis LeMay was man enough to recognise that strategic bombing, that is the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets to break the will of the enemy was a war crime.

That is not what strategic bombing is. That is terror bombing. Strategic bombing is trying to destroy the economy, infrastructure, sources of raw material, and industry used to wage war. Civilian impact is incidental and caused by the intentional placement of war production in civilian areas. I'm not saying there wasn't some terror bombing going on from both sides, but there is a difference.

And he would have ended as a criminal had he not been on the victorious side. History and law is written by the victors always. And many times this skews the moral analysis of the events.

Of course he would have, so would a lot of other allied leaders.

Comment Re:MacArthur, Nimitz, Eisenhower, etc All Opposed (Score 1) 332

The conditions that were eventually applied to keeping the emperor were more restrictive than previously expected. He remained as a figurehead with little power.

The Emperor referred specifically to the atomic bombs, stating if they continued to fight it would result in "...an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation..."

One of Emperor Hirohito's closest advisers, stated, "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war"

Comment Re:It is what it is (Score 1) 332

Now you are being deluded, put the KoolAid down for a minute and get past the raw numbers. The Japanese not only put war material production in the center of civilian populations, it actually spread it into the surrounding residential areas using mom and pop shops to create lower level components and assemblies that were forwarded to the big factories for inclusion in final assembly. War production is a legitimate target. But none of this is specific to the nuclear bombings. The firebombings and other area bombing attacks that were taking place throughout 1945 killed more people than the nuclear attacks did.

Comment Re:Insecurity culture.... (Score 1) 585

The defined benefit pension is great if you make it to retirement with a company you've been at for 20 years. Typically the benefit curve starts going up rapidly once you hit 15 or 20 years and 55 years old. If you are 55 and want to change jobs, you are kinda screwing yourself on your pension. You keep what you previously earned for your pension, but your first 5 - 10 years at your new company (when they did have a defined benefit pension) you will not come close to making up what you would have received at during those years at your old company. There is always a risk with pensions. If they freeze it before you hit the knee in the curve you are likewise screwed; you would have been better off with that 401K. The only downside I see with the 401K is that you are in control of your destiny as far as investments. That will work out great for some, not so well for others.

Comment Re:We need better legislation (Score 1) 102

Don't be obtuse. Irresponsible people can't afford it because they crash a lot and have to buy a new, expensive aircraft and/or components over and over. The only irresponsible persons that could have afforded it would be the irresponsible rich kids who seem to have other priorities like crashing their BMWs while driving drunk or stoned.

Comment Penalty for obvious false claims (Score 4, Insightful) 97

There should be a penalty for companies making claims that are obviously false. Doesn't have to be huge, maybe $100 to the up-loader and another $100 to the web site owner. That would be enough to stop the claim spam but not so much that it deters real claims. The weak point is that "obvious" would have to be determined by some arbiter, hopefully someone who isn't an idiot or in the pockets of big media and the trolls.

Comment Re:Amazing and dreadful, simultaneously (Score 2) 381

I wholeheartedly agree. As an S-Corp I negotiate a contract to perform a specific body of work. This does include attending and presenting at reviews so I don't get to work from home 100%, only ~98%. I do bill by the hour at a rate significantly higher than I pay myself, in fact I try to minimize my salary (more on that in a minute). This is to cover all the normal expenses for both employer and employee, such as maxing out my 401K, interesting that the employer can contribute more than the employee above a certain salary range. Also, anything I don't pay out in taxes or salary I keep as a profit distribution (or there are a couple other ways to do it) that I get at the end of the year. Sure I pay income tax on it, but not payroll tax which is a significant chunk if doing both employee and employer sides.

Of course none of this matters if you don't have skills that are in demand relative to availability, or don't have the luxury of passing on the first offer that comes by. Or just don't know how to negotiate. Don't take that as being dismissive, negotiation can be a difficult skill to obtain for those that are used to being straight employees. But even there it can help during the hiring process or annual reviews. So if you don't feel confident with it, go find a class to take. Seriously, that isn't snark.

Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later. -- F. Brooks, "The Mythical Man-Month"