Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Try using REAL DATA (Score 1) 242

Try THIS CHART [] from the St Louis Fed which shows that the NET gain in jobs for all of the Obama years is only about 1 million

THAT CHART says that when Obama took office in January 2009, total native-born employment was 119,061,000 people, and that in August of this year, it was 124,314,000--a difference of 5,253,000. That's over five times more as the one million you state.

and THIS CHART [] which shows NET gain in jobs for foreign-born workers over the same span of the Obama years as nearly 2 million.

THAT CHART says that when Obama took office in January 2009, total foreign-born employment was 21,375,000, and that in August of this year, it was 24,914,000--a difference of 3,539,000. That's about 1.5 times more as the 2 million you state.

So, to summarize; you cite two charts from the (very reputable) St.Louis Fed and claimed that the US has created twice as many jobs for foreign-born people than for native-born people during the Obama years. The charts actually say that during that time span, there were about 1.5 times more jobs created for native-born Americans.

On balance, your conclusion was that there were 2 times as many jobs created for foreign-born workers than for native-born workers. When properly read, the charts show that there were about 1.5 times as many jobs created for native-born workers than for foreign-born workers. You basically got the answer completely backwards.

All the political candidates (on BOTH SIDES) and their paid hacks, activist mouthpieces, and corporate and/or union shills play with numbers to mislead people in various ways...hoping the reader will misunderstand the data and mentally add them all up.

Seeing as you have grossly misrepresented your two source graphs, I can only assume that you're either engaging in your own personal political numbers-hackery, or that you don't know how to read a line chart.

Neither option makes you look particularly good.

Comment Re:It's...a staff pick. (Score 2) 50

Kickstarter is not one of countless organizations that do this, they may very well be the single LARGEST organization that does it, and we expect more from the big guys than the little guys.

Oh, unlike Vimeo ($40 mil annual revenue in 2013), Hulu (worth multiple billions of dollars), Powell's (market cap ~320 mil) or Redbox (tough to tell actual value of Redbox, but let's assume it's a few bucks north of nothing, shall we?), all hits that come right up on a quick Google search for "staff picks"?

And if you want to expand past the strict verbiage of "staff pick", there's the New York Times Editor's Choice list, Amazon's Editor's Picks, Google Play's Staff Picks, Apple's Featured Apps...

I mean, rail against staff picks on general principle, certainly. No problem whatsoever with that, even if I don't agree that it's a big problem. But don't pretend that this piece is is anything other than a hit piece/author's grudge against Kickstarter here.

Comment It's...a staff pick. (Score 5, Insightful) 50

When things are chosen by a "staff pick", the staff of a particular organization picks things they think look interesting. That's...the whole deal.

It's not a subjective process. It's also not a new process. Your local book, record and video stores, back when such things still existed, did this. Your local liquor store does this. This has concept has been around for ages.

The only thing that Kickstarter has to do with this entire concept is that they're one of countless organizations that do this.

Comment Re:Could someone ELI5 how Macbooks retain value? (Score 1) 435

On the Cube what was the problem other than being expensive? Obviously it inspired the design of the Mac mini.

In addition to being expensive, it had problems with overheating (recall it was a fanless design) and the acrylic case had a bad habit of developing cosmetic hairline cracks early on. These problems hit early and hard and got lots of press. They fixed the problem with the case, but the heat was still an issue; at any rate, it was too little, too late.

That said, they learned from these mistakes. The Cube was effectively an early predecessor of the (very successful) Mac Mini.

Comment Re:Could someone ELI5 how Macbooks retain value? (Score 1) 435

While HP appeared to continue dumping crappy products 7-8 years ago, it's competitor Lenovo has done a bang up job for a little more money.

7-8 years ago, yes. Apple released the Toilet Seat in 1999, and the Cube in 2000. That's another 15-16 years for those products alone, years before IBM sold their laptop business to Lenovo.

Back then, the design efforts of most other computer manufacturers focused on "how can we most efficiently construct and customize our machines?" You'll recall that Dell was doing some really clever stuff in terms of streamlining the manufacturing process, in particular; lots fewer screws, lots more quick-release tabs and easy-connect parts. This did wonders for manufacturing costs, and is what catapulted them ahead for a time--but they, like pretty much every other PC maker, were focusing on "how do we make what we already have cheaper/easier to build". They were chasing the margins. Eventually, the margins became too thin, and the big producers imploded in a hail of flimsy cases, cheap components and margins that you'd cut yourself on.

That's why I say that Apple had a big head-start. Today, lots of PC makers are making some pretty hefty investments in the same sorts of quality and novelty design areas that Apple has been doing for ages. They're still at a disadvantage, though, because it can take a long time and a lot of money to build up a solid in-house design group, and few companies share Apple's luxury of mountains of cash money lying about to do these sorts of blue-sky experiments with their production lines.

Comment Re:Could someone ELI5 how Macbooks retain value? (Score 4, Interesting) 435

There was a time I understood this during the PPC era of mac, but now that macs run on commodity, non specialized CISC based x86, I have no idea why they retain their value. A lot of PC makers are starting to make machines that look *almost* as nice as a MBP. My HP Envy Beats laptops have a nice aluminum case.

One reason is that they've poured a lot of effort into materials design, visual design, and industrial design, and have been doing so for years. We laugh at the Toilet Seat, the Cube, and various other goofy flops they've had in their history, but it demonstrates a) just how far back their design efforts go, and b) just how much they've learned since. A lot of other companies are getting into this now, but Apple has a pretty big head start, and they're not showing any signs of abandoning this practice any time soon.

Comment Re:LG G4 (Score 1) 208

Apple ... realized that the vast majority of people did not buy spare batteries for laptops ...

Bullshit. Gross gooey bullshit. Apple found it easier and more profitable for THEM to make the batteries non-replaceable. They relied on idiot fanbois to keep buying their shit anyway, and on regulators not to give a fuck about doing their job and keeping waste minimized by REQUIRING all batteries in all consumer goods to be replaceable.

Sure, because even though swappable batteries are bigger, heavier, more expensive to make, compromise the strength of the laptop's chassis, require more moving parts, need to use contacts, and still need to be bought from the manufacturer at a stupid high premium (or at Joe's U-Test-Em Fly-By-Night Battery Emporium dot com, if you're feeling brave,) by GOD they're user-swappable, and THAT, my friends--THAT is the thing that REALLY. MATTERS.


Comment Re:Add-ons (Score 5, Interesting) 208

It's interesting how, the same way we are going back to the old concept of mainframe with the cloud thing, we're also making our "mobile" phones wired again.

I mean, if you think of a smartphone as a souped-up cell phone, then yeah, you're gonna be charging a whole lot more. Alternatively, if you think of a smartphone as a stripped-down Internet-connected laptop you can carry in your pocket, then not so much.

A smartphone is only a phone these days in the sense that one (or honestly several) of umpteen different apps it has allows you to make telephone calls.

Cell phones were never meant to be computing devices. They were mobile telephones with some truly horrid additional functionality bolted on top (the most successful of which was texting, which was simply horrid experience on a numeric keypad, T9 or no.)

We're not re-wiring our mobile phones. We're stratifying our computing across devices, and relegating telephony--a formerly essential function that used to require a dedicated device--to the status of a supplemental application that we tend only to use on our more mobile computing devices, if at all.

"Conversion, fastidious Goddess, loves blood better than brick, and feasts most subtly on the human will." -- Virginia Woolf, "Mrs. Dalloway"