Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Where should I apply? (Score 2) 75

by MightyYar (#48187325) Attached to: Developers, IT Still Racking Up (Mostly) High Salaries

Depending on where you are employed, government jobs also give you a pension that would be worth around $1 million if you had to buy it as an annuity.

I assumed a retirement age of 55 after working for 30 years to get your full pension. I assumed your salary would not increase over time and that the annuity would track cost-of-living. I assumed half-salary upon retirement, for life, with a spousal benefit upon your death. These assumptions are very conservative and probably seriously understate the real value of the pension, especially if it includes a health benefit.

Comment: Re:Ho-lee-crap (Score 1) 201

by MightyYar (#48187127) Attached to: The Largest Ship In the World Is Being Built In Korea

Wow, cool site. Check out the column from 1939, which is the year Germany invaded Poland, to 1945 when the war ended:
Battleships: 15 to 23 (not amazing, but still impressive given their utility to expense ratio)
Carriers: 5 to 99
Cruisers: 36 to 72
Destroyers: 127 to 377
Frigates: 0 to 361
Subs: 58 to 232

And that is while taking losses the whole time!

Comment: Re:Ho-lee-crap (Score 5, Interesting) 201

by MightyYar (#48186325) Attached to: The Largest Ship In the World Is Being Built In Korea

This is exactly right, and is why the US continues to build new nuclear subs at the slowest... possible... rate...

If you are a business, you want your capital returned as soon as possible. If you are a peacetime military, you just want to retain capability in the cheapest possible way. Totally different goals. During WW2, you saw the goals of industry and the military align, and it was kind of breathtaking.

Comment: Re:Or gamblers are masochists. (Score 1) 52

by ShanghaiBill (#48181657) Attached to: Brain Patterns Give Clues To Why Some People Just Keep Gambling

You only remember the good times when you won, and you erase the bad times when you lost.

Casinos make every effort to enhance this delusion. When you win, the lights flash and the bells ring. When you lose, you lose in silence. In a large casino, you can hear the sounds of someone winning almost constantly.

Comment: Re:In theory (Score 1) 118

Bullshit. Self taught programmers have huge holes in their knowledge that they don't even know they have.

That depends on how good they were at self-teaching. If you just dive in and start coding, there will be plenty of holes because you don't learn the theory behind the code. But if, in addition to the coding, you also read a few CS textbooks from cover to cover, you will be fine.

My experience is that many self-taught programmers lack understanding of theoretical things like finite automata, data normalization, complexity theory, program correctness, data structure design, etc. But it is much easier to teach that stuff to a bright kid, than it is to get productive programming out of someone that went to college for four years without learning it.

Comment: Re: I don't follow (Score 3, Informative) 346

by ShanghaiBill (#48181169) Attached to: Apple Doesn't Design For Yesterday

artist types who couldn't construct a proper double-blind study to save their souls.

Some studies have been done. However, I found none that even considered Helvetica as one of the options. So far I have seen no data to support the assertion that Helvetica is "most readable" or "most legible".

A Comparison of Popular Online Fonts
What Size and Type of Font Should I Use on My Website?
Another Comparison of Popular Online Fonts

Comment: Re:Article or link (Score 1) 108

by benjymouse (#48179843) Attached to: BBC Takes a Stand For the Public's Right To Remember Redacted Links

The whole article is de-indexed. That is the only way it can work

What? Google already uses a huge directory of "stop words" - words or phrases that should not be indexed. What is required is that they can create such stop words per link (article). Maybe they are not done with that yet, but it could certainly work that way.

The goal is not to suppress articles, the goal is to protect individuals right to privacy. Google does not control the article, and they should not remove all links (associations) to articles. But they can and should respect individuals right to privacy. So when an association is outdated, irrelevant or misleading they should - upon request - remove the association - not the article, not all the other links to the article.

And yes - that includes the right to delete associations between your name and a possible crime you committed 30 years ago. Most modern judicial systems (US the notable exception) recognize that when you've done your time you have "paid" your debt to society - and should have a chance to start over. If youthful stupidities will follow you your entire live you will *never* get a chance to prove that you have corrected yourself.

And this is NOT just for criminals. Controversies, your participation in demonstrations, debates, political parties, deliberate smear campaigns etc. all have the potential to seriously inhibit your chances with future employers.

Comment: Article or link (Score 1, Informative) 108

by benjymouse (#48179541) Attached to: BBC Takes a Stand For the Public's Right To Remember Redacted Links

Was the article removed in its entirety, or was the *association* between the name and the article removed.

Of course Google should not remove the entire article. That was never what the law said. If they did so, it was just another blatant attempt at manipulating opinions of journalists in the hope that journalists reporting will start sway public opinion.

If it was just the *link* between a commentator name and the article that was removed, i.e. you would still find the article through googling words from the content of the article, then what is BBSs problem?

Google is blatantly trying to manipulate public opinion through journalists. They are deliberately misinterpreting the law to create an impression of draconian consequences.

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.