Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:Not all H1B positions are equal (Score 1) 331

Plenty of other people manage to live and work in San Francisco at the same pay scales. They live there because they want to live there, that's why living costs are high. Sure, if they want to move to Kansas they can find cheaper living, but that doesn't seem to be what people are doing. The problem here is that there aren't enough workers, because companies have to poach workers from other companies to fill their vacancies. It's a good situation for developers because they can demand inflated salaries, but it's not sustainable and companies will fight it one way or another.

Comment Re:Just Moral Panic: They're taking our jobs!!! (Score 1) 331

Well, first of all they don't. I think it should be abundantly obvious that the laws of economics have little to nothing to do with compensation of CEOs and star athletes or celebrities. Second, a CEO can be paid a large salary (which isn't always the case, btw, they usually get other forms of compensation) because he is one person, rightly or wrongly. You can't pay 10,000 people the salary of a CEO. Even the majority of board members don't even come close.

Comment Re:Not all H1B positions are equal (Score 1) 331

How much of a salary premium is the question. Software developers at their current average pay, are comparable to other highly trained professionals (enginnering, lawyers, doctors, researchers, etc). How much more do you think they need to make? How much do you think is sustainable for a company to pay? Remember that you aren't talking about one or two individuals, but in some cases upwards of 2/3 of the entire workforce at a company.

Comment Re:Just Moral Panic: They're taking our jobs!!! (Score 1) 331

If bumping salaries by 20-25% was all it took, they would probably do it. But for companies like Google, it is not a small subset of salaries, it is the majority of their workforce.

Companies don't deserve to exist, but if they don't exist there is nobody to employ you or make products for you to buy. Not every company is a Google-size monolith. There are quite a few that barely stay in the black each quarter. I'm not saying companies should be given a free reign to do whatever they want, just that discussions like this on \. are very one-sided. There are multiple viewpoints to consider and consequences to every course of action that must be weighed for pros and cons.

Comment Re:Not all H1B positions are equal (Score 1) 331

Right. The complaint by companies and hiring managers is that, even by paying 3x the average annual wage, they aren't able to find qualified people. So instead of A) trying to pay 5x the average annual wage which would not likely be sustainable for the company, or B) not hire anybody and not be able to grow the company or stay competitive in the market, they are opting for C) hiring H1-B workers (which the law requires to be paid at least the prevailing wage). It seems like a pretty clear situation to me. The job market for software developers is excellent, because IT demand is continuing to grow tremendously, and it isn't likely to change any time soon, but that doesn't mean there are infinite resources available to allocate to paying for IT salaries.

Comment Re:Just Moral Panic: They're taking our jobs!!! (Score 1) 331

Uh, huh. Why yes, clearly instead of paying someone a paltry $100,000/yr they should raise the pay to $500,000/yr. I mean companies are rich, right? They can afford to pay their entire workforce salaries that fall in the top 1% income bracket nationally. For Google, this would only be about $26 billion dollars. No sweat.

Comment Re:Not all H1B positions are equal (Score 1) 331

The H1-B program is not for local worker shortages "No good candidates in Silicon Valley", it's for NATIONAL shortages as in "No qualified workers in the United States".

I love this completely one-sided viewpoint so prevalent on \. First of all, a shortage doesn't mean none, it means fewer than able to meet demand. Second,

Then by definition you were not paying competitive rates.

In May 2012, the median annual wage for all workers was $34,750, and the median salary for a software developer was $93,350 per year! That's from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I know it's popular on \. to not care about the ability of a company to start, grow, or even sustain itself...but when you have to pay 3x the average salary for labor, and unemployment rates are less than the national average, and companies are faced with either hiring incompetent workers or increasing their offer to 4x or 5x the national average (still not guaranteeing that they will be able to hire someone qualified), there is a shortage, and that is what the H1-B program is intended to address.

Comment Re:Open Source Personal Analysis Tool (Score 1) 96

Macrogen up in Korea has the highest certifications available - better than CLIA in terms of raw data quality - guaranteed to be as good as if Illumina did the sequencing for you itself. And they offer 30X whole genome for $1,000 (an extra $100 to extract the DNA from saliva). They also offer combined whole genome and 100X exome for $1,500.

Right, sure, go ahead and send your sequencing to Korea. What is the cost to have it done by MacrogenUSA, the subsidiary that can actually do FDA-approved work? $1000 doesn't even cover the cost of the materials, so who knows what they are pulling to advertise that.

But 23andMe was pure speech - there weren't offering anything physical - only information.

The issue is, what do people do with that information? If they run out and start seeking a bunch of new age remedies for perceived ailments because they don't understand enough about genetics to know what they are looking at, then it can be a real public health problem. Just look at vaccines. Jenny McCarthy wasn't even selling information, she was just giving it away for free, and it panicked enough people that they made some really dangerous decisions affecting their children and other people around them.

There is no tangible difference between "doing something physical" and "doing something on the internet." A genetic counselor doesn't do anything physical. They just talk to you. But they still have to be licensed to operate in their official capacity.

Comment Re:Open Source Personal Analysis Tool (Score 1) 96

And getting back on topic, 23andMe was focused on just that problem: putting together a website that could help ordinary people understand their genomes. And the FDA shut them down

The FDA requires analytical verification ( does the test or service accurately and reproducibly provide the data that you are saying within acceptable margins of error? ) and clinical validation ( can the results of the test or service be reliably associated with specific health outcomes, after accounting for statistical significance and effect sizes? ) for medical devices and services sold in the USA. 23andMe has to go through this process as does every medical services company. This is not a conspiracy. The interpretation of medical data is not completely straightforward and requires a fair amount of expertise. Drug companies and device manufacturers like to whine about the FDA because they want the freedom to sell their snake oil to the public, but if you want medical decisions based on the careful consideration of the available science and not emotional manipulation, what the FDA does is essential.

The problem is that it takes quite a bit of expertise to use all of these tools. It's a lot like Linux in the early days before easy to install Linux "Distributions"

No, it is not like that at all. If it were a simple matter of an easy to execute set of programs, those tools would have been written a long time ago. There are, in fact, plenty of easy to use tools out there already. The challenging part is the nuance and interpretation of the data: understanding the error rates and data biases, knowing how to look for things like structural variation, understanding different types of mutation and how they may affect downstream processes, knowing how to verify your data and determine whether the result is trustworthy. With genetic data there is the additional aspect of inheritance. Probability is inherent to the interpretation of most of analyses; a straightforward yes or no is much less common. It takes many years of study and experience to get to this level. Some analyses are straightforward enough to be automated, but not all of them. Which is why we aren't going to get rid of doctors any time soon.

Comment Re:Open Source Personal Analysis Tool (Score 1) 96

The 'raw' data they supply isn't really raw at all, but a processed list of several hundred thousand variant calls:

No, but it is cheap, which is not to be underestimated. If we want affordable healthcare, we have to care about cost and not just the new shiny. The other thing is, focusing on select variants allows them to do a targeted analysis. In a world plagued by systems biology, people like to think a "global picture" is always better, but having some idea what you are looking for before you start collecting data makes your statistical analysis, you know...meaningful.

Comment Re:Open Source Personal Analysis Tool (Score 1) 96

At this point, SNP genotyping is pretty much obsolete for health-related uses because you can now get a full genome sequence for about $1,000 from just a few drop of saliva

No way. Two lanes of HiSeq (the most economical method) will net you about 10X coverage (assuming uniform coverage, which you won't get) for about $3000 at academic prices. For SNP calling, 20-30X is usually considered the minimum, with 50-60X being preferred. And then there is still the cost of DNA isolation, library prep, QC to factor in. The $1000 (human) genome is still quite a ways away.

SNP genotyping can still be useful for detecting losses or duplications of large parts of a chromosome ("structural" variations)

Maybe you are just being lazy with your terminology, but SNP genotyping, by definition, does not look for structural variations. SNP == single nucleotide polymorphism. There are separate arrays to look for these variations, but they are not SNP arrays. That said, while whole genome data might be better suited for this type of analysis, it is far from trivial. Usually targeted amplification of specific loci is used, not whole genome data. There is a tendency to believe that more data is always better, but genome data is not easy to understand. If you ever thought pharmaceutical research was sloppy due to poor statistical analyses and over interpretation of results, multiply this by 1000 for genome studies.


But the head of the FDA at the time was a medical doctor herself - so she was sympathetic to that view point even if it was not supported by the science.

I partially agree, but there is quite a bit of disagreement in the field about how significant these associations are and how meaningful they are with respect to medicine. It is easy to scare people and then use that to sell medications or treatments that may or may not work, so going through experts that have studied extensively and remain up-to-date in the field is good, in my opinion. Lots of people try to self-diagnose from websites already. I don't think that is leading to better healthcare outcomes. If you are worried about people who just want to make some quick cash, I would worry more about all of the companies selling tests and devices than I would about the doctors themselves.

Comment Re:If I were the DOE I'd do it to. (Score 4, Insightful) 120

Hanford was the site of the first nuclear reactor of its design, used to produce plutonium during WWII. The site was subsequently expanded to produce more plutonium, and some energy, through the Cold War. It is so messed up because of a lot of crap that went on during that time period: not knowing anything about industrial nuclear reactors, not having any kind of waste storage or processing plan, lots of scale-up, Cold War secrecy, etc. So, yeah, Hanford is a mess, but I think it is wrong to inhibit any kind of progress due to problems that were mostly documented more than 40 years ago. No waste was shipped to Hanford. The current DOE is very aware of the problems at Hanford and is actively trying to clean it up, but it takes a lot of time...and you need somewhere to store the waste. Without a waste storage facility, there is no way to clean up Hanford, and the barrels are going to keep leaking because most of them are more than 50 years old (never intended to be long-term waste storage).

Comment Re:application of "whole proteome tiling microarra (Score 1) 111

It is not a Nature or Science paper because it is just a standard target enrichment library. They've been doing this for a long time to profile things like cancer markers, disease panels, etc. These guys just made a library to target viruses. That's all. It can do both RNA and DNA because they do a reverse transcriptase reaction first (required anyway to sequence RNA), and then pull down the resulting cDNA along with DNA and sequence it. Kind of cool, but not really groundbreaking.

Comment Re:Come On Enough Strawmen (Score 1) 232

Those desiring the change are the ones that need to explain why the change is needed/desirable in the first place.

They have, many times and in different places. If you didn't know that, maybe you should do some research.

I said that the arguments typically presented were weak and unreasonable.

So you do know that arguments and rationale have been made. Ok, how about a substantive counterargument then. Preferably one that actually addresses the arguments given and doesn't just dismiss them as "weak and unreasonable."

The ridiculously common command line that you wrote above fails on many/most distros that have chosen systemd as a default. These systems have no syslog at all.

Every distro that I know of (Red Hat, CentOS, Debian, Ubuntu, Arch) currently installs syslog alongside journald. If you don't have syslog installed, install it, and take it up with your distro for not including it. What your distro decides and decides not to bundle is not the fault of systemd.

Installing syslog on such a system doesn't log systems messages unless you reroute all of them away form systemd/journalctl.

Newsflash: you cannot have two logging daemons listening on the same socket and receiving the same system calls. If you want two logging daemons, one will need to forward that information to the other. JournalD does this, syslog does not, hence the current arrangement where journald forwards logging information to syslog.

But, do carry on insinuating that my log usage or viewing habits are inferior or inadequate because they use the preferred methods of the last 20+ years, rather than your preferred and totally new method. While we're at it, how about the fact that the log file itself is now formatted differently and is binary encoded rather than text. No, that doesn't break anything, 'except old people stuff'.

Wow, defensive much? Whether or not they are inferior or inadequate depends on what you are doing. They are for some people, and journalctl is the solution. If you don't want to use it, that's your choice. Do continue using your method of 20+ years, but you will be missing out on the advantages that journald provides.

As for dependencies, log dependencies are broken, despite your childish refrain of veiled insults. Startup scripts are broken. and the list of broken projects/packages/scripts goes on and on.

If there is a new init system, then old init scripts will be have to rewritten to use it. There is a compatibility method to ease the migration, but a migration will still be necessary eventually. I'm not sure why this is so shocking to you. Your argument basically boils down to "systemd is bad because it isn't sysvinit." If you don't see why that is a ridiculous argument, I don't know what else to say.

These facts aside, you're still arguing with insults.

I am not doing that at all. I am explaining to you how systemd works. You are the one taking it as an insult.

You're not presenting arguments that demonstrate any actual value of the new system/way.

Why do I need to present the arguments in favor of systemd, again, when they have already been made repeatedly elsewhere? At any rate, systemd advocacy is not the purpose of my reply. I am just explaining to you how it works and dispelling the myths that you are perpetuating.

All you've said, like I claimed in the GP, is that my 'unwillingness to accept the new way is because I'm inadequate in my use of Linux and that real users like yourself need all this old shit gone because it's old'.

Nowhere did I say anything like that.

I still say that this is not a valid or logical reason.

It's a good thing that is not one of the reasons then. There is a pretty good summary here (since you insist),

Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb