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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Wrong (Score 1) 1065

by aepervius (#49734001) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

"The U.S. government collected $80.9B in tax revenues and spent a total of $117B in its 1940 budget" So it was not 135 but 117, which is near enough but nowhere near the inflation adjusted number. I call BS on that because an inflation adjusted number for 135 would be around 10 billion 1940 dollar.

By the way the number is confirmed by government spend in % of GDP : it was 10% in 1940 a year which was *specially* suspiciously used, and it was between 16% and 22% ever since after WW2. The fact that in percentage GDP it stayed stable or had barely growth completely destroy the original argument.

Comment: Why was this modded insightful ? (Score 2) 1065

by aepervius (#49733465) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

You're right, let's get ahead of the game now and make the minimum wage in LA $1,000/hr. Better yet, do it at the Federal level

You see often cited as conservative/republican mouth point. But this is an utter stupid viewpoint - why it is modded as insightful is beyond me. Interesting maybe at most.

The reason why this is stupid is as follow : when you rise minimum wage you rise slightly the living of people but you also partially rise inflation. Rise too much and the inflation will eat most of it. So the economic of it is to rise only slightly and try to minimize inflation. Rise it to 1000$ or 100000000$ and you got hyper inflation and your $ is worth as much as zimbabwe dollar. That type of stupid argument (1000$ hourly wage) by the way is the same slippery slope argument republican make for gay mariage "but then after that they will want to marry horse or multiple people or children"

Comment: That is STUPID : inflation (Score 4, Informative) 1065

by aepervius (#49732977) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

the government collects 30 times as much in taxes in CONSTANT DOLLARS as they did in 1940

Bullshit the inflation from 1940 is already ~15 times. In fact looking at your next sentences:

Now, they ran a deficit in 1940 as well, but let's think about this for a minute. If $135 Billion in 1940 would have been enough to make ends meet, then how come with three times the population now, it takes $3.2 trillion?

Because 135 billion alone in 1940 is 2.2 trillion to 2.3 trillion of today in constant dollar. Any CPI calculator will confirm that baring a few % +/-. The delta of 900 million is from federal programs which did NOT exists in 1940. From environmental protection, drug enforcement, NASA, EPA, etc...etc...

Comment: I never pretended it would help for a long time (Score 1) 185

by aepervius (#49720989) Attached to: Navy's New Laser Weapon: Hype Or Reality?
I am jsut stating that it should help. A bit. In fact in a link above it is shown as a counter measure, as well as rotating the balistic projectile. Both combined would make it far far easier to avoid the laser burning thru... For a much cheaper price than such a lser system itself.

Comment: Is that even correct ? (Score 4, Interesting) 185

by aepervius (#49719383) Attached to: Navy's New Laser Weapon: Hype Or Reality?
If you have a reflectance of X% for the wavelength considered, that means 100-X% is absorbed. Granted I am not sure how the reflectance of materials is at short wavelength but the weapon considered are at long wavelength compared to visible (the weapon considered seems to be around 1 to 2 micrometer in the near infrared https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapon...). Source cite a reflectance of 94% to 98% for that wavelength for some type of mirror (silver mirror among others).

At such a 50kW Laser at 95% reflectance would mean 5% absorbance or only 2.5 kW. That means to give the same amount energy at the same distance for the same surface you need 20 time the same time. Or put in another way if you need to give 10.000 Joule to ablate that surface , you would need 4 seconds exposition rather than 1/4 of a seconds for a non reflective surface.

So where do I make an error ? Where do you see that the mirror would quickly lose the ability to reflect compared to exposure time ? Keep in mind that in the case of a balistic projectile, you only need to make sure the laser do not pierce the skin long enough that targeting would be hard. I do not see why you keep telling reflectance has no impact on such laser. It certainly has an impact on how much kW will the target absorb.

Comment: Nitpick they don't slightly tweak their brain (Score 1) 164

by aepervius (#49709329) Attached to: Wind Turbines With No Blades
The arugment OTOH could be "those with a brain allowing them to see glass pane, do get a survival and reproduction advantage, those who don't , have a higher chance of dying before reproduction thus the glass window generate a natural selection of birds". Also I am doubtful of that. I do not recall any study showing that bird start to see reflective surface as glass pane rather than continuation of their habitat. Would you have a cite ?

Comment: Not really (Score 2) 544

by aepervius (#49696659) Attached to: California Senate Approves School Vaccine Bill

"Problem is this is hard to prove, and I doubt anybody would do any further serious research into it. Why won't they?"
There is research in such a stuff, but mostly from public university and as with all orphan disease not very much. The reason that it is not done is because there are so many research point and at the end of the day you have got to limit yourself to what you can find a funding for. The fact that you found a pubmed article belies your claim that nobody would research it. The simple truth, is that sometimes some stuff will simply through bad luck not be researched.

Comment: We tried that method (Score 1) 507

by aepervius (#49691915) Attached to: Is Agile Development a Failing Concept?
"agile team lead themselves". We tried that. Gave outline. And the agile developer used that to explain them being much slower than estimated because the spec are not deep detailed enough. And then test were dropped in favor of coding. Yeah sure. Excuse are invented to be used. Too much micromanagement. not enough micromanagement. So yeah. You'll excuse me if I see I am skeptical.

Comment: Answer to troll because needed (Score 1) 844

by aepervius (#49684051) Attached to: Religious Affiliation Shrinking In the US
1) the quote was never disputed by the WH, the staff at the epoch or bush himself. In fact if you read what rob sherman reported afterward instead of deniying the WH tries to justify that what Bush said won't affect policy. They would not state that if it was a false quote.
2) it is typical of the christian conservative of the epoch to think something similar
3) it is a step up from the definition of atheist as "wicked , godless" the albeit archeic but previous definition.

Frankly it would have been easy to debunk this from the WH. But they always avoided to even take a stance or denie it. As for the point of the other journalist not hearing it, how many of them simply dismissed it as a campaign wink at his conservative base ? And simply did not see it as news ? Heck if you do not pay too much attention all you get is "we are christian nation blah blah one nation under gods - OK not reporting worth he is pandering". The atheist things could have been misheard by Sherman , but Bush and co never denied having said this. in fact IIRC later he said in 2004 something similar in the imius morning radio show about the elligibility of an atheist.

So suck it troll.

Comment: Email has to work that's it (Score 1) 461

by aepervius (#49683891) Attached to: Does Using an AOL Email Address Suggest You're a Tech Dinosaur?
After that whether it is aol, gmx, or gmail only matter to hipster. Email has to work. It has to support pop3 and imap and whatever. It does not have to be from a specific domain. Stating aol=dinosaur is being blind to the fact that this is only a domain after the @. It does not reflect anything on the user.

Don't hit the keys so hard, it hurts.