Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Decent (Score 1) 467

by ezakimak (#49488543) Attached to: Seattle CEO Cuts $1 Million Salary To $70K, Raises Employee Salaries

Anyone can *easily* afford to live off of $70k a year, very comfortably, if their home and car are bought and paid for. All that remains is utilities, property tax, food and gas--which shouldn't amount to a great deal.
Most people spend upwards or even above 50% of their take home pay on just their mortgage, and another 10-30% on their car payment(s). So without those $70k/year is likely equivalent to $150k/year or more.
Where he's been taking $1million/year previously, he's got no excuse for not having his home and cars all paid for, and likely no other debts either. Now that his basic needs are met (and probably quite nicely), spreading the wealth seems like a very commendable thing to do.

Comment: Re:Not a linguist, but... (Score 1) 624

Dunno what's wrong with the link.
The relevant part is:

...I often use the apparently plural pronouns "they," "them," and "their" after singular antecedents--such as, "You must approach someone for a job and tell them what you can do." This sounds strange and even wrong to those who know English well. To be sure, we all know there is another pronoun--"you"--that may be either singular or plural, but few of us realize that the pronouns "they," "them," and "their" were also once treated as both plural and singular in the English language. This changed, at a time in English history when agreement in number became more important than agreement as to sexual gender. Today, however, our priorities have shifted once again. Now, the distinguishing of sexual gender is considered by many to be more important than agreement in number.
        The common artifices used for this new priority, such as "s/he," or "he and she," are--to my mind--tortured and inelegant. Casey Miller and Kate Swift, in their classic, "The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing," agree, and argue that it is time to bring back the earlier usage of "they," "them," and "their" as both singular and plural--just as "you" is/are. They further argue that this return to the earlier historical usage has already become quite common out on the street--witness a typical sign by the ocean that reads, "Anyone using this beach after 5 p.m. does so at their own risk....

Comment: Re:Not a linguist, but... (Score 1) 624

In the preface to the book "What Color is Your Parachute" (2003,2009 editions) the author addresses this, cites some other grammar analysis authors, which also agree. He points out that this is again common usage in the current vernacular (just as it has been in previous periods in history).
View the page here: https://books.google.com/books...

Comment: Re:Oh this is easy .... (Score 1) 394

by ezakimak (#49393645) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Living Without Social Media In 2015?

Low 6's here, and only because I waited 2 years before actually signing up--otherwise I'd be what, only 4 digits?

I have many friends that have deleted their FB profiles for various reasons. They are still social, active participants in the *real world*, which is what matters.

Seems that depending on your personality type, the relation between your FB activity and in-real-life activity is either directly proportional (you're already a social creature), or inversely proportional (and with a high coefficient)--because even if you're introverted you still seek social interaction--just preferrably via distance communication.

Regardless, attempting to infer any meaningful information from someone's online activity or lack thereof seems a stretch (unless they explicitly blog all of their activities and opinions--and assuming they are *truthful* about all of it).

Comment: Re:What about abandoned devices? (Score 1) 100

by ezakimak (#49042617) Attached to: Starting This Week, Wireless Carriers Must Unlock Your Phone

I already have a Nexus 5--I'm not looking for a new phone--just want to make my old Photon 4G useful again. Recycle value last I checked was a whopping $17 because of this. It's got 2 1GHz cores and 8GB memory--it's still decent hardware. Shame to be deprecated so early.

Comment: What about abandoned devices? (Score 1) 100

by ezakimak (#49042015) Attached to: Starting This Week, Wireless Carriers Must Unlock Your Phone

I have a Motorola Photon 4G (pre LTE) that was infamously scheduled to receive ICS but then Motorola backpedaled and abandoned it, *right after* the last OTA shipped that locked the bootloader--so essentially it's stuck at gingerbread while fully capable of running kitkat or lollipop (with a much better experience).

It's not activated on my account to make calls anymore, but Sprint's system still sees it.

It's a world phone with both cdma and a sim card for gsm--would be a great travel phone if I could unlock it.

Comment: Re:Hawking has no clue about AI research (Score 1) 574

by ezakimak (#48510091) Attached to: Hawking Warns Strong AI Could Threaten Humanity

And it's not 100% possible. There's a non-0% chance that humanity* was created by a "god" external to the universe and the stuff that makes for intelligence can't be replicated with what we have in this universe. I admit that seems a rather large stretch and extremely unlikely, but the majority of humanity seems to believe in God, gods, spirits, and the like, clearly they don't think there is a proven 0% of such things.

* and other living beings if you want.

That is a very good point I hadn't considered. There could be a directional connection from a "higher" order of existence to ours that is responsible for intelligence. In that light, then yes, the odds may in fact be 0. Including this possiblity simply means that we cannot actually calculate a singular odds at all--it's two-fold now: either >0 or 0--a dependent outcome which is really unknowable.

Nothing happens.

Working...