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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment News for nerds? (Score 1) 123

"control flow — the order in which lines of code are executed"

Well, thanks for explaining control flow to us. Who knows, maybe there is someone here who cares about programming languages and reads news about iOS devs, and yet somehow has no clue about control flow.

Actually that would probably be a prolog programmer, come to think of it. But even then...

Comment Re:They can't afford it - REALLY! (Score 1) 412

Did you miss the second paragraph? If you take back 80-90% of the basic income, you leave FAR TOO LITTLE to live on. And uhh, why give it at all if you are planning on taking it back anyway?

I give you numbers, and they show your plan cannot work. You wave your hands and think some kind of miracle will surely occur because it would be so nice if it did. Good luck out there in the real world - you'll need it...

Comment Re:They can't afford it - REALLY! (Score 1) 412

So the income tax rate goes to 80-90%, meaning we all hand in pretty much all of our earnings to the government, and we then get back "basic income" which is the same for everybody. Welcome in the great communist utopia, where an evil capitalist is allowed to keep 10-20% of his earnings - where you can work 60 hours per week, and receive almost nothing for your efforts. Where your standard of living is always the same, whether you work your ass off or just sit around smoking weed all day. It will be a wonder to behold this society, and its steep decline to levels of poverty more commonly associated with the poorest shitholes of the world.

And would this fantastic scheme of yours actually help those on benefits? Let's say you get 1500/month from the government to live on as basic income (this would be for housing, 900-1200 or so, health insurance (say 120), and everything else you need to live). But you have to pay back 80-90% in taxes, so that's 1200-1350. That leaves you only 150-300 euro/month to pay for housing, 900-1200 or so, health insurance (say 120), and everything else you need to live. What's your plan for that: free cardboard boxes for everyone, and healthcare only for the rich?

Please explain how your great communist utopia would work. And while you're at it, please have a look at how many people died in the other attempts at great communist utopias, and where those countries are today...

Comment Re:They can't afford it - REALLY! (Score 1) 412

I can only imagine you are either unable to do simple, basic sums, or unable to do web searches. How else could you get into this madness?

Take the number of people in your country (17 million, for me). Multiply by the amount of money they should receive per year (opinions vary, but something like 18,000 euro or so). That gives you about 300 billion euro.

Now for the web search. The total of all government expenditures for my country is 270 billion or so. That includes roads, education, healthcare, the army - you know, stuff that isn't social benefits.Social benefits only adds up to about 80 billion.

Notice how 80 billion is much, much less than 300 billion? Notice also how 270 billion is in fact less than 300 billion?

So if you notice these things, how could you possibly spout drivel like "The trick is that taxation is modified so that people like me - with a decent salary - will end up the same as now after taxation."? Have you never actually looked at these numbers? Do you believe the entire economy will grow by another 220 billion dollars if you pay people to stop working? Please explain how that will work...

Or, alternatively... Let's say we just spend that 80 billion on basic income. That comes down to about 400 euro per person per month. Good luck living on that, in a country where even a 6m2 student room costs more than that. Also, be prepared for violent revolution as all those people who were on benefits previously suddenly get cut to unsustainable levels.

So tell me. HOW WOULD THIS WORK?

Comment Re:They can't afford it (Score 1) 412

But it _is_ free money! By definition it is equal money for _EVERYONE_, not just people who right now happen to be receiving some other kinds of benefits. You cannot define it like that anyway: what's to stop people who have a normal, sufficient job for also asking for basic income? And if you have two groups, one that is eligible and one that isn't, how can you say there is any benefit with less bureaucracy?

As I see it, if everyone is eligible for basic income, there must be at least _some_ mechanism to make asking for it undesirable. One thing I can think of is to not allow those who receive basic income to vote, but maybe there are better options.

Another major problem I see with basic income is that it will not stop the government from meddling with special subsidies for specific groups. So the current system where an unemployed, unemployable mother of four may be making more money after taxes than I do in a good IT job, and I wish that were hyperbole, will remain in place and will continue to add administrative overhead and loss of income when taking a job.

So in the end it won't work. The government likes its little clientele games too much, none of the promised advantages will ever materialize, costs will skyrockets, and productivity drop like a brick. If that's what the goal is, to "free" us all from the evil capitalists, then great. But don't pretend you're trying to do anyone a favor, because you aren't.

Comment Re:GOTO still considered harmful (Score 1) 85

I hope you do understand that the fact that you _could_ do it right is not an excuse? The goto makes it easy to get an indigestible spagetti mass of code that defies code analysis and leads to this sort of bug being introduced... The problem with the goto is not that it introduces a four-letter word, but that it makes it easy to make precisely this type of mistake.

Comment GOTO still considered harmful (Score 1, Insightful) 85

According to a comment on Phoronix ( http://www.phoronix.com/forums... ), the cause is a goto:

"And the funny thing is? The guilty line is a fucking GOTO. Everyone using this atrocious coding practice should be shot in the head." ("magika")

User "stevenc" adds: "It's a pretty common pattern of trying to emulate Objected Oriented Programming in C. Try to construct one or more 'objects', otherwise fall back to one or more 'destructors' at end of the function. They'd even implemented their own reference counters within the struct (object) and had function pointers (methods); both of which allowed this to be an exploitable bug. In OO languages these are implemented in the language/interpreter/compiler and usually done right. "

Now please contrast the desire to have C++ features without using C++ with this post: http://article.gmane.org/gmane...

At least one "substandard" programmer has a lot of egg on his face right now...

Comment There's no "groundswell" (Score 2, Insightful) 319

The thing may really be a problem, that I don't know. But I _can_ tell you that this whole affair has the stink of public manipulation heavily upon it. For months, we have been hearing about every little problem in that reactor ("the copying machine in the reactor ran out of paper. There was no risk of radioactive contamination."). Which would invariably be followed by "The paper in the copying machine in the reactor has been refilled. Experts say the risk of radioactive contamination is minimal." There have been 3-4 articles a week about things happening in that reactor, and most of them, at least to my non-expert eye, looked really rather like business as usual, while at the same time containing all the keywords that would set of alarm bells in everyone reading it.

As I said, I have no idea if there's anything wrong in that reactor, but public opinion is clearly being massaged. We are supposed to be afraid. It is not normal for every tiny problem to be made into a series of news articles, and I'm wondering what is really behind this story.

Comment NO! Are you MAD!? (Score 2) 151

Cathegorically, *no*. X11 forbids the application from having any say over where its windows appear. At best it can give a hint. The Window manager is totally free to ignore this hint.

I know this, because I was tasked with implementing an application on Linux once that had a user requirement that the windows should come up where the user last left them. I couldn't figure out which arcane combination of window hints and X11 calls made a window appear at those coordinates, so I asked on the internet - and had a ton of drek deposited on me for not respecting the One Unix Way, the True Unix Philosophy, and My Users' Right To Choice. Of course they had made their choice, and they wanted the windows to appear where they last left them, which the window manager did not do, but that was hardly important.

So there's your answer, as provided by the veritable gods of UNIX. It is not the application's responsibility, it is entirely up to the window manager.

Comment Re:No, we very much should not (Score 1) 386

I never even mentioned saudia arabia or the middle east. I do rather clearly write "Changing to solar power in the sahara would _once again_ place us at the mercy of that same ideology". Are you saying the Sahara is not dominated by islam?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., looking up the percentage of muslims on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...:

        Eritrea the small portion below Sudan: 36.5%
        Egypt: 94.7%
        Sudan: 71.4%
        Chad: 55.7%
        Niger: 98.3%
        Mali: 92.4%
        Mauritania: 99.2%
        Morocco(Western Sahara): 99.6%
        Algeria: 98.2%
        Libya: 96.6%
        Tunisia: 99.8%

That looks pretty islamic to me. Maybe you are trying to say that islam is not an arab ideology? I don't know, you seem rather confused in your reading skills and general comprehension.

"Strictly speaking: Arabs are the predominant ethnic group in Arabia, and emigrated from there all over the muslim world"

Are you daft? There was no "muslim world" before the arabs came with their conquering armies, and replaced the cultures that were already there with their own!

Comment Re:we all get what most of us deserve (Score 3, Insightful) 406

And yet, none of that is as bad as video. Simple text, something you could read in five or ten seconds yourself, now has to be packed into a video that takes five minutes to play. That's not advertising you can simply blacklist. It's the content you want, packed in a format that's almost useless for quick viewing or for viewing on a slow connection.

There's another camel sticking his nose into the tent. Don't let it enter. Say no to videos of people just reading text.

Comment No, we very much should not (Score 1) 386

We are currently living at the mercy of arab nations and their ideology of hate. Changing to solar power in the sahara would _once again_ place us at the mercy of that same ideology. Let's build thorium plants instead, and finally develop fusion to production level.

We spend what, a billion per year on fusion now? And 50 billion or something on agriculture (including such "vital" substances as wine, tobacco, etc.)? Let's turn that around for a few years, see how quickly fusion will become a reality...

Also, I'm not sure that "repurposing" is a word you should be using for what is, in the end, a unique ecosystem... We have already "repurposed" enough of the planet.

Comment It's not basic income (Score 1) 474

"Basic income" is understood as paying _everyone_ the same amount each month. This scheme is only for a small, select group of claimants (and indeed, I read the article). I have a bunch of questions about it:

1. How will participants be selected? The article gives the impression that people will be selected based on how "difficult" they are; it mentions people that walk out of jobs. Wouldn't this scheme act as a reward for anti-social behaviour?
2. One of the tenets of basic income is that it's cheaper because no other subsidies are required. Will that be the case, or will other subsidies remain in place? Note that such subsidies are largely derived from national law and cannot be rescinded by the city.
3. Will participants pay income tax (38%, in that bracket), or are they cut free from the system entirely?
4. Doesn't this amount to society writing these people off? "Here's some money, please don't bother us again"?
5. What's to stop this system from ballooning to completely unmanageable proportions, as more and more people flow in but nobody ever leaves?

Slashdot Top Deals

Power corrupts. And atomic power corrupts atomically.

Working...