Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: No we are not them. Re:"They" is us (Score 4, Insightful) 289

First we need to distinguish Financial Wealth from Net worth. FW = NW - (owner occupied homes + jewelry + cars + collectible and other personal valuables). Second 800K is for the world. For USA as of 2013 the number is 5 million according to IRS and 8 million according to the Feds.

A wealth manager for very wealthy makes a distinction between top 1% and top 0.5% (8 million according to IRS and 15 million according to the Feds). The top 0.5% is reached only by people with inherited wealth, or very lucky people who get to top 5% by smartness and hardwork, and end up in 0.5% due to good fortune, or stock options. Professionals, doctors, lawyers, accountants are very unlikely to reach top 0.5%, and increasing not even likely to reach top 1%. He used to see very successful professionals retiring in top 1%. But no longer.

He calculates that a person starting at low end of 1% by income for that age group, and staying at the same band (99% dividing line by income) all his/her working life will NOT end up in top 1% by financial wealth. A persons starting in the low end of 1% by wealth, will stay there if he/she draws the same amount of money our 1% by income professional, and might go up in scale.

In USA money earned by blood, sweat, tears and brains (wages, earned income) is taxed at much higher rate than money earned by money (capital gains, carried interest, qualified dividends, etc). This is the root cause of the inequality. For 30 years, since Reagan, the US Govt has been coddling the super rich by funneling all tax relief to them. They turned their back to the USA, invested all the savings in low wage countries to maximize their profits.

Comment: Re:Is FORTRAN still winning? Was Re:Poor Alan Kay (Score 1) 186

by 140Mandak262Jamuna (#48897957) Attached to: Bjarne Stroustrup Awarded 2015 Dahl-Nygaard Prize
That is true. My original guess was the memory allocations alone could explain the speed difference. Someone pointed out the handicap to compiler optimizations due to aliasing. (I do not have formal education in comp sci, so I have only a fuzzy understanding of aliasing).

Comment: Re:Is FORTRAN still winning? Was Re:Poor Alan Kay (Score 2) 186

by 140Mandak262Jamuna (#48895571) Attached to: Bjarne Stroustrup Awarded 2015 Dahl-Nygaard Prize
Have you done any comparison with this keyword in C and Fortran? I play in the Finite Element Field. For me the flexibility afforded by C++ out weighs the performance I could get in Fortran. At least the solver people work on a mesh that is not altered, you could estimate the memory needs in one pass and then do the allocations, even for unstructured meshes. I make unstructured meshes, so I would not know a priori the number of tets incident on a node or number of triangles incident on an edge. I build these structures as I go along, and it is impossible to avoid new() and delete() in C. They are basically malloc() and free(). So have not touched FORTRAN for ages.

Among the solvers some of the matrix solvers use FORTRAN and some blas. Again they too prefer C++ for most of the solution and reserve FORTRAN only for really serious loops.

Comment: Is FORTRAN still winning? Was Re:Poor Alan Kay (Score 4, Interesting) 186

by 140Mandak262Jamuna (#48894587) Attached to: Bjarne Stroustrup Awarded 2015 Dahl-Nygaard Prize
Till about FORTRAN 77 it was clearly beating C in scientific computations. But that was mainly because Fortran used static memory allocations and C was littered will malloc and associated overheads. With Fortran99, dynamic memory allocations came to Fortran too. At this point I figured it must be just badly hampered C, all the pain and not much gain. Have not tried it personally.

But a question for those who have: Does it still win with dynamic memory allocation? How granular is the dynamic memory allocation? Complete like C? or it is a bastardized version where the common block sizes could be defined at run time and then it runs without ever calling free()? I could imagine the language getting malloc() but not free() to retain speed.

Comment: WhatsApp+ seems to be a skin for WhatsApp (Score 1) 190

by 140Mandak262Jamuna (#48893865) Attached to: WhatsApp vs. WhatsApp Plus Fight Gets Ugly For Users
It is not a totally unrelated product trying to use the popularity of WhatsApp. It is a skin on top of WhatsApp. I am not able to check how this works. It seems to be running the real WhatsApp in the background and work as a Man-in-the-middle between user input and WhatsApp app.

Technically it would be very difficult to stop an executable to run another executable in a sand box. Depending on how well you have understood the executable, you could do many things like step through debugging, poking and pushing memory etc. Debuggers work by "instrumenting" the executables, but they too act as man in the middle.

In this case Android executables are java which started out as an interpreted platform independent language. So it is a lot more "debuggable" than your typical linux or windows executable. So WhatsApp+ could theoretically sniff the memory locations and intercept communications, eavesdrop on the data and sell them to advertizers. One of the biggest thing about WhatsApp is, it does not eavesdrop, it does not sell ads. User are dumb to use this app.

WhatsApp itself should come out with a free version that would sniff the communications and sell ads and call it WhatsApp Minus. Or WhatsApp Minus Privacy.

Comment: Cheaper solutions exist. (Score 2) 85

A large box, anchored to the ground or fixed to the wall. It has a spring loaded button to lock, but requires a regular key to open.

Or a pet door or a cut-out door in the garage door. Works same way, can be locked without a key, but needs a key to open.

Far less complex, as reliable, and added bonus: The body you have hidden in the freezer in the garage would not be accidentally discovered by the deliveryman. (Note to self. Should cut down on watching Investigation Discovery shows.)

Comment: But they won't let you municipality to build it. (Score 5, Informative) 195

by 140Mandak262Jamuna (#48888787) Attached to: Verizon About To End Construction of Its Fiber Network
Not only they won't build it, they will not let you municipality build it either.

Long back Google had a April Fool posting about toilet net. That idea is fundamentally sound. The municipality can run fiber optic cables in storm water drains. It won't cost as much as it is costing Verizon to dig up and bury the cable. But you won't get it. They have the state law makers in their pockets.

Comment: Take this NADA (Score 2) 122

Since the buyers technically "make" their own cars, they would be treated more like the kit-car [*] and hobbyists of the past. The NADA had ignored that segment till now and there is lots of precedents for selling kits without going through the auto dealers.

[*] Sorry if you got Macgyver theme song running in your head.

Comment: So we book the revenue. 800 billion dollars! (Score 1) 237

by 140Mandak262Jamuna (#48881799) Attached to: Dish Network Violated Do-Not-Call 57 Million Times
Book it as revenue. Declare the budget balanced. Sell the stock when the news hits the markets. Sell the company and skip town. Wait... it is US Govt right? It has already been sold to the highest bidder, right! Dang it, I knew I would hit a snag somewhere.

Comment: This is ridiculous.... (Score 5, Insightful) 76

by 140Mandak262Jamuna (#48881085) Attached to: The Camera That Changed the Universe
I get the quantum mechanics principle, the mere act of observing changes the observed, that you can't measure the momentum or the position without affecting the other. But, just put a telescope in the orbit and it changed the universe? ... come on guys, there should be some limits even on hyperbole.

Comment: What is the solution? (Score 1) 322

The school is dumb. Bullies will simply have a "clean" facebook and twitter accounts to disclose to school officials, mothers and the pope, it will smell like roses. And they will have fake accounts to do the bullying. So whatever is the constitutionality of the procedure, it is not going to work

But teenagers are susceptible, emotional and are vulnerable to cyber bullying. What possible solutions are there? When there is a complaint of cyberbullying, for America based social networks like Twitter and Facebook, the schools may be able to go through court order and make them disclose the origin of these bullying postings and tweets. So if there is a law against cyberbullying they may be able to trace the IMEI number, cell phone number, IP addresses and other things for social media sites within American jurisdiction. That might give probably cause to make FB and Twitter disclose more info, like all tweets from that IMEI number etc. That may help them catch the bully.

But if the provider is out of the jurisdiction of the American Courts, there is no way to get this info. But teens being teens, the bullies would be careless, use their cell phones and use most popular american providers. But this will lead to the same selection process that created antibiotic resistant bacteria. The casual bullies will be out, but the real careful, malicious, thoughtful and methodical ones, the ones that are really dangerous will migrate to anonymous servers and difficult to trace providers, congregate there and do more damage.

Kill Ugly Processor Architectures - Karl Lehenbauer