Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Here's to bullshit! (Score 1) 570

Last time I checked, the earth has a certain amount of naturally occurring radioactive elements. In of itself, that would nullify any argument that plutonium might harm you.

No, what nullifies it is that in a double blind experiment the symptoms will not correlate with the presence wifi routers and so on.

Comment Re:One term. (Score 3, Insightful) 67

Sure, but is that better or worse than politicians whose only goal is to extract as much money/power/etc from the system in the term they do get, and who cares if it all falls apart next year when they are banned from being in office anyway.

Or you could be a bit more practical and also consider the non-extreme cases as well.

Comment Re:Heading for retirement? Heading for BS. (Score 2) 345

Because people who are "heading for retirement" also keep going to work and working as usual. Sales are *much* lower this decade than they have been previously, if that trend continues at some point they stop selling entirely. Building a delivering happen long after selling so there's obviously a large lag.

Comment Re:Summary sucks (Score 5, Informative) 345

Total sales over the last ten years don't seem that relevant to the "heading for retirement" claim. Just like total profits over the last ten years don't mean anything when considering if a company is growing or shrinking.

You need to see how the numbers are changing since "heading" is a claim about the direction of change not the quantities.

So taking orders (rather than deliveries since we care about the future) from 2005 through 2014 (2015 isn't done yet) we get - there are negatives because you can cancel:

747: 43, 72, 21, 3, 2, -1, -1, 1, 12, 0
380: 20, 7, 23, 9, 4, 32, 19, 9, 42, 13

To smooth things more for the 747 (380s are too new to bother) the 5 year order totals for 747s starting with 1966-70 and ending with 2010-15 are:

198, 103, 253, 126, 377, 104, 168, 90, 97, 16

Sure 2015 isn't over yet, maybe they'll get 80 orders in the next few months (making for their 2nd highest ever year) but that doesn't seem likely. However, orders have clearly plummeted in the last 5 years (lucky you picked 10 to use to hit the bumper year of 2006).

And yes given those order numbers "on the way out" seems reasonable enough.

Comment Re:Biff and Skippy (Score 1) 273

Everything that is a deduction on your income taxes lowers your AGI. Everything that is a an exemption lowers your gross income. Poorer people have some deductions (their mortgage interest in many cases, for example), richer people have far more deductions particularly when they are paying accountants to structure their income/expenses/etc to maximize them.

The first link in the search page you posted is all data based on AGI, assuming you knew what you were posting doesn't seem unreasonable.

Comment Re:Biff and Skippy (Score 1) 273

Surely you would expect that?

The top 10% of income earners earn 45% of the income after all, but 68 > 45 I here?

1. The tax system is intentionally progressive, the top end is supposed to pay more as a percent of income by design. 68 > 45 is a feature not a defect.
2. The stats for income are based on AGI - those at the top end have greater access to methods of lowering their AGI through deductions and exemptions and accountants that aren't available to those at the bottom end. So while they earn 45% of the AGI they earn >45% of all income


Comment Re:Colleges are not for education (Score 2) 273

And yet there are all those countries that do have free (or close to it) tertiary education and somehow still value education and don't seem to have an abundance of "taxpayer-subsidized 4 year frat parties".

I take it you also think that elementary/middle/high schools should also not be little or no cost to attend to avoid those taxpayer-subsidized 12 year frat parties?

There's a large enough junk off people in society, not everyone by any stretch (you for example don't seem to be in this group), that think that access to education should be based upon academic merit and not upon how much money you have. That doesn't mean everyone should go to college, it means that people should not be denied going to college because they can't afford it, but instead because they are too dumb,

Student loans are how the US seems to have decided to "solve" that - quite possibly the worst solution I can think of, but I guess adding private for-profit banks as middle men is the American way :)

Scholarships are how some places "solve" it (the US does that too, though not at the same levels especially if we ignore non-academic merit scholarships) - select students by some criteria and pay for their college fully or partially.

Single purchaser models are how some places "solve" it - the government says "we will pay $X/year for each student take it or leave it", the government pays the university and then possibly tries to recover the money from the individual students (via a tax surcharge say).

Comment Re:Confessed? (Score 1) 244

In which case you should never confess. Even when caught on video with 2000 eye witnesses and forensic evidence galore. If showing remorse and so on can reduce the sentence then there confessing can get you off easier so that isn't the case and there's no benefit at all to you, so don't do it and hope the jury is full of morons.

And around there does the prosecutor have to charge you with every crime that might have been committed all the time? They link you to a dead person via blood evidence, for example, do they then have to charge you with murder, and manslaughter, and assault (maybe you punched him and got blood all over you but he was then murdered by someone else), and littering (the dead body wasn't placed in the garbage bin), and so on and so on?

If they don't then there's prosecutor discretion involved and why wouldn't they say "confess to the murder, and we won't charge you with the littering" to make their job easier?

Comment Re:Confessed? (Score 1) 244

Your confession is the only bargaining chip you have (assuming their aren't others to roll over on anyway).

You'd have to be mighty stupid to give it up in return for nothing.

There's plenty of time to confess before you enter your plea in court - you might as well try and get something in return rather than rushing to give it away.

Comment Re:Why is safety in scare quotes? (Score 1) 373

But do you actually think it will save anyone any money? I find it stretched credulity to think that an airline would implement something to make them have less profit.

Whhhhiiiiich is to say that since asses in seats is the most important thing, it stands to reason that the airlines would then want tubs o' goo.

And in the grand tradition of cheaper tickets, perhhaps the slender people who are chearged less ould be willing to fly standby? They re paying less, therefore the airline makes less money on them.

Heavier planes use more fuel. An airline would love to have light passengers with no luggage over heacy passengers with lots of luggage (assuming they are being charged the same), since they would have lower fuel costs and hence make more profit.

They aren't implementing anything to have less profit.

Dry stuff, but remarkable in that they don't have a fatass cost. A lot of cost calculations that are based on asses in seats, but no fatass cost.

Right because they use average weights at the moment. The proposal is to not use average weights but instead actual weights. Obviously you don't calculate costs on things you don't measure at the moment, after all they don't have magic wands to do so.

Because charging a passenger more based on weight does not merely punish those weak assholes who cannot stop feeding themselves. It punishes basketball players, who weight a lot because of height. And what about people like the old professional wrestler, André Roussimoff, who suffered from Gigantism, topping out at 520 pounds - people with this condition just keep growing until they die - early .

So now if we have justified charging more by weight, which justifies charging more by a weight based unavoidable handicap - we now can start charging people for handicaps. You think it doesnt cost the airlines more to carry that person's weight and their wheelchair

Yes. It costs more to fly a heavier plane why shouldn't the people making it heavier pay for that rather than everyone pay for it? Doesn't matter if you are heavier because you are fat, or because you have wheel chair, or because you just happen to be tall.

Those handicapped people who are missing limbs are going to be lighter of course too.

None of which has anything to do with my actual complaint which was that it is in fact a safety issue and hence the scare quotes are stupid.

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?