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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score 2) 534

Oh dear, irony levels have hit maximum. I suggest that you read a bit more carefully. Yes, the claim that you quote is made in the article that you link to. But is it true?

Well, in the article that you link to they provide a link to the underlying dataset from the OECD that they used. The link is actually the part that you bolded in your quote. Let's follow that link to http://stats.oecd.org/Index.as... and continue reading.

You need to click the sidebar pull out on the right-side to get the metadta description:

It contains a number of standardised indicators based on the central concept of “equivalised household disposable income”, i.e. the total income received by the households less the current taxes and transfers they pay, adjusted for household size with an equivalence scale.

So no, they explicitly do NOT take into account taxes and include social benefits. This is a flat-out lie in the article that you have linked to. Perhaps you should read a little deeper instead of TL;DR + TSOTWTSWS...

Comment Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score 5, Interesting) 534

The main flaw in that study (that I can find after a couple of minutes) is that the statistics are completely wrong. The median income figures used are *post-tax*. The swedish figures are ignoring the income used to pay for everything in the state:

* free healthcare.
* free education.
* paid parental leave.
* subsidized childcare.
* much much more.

The correct comparison is the gross income figures. In the swedish case somebody earning around the median level is paying about 25% in direct (visible) taxation, and about 65% in invisible employer contributions. I.e. If their headline (visible) salary is $40000, they receive about $30000 after tax, but their total tax ia about $30000 taking into account mandatory social contributions from their employer. Their actual gross salary is about $60000 and this study treats it as $30000.

Tldr: the study is deliberately using the wrong income figure to make a false comparison.

Comment Esperanto... no (Score 1) 225

Tell you what... I might look into Esperanto when I get finished learning (Mandarin) Chinese. Because Mandarin is much, much more important in general as in there are large numbers of people who speak it, even here in the USA, and Chinese food is mostly awesome and it helps when ordering to be able to speak the language (and Esperanto lacks food traditions entirely, so phbbbt.)

Don't even get me started on Cantonese. Or other variants. Ouch.

The catch is... near as I can tell, I'll never finish learning Mandarin. Somewhere there must have been an emperor who ensured that Mandarin was going to be the hardest language to learn ever.

Turns out I have no plans to learn Klingon, either. Not until there are real aliens speaking would I be interested in such a thing. At which point, I would consider it my #1 priority, though. Because, you know, aliens!

Comment Re:You could have AM radio. (Score 0) 215

Me thinks you severely underestimate the size of the required antennas.

No. I just understand that local AM radio is practical with a short wire like an earbud connection. It won't act like any kind of a DX machine, certainly, but you'll hear locals. I can pick up our local (10 KW) AM station very well by sticking a screwdriver into the PL-259 on my SDR. There are several ways to push a short wire into low frequency resonance, and not all of them require a large actual inductance. Gyrators, for instance are practical at AM BCB frequencies; I've done quite a bit of experimenting with them. The ability to have an ultra high-impedance load that still is quiet and provides significant gain allows antenna impedances that are not typically low to still perform well enough for many use cases. Doesn't hurt to have sensitivities down into fractions of a microvolt, either - you don't need a lot of signal, particularly at AM BCB.

Comment Re:Cigar? (Score 1) 215

The author of the link knows a fair bit about radio, including cellphone radios, being also the author of non-trivial SDR software and a long-term RF engineer.

The author of the linked article, OTOH, knew, and reported, that the device in question made available three bands that the radio in the cellphone is (a) not designed to operate on and (b) not permitted to operate upon.

In light of those facts, you might want to temper your remarks. Or not. Free-ish country and all that.

Comment You could have AM radio. (Score 4, Informative) 215

My Galaxy S7's FM radio has worked with NextRadio (FM broadcast band) for quite some time now. AM is possible, if they are so inclined to make that happen. Because...

Also interesting is that for an FM radio to be practical, you need an antenna, and so far, that's been the wire to the earbuds / headphones, which is decently longish. So very likely implicit in this "there will be FM radio" lies an "there will be an audio jack", and also, "if we want AM radio, we can do it." Ever since low power software defined radio has been possible, this stuff can be done. Particularly in a high-power availability device like a cellphone. It can be done the old way, too, but not nearly as well.

I suspect the whole "there will be FM" thing is known somewhat gleefully in the hallowed corporate halls at Samsung as "taking advantage of Apple's... courage."

Slashdot Top Deals

My mother is a fish. - William Faulkner