Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: What do you need? (Score 1) 164

I imagine it would have terrible battery life with that spec

Laptops like those are mobile workstations, meant to be moved from one desk to another. They are usually plugged in at all times. At least mine was when I had one. I personally would love a laptop with a desktop class processor even if it only have a half hour battery life. But I've never found one yet.

Comment Re:They only show gorgeous women (Score 2) 183

Please ignore the correlation between "looks" and genetic indicators of reproductive health

That would be a nice argument if there was some universal agreement on what is attractive. In some cultures, thin is attractive. In others, fat. Some places like women who stretch their necks out. Others like their feet bound to the point that they can hardly walk. In Meiji era Japan, it was seen as attractive for women to paint their teeth black. Do you find that hot? There is no single standard of beauty. You cannot just declare yours to be universally applicable.

The majority of "beauty" traits have nothing to do with genetic indicators of reproductive health. That said, there are some. For example, for both sexes, "clear skin" is usually desirable, as that is an indicator of immune system fitness. And of course standard secondary sex characteristics, including having typical voice ranges appropriate to their sex, muscle mass in men, in women breasts and wide hips, etc. But the majority of the specific details that make up the "look" of an attractive man or woman versus other men and women in their society are simply cultural.

Comment Re:Lie or not, you are still off-base. (Score 1) 504

THIS is why Trump won. White votes matter.

This is why Trump won: people who cannot even find a job think they are competent enough to determine which candidate is more likely to improve their opportunities. So much so that they pick the candidate whose campaign promises caused nearly all economists to refute his ideas. Even the republican establishment desired to tone down his proposed tax cuts. These citizens convince themselves the elite (aka educated) are somehow incompetent and that people who haven't been able to keep up with the modern world are somehow more capable. It is quite the delusion. But if religion teaches us one thing is that delusions are often powerful enough to affect the vast majority of people.

The job market for truly skilled older works has never been better. The past three companies I have worked for would create positions for any available skilled worker they were lucky enough to find, because an unemployed skilled IT worker is more rare than a mega-millions lottery winner. The only ones I have come across were only unemployed because of a recent move to a new area.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 504

When the recession hit my husband chose to go to grad school. He couldn't find a job where we live so he went back to school. When we had kids, he chose to become a stay at home dad. It would have been too expensive to pay for child care. To say that going back to school or becoming a stay at home parent is "changing society" and has nothing to do with the economy is a bald faced lie.

So if your household was part of the 60,000 households selected for the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS), he would be listed as unemployed under most likely U4-6 unemployment numbers. If he said he would like to be working instead of going to grad school, he would count as a discouraged worker. U6 also includes people working part time when they would like to work full time. Although he wouldn't show up in the U3 unemployment figures, which is by far the most common number discussed.

Try not to accuse people of a bald faced lie unless you have all your facts straight. It makes the rest of your comments seem less credible.

People remove themselves from the workforce because the cost of working is more than the pay. And the repercussions of that decision to be a stay at home parent are incredibly far reaching. When the kids all go to school, what then? After you've been out of the workforce for 10+ years? In case you were wondering, full time (5 days a week 8-5) care at one of the day cares near me is ~$600 a week. $2400 a month. $28,800 a year. If you have two kids that's $57,600 a year. Staying home with the kids is very much an economic decision, not a societal one.

I have two daughters (9 & 26 months old), and with my $3280 in monthly child care costs I assure you I understand the economic decisions that go into paying those bills. Although in my case we are lucky that we can make a decision instead of being forced into a decision since my wife (the lower earner) still makes over $4000 take home each month.

But note I did not say non-U6 related reasons to be unemployed are never impacted by economic realities (they always are), but that they aren't a good measure of economic strength or a poor economy. The vast majority of households do not have two earners taking home $3k+ after taxes, and a few extra percentage points of growth in median income won't change that. If both parents aren't making $60k+ by the time they have children, the economic reality is one of you is probably staying home if you have multiple kids no matter how well the economy is doing.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 504

Try extending your graph back to 2000 - it tells a story opposite to the one you're thinking of.

By the way, most of those manufacturing jobs are never coming back. A lot of them have simply been priced completely out of the US market. Many of them don't even exist anymore, having been taken over by automation.

As for where US job growth has been: the US is increasingly a service economy. Also energy has been growing a lot. Correspondingly, construction too. Healthcare... retail... business & professional services..leisure and hospitality... all strong growth fields.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 504

The Democrats controlled the House in the 80s, so spending budgets came from them.

Right. It's the Democrats who are really into extreme tax cuts for the wealthy! Why didn't I notice this before? I also apparently missed the part where the president signs bills that he doesn't support.

The "Reagan tax cuts" that passed were very close to what Reagan was seeking in each case.

According to this graph

"According to this deliberately deceptive graph..."

Anything that shows financial issues a long period of time, without including inflation, while trying to argue that "the last person in the list did the most of X", is being partisan at best, intentionally misleading at worst. In reality, even inflation alone isn't enough; the best figure you can use is debt as a fraction of GDP. But I digress.

As a second issue, you make it misleading when you focus on debt and not the deficit. Because the deficit makes much clearer what sort of situations the next person inherits, as well as the immediate impact of financial shocks and passed bills.

The reality is, when Obama took office, there was a massive deficit left behind by Bush. During Obama's administration it reduced every year.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 504

In other words, 4% less of the working age population is employed.

No, 4% of people over the age of 16 are employed. This is a combination of more students getting higher level degrees, and more retired people. The labor department uses the ages of 25-54 to determine working age participation rates. These have still been declining, but at a much slower pace.

But all of that is mostly irrelevant, because anyone unemployed who isn't caught in the U6 unemployment figures are choosing to be unemployed. Not forced by a poor economy. U6 unemployment catches anyone who is unemployed for economic reasons. Everyone else is choosing to be in school, being a stay at home parent, or whatever other reason.

Workforce participation is a gauge of a changing society, not a measure of economic strength. U1 through U6 unemployment rates are the relevant statistics to look at.

Comment Re:Fake news (Score 1) 504

You don't really have to be a libertarian or a conservative or a "pseudo-skeptic" (whatever the hell that is) to jump down the throat of an AGW proponent who's not an accredited climatologist.

You don't have to be an accredited climatologist to have a credible opinion on the topic. Just as long as your opinion conforms to the research of nearly all accredited climatologists. It is people who believe this consensus is wrong, and who don't have their own climatology PhD or some other similar knowledge level, who deserve to have their opinions fought and ultimately ignored.

You do bring up poorly constructed arguments held by many AGW defenders, mostly because they aren't all extremely educated on the matter. But those are all very minor infractions, as long as the overall narrative of humans needing to do far more to combat climate change is the theme of their argument. The only time these minor arguments even come up is when a climate change denier (or someone being a devil's advocate) is being pedantic.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 5, Insightful) 504

Talking about debt isn't helping your case any. Here's the deficit (change in debt) from year to year: Link

Why is that Republicans keep blowing the budget? Well, let's look at the case of Bush. Wow, whodathunkit, massive tax breaks to top income earners skyrockets debt, news at 11! And yes, having the government hawk itself into debt is great for the short term strength of the stock market.

Re, debt outlook under Trump: absolutely not if he enacts his "Bush Tax Cuts+++ proposal.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 5, Informative) 504

We need another moderation choice called "Inaccurate".

Even your own link refutes what you are saying. Obama was sworn in on January 20th 2009, so even if you foolishly believe Obama's policies affected the unemployment rate on day 1, his first U6 unemployment numbers (for Feb '09) were at 15.2%. That is compared to 9.3% in November 2016. And if you even give Obama's new policies six months to start affecting the economy, Obama more realistically started with a 16.7% U6 unemployment.

By any measure, unemployment is far better than it was when Obama took office.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 4, Informative) 504

Unemployment numbers are a bit worse off today than they were when Obama took office, regardless of which measure you look at.

In what world?

Want to use U-6 unemployment? Nope, not that one either.

Obama inherited the largest economic recession since the Great Depression. And the US is now out of it. Now you can argue over whether someone else could have done it faster or not. But let's not lie about the facts.

Slashdot Top Deals

If it happens once, it's a bug. If it happens twice, it's a feature. If it happens more than twice, it's a design philosophy.