Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Meanwhile, back in the real economy... (Score 0) 532

The number of people considered "not in the labor force" increased by nearly 450,000 in November. The total is now at a record high of 95 million.

The "unemployment rate" that the politicians, economists and media like to talk about is bullshit. It doesn't really mean a hell of a lot when the government can arbitrarily adjust the size of the "labor force" to produce whatever fraction they want. It's not like 450,000 people just decided to retire in November. People fall into this category when their unemployment benefits run out, but they're still unemployed.

IMO, the most relevant metric for assessing the employment situation of the U.S. economy is the employment to population ratio.

I say it's the most relevant because it can't be so easily manipulated like the other "unemployment rate". Also because the working people, in one way or another, have to support themselves as well as all the non-working people. Of course there are a few who are living on retirement savings, but if they're old enough, they're getting their SS checks too, so they're still being supported in part by working people. That ratio is 59.7% at the moment, which is barely one percentage point above the lows it hit in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown. The whole "economic recovery" and the "unemployment rate" which has gone from 8-9% down to 4.9% is an illusion. The real economy and real employment situation still suck.

Actually, I think an even more interesting metric would throw kids into the equation. They need to be supported too. In that case, we've got a country where ~152 million people are supporting 320 million people, so the unemployment rate is really 52.5%

Comment Re:so the Je suis Charlie stuff was 100% bullshit? (Score 1) 414

Yes, the whole "free speech" thing was 100% bullshit to begin with!

Charlie Hebdo has published cartoons suggesting that the leaders of Le Front Nationale should be arrested and thrown in prison. They also helped circulate a petition trying to get the party officially banned in France. I don't condone violence, but it was poetic justice that Muslims attacked them after Charlie Hebdo had been so fiercely opposed to an anti-immigration political party.

Comment Re:employee improvement plan (Score 1) 391

Decades ago I worked for The Phone Company when there was only one. I was hired as an Directory Assistance Operator. I was the only guy in a room of almost 100 women. The Phone Company had just started hiring men in traditionally women's jobs and vice versa. I signed on since I wanted to be a lineman or work in a CO. After a few weeks of the mindless work - and it was (and probably is) over a break I mentioned I was thinking of quitting. One of the old-timers who'd been there for almost 30 years told me - and I'll never forget this - "Yeah, I thought about quitting once and they had one of their psychiatrists talk me out of it."

I hung up my headset in my locker, wrote a note saying "Don't even look for me." and walked out never to return. They called every day for a month.

Comment Re:Calling bullshit (Score 0) 235

"The whole global cooling has been hashed over ad nauseam here and many other places..."

Perhaps it has, but that doesn't change the fact that people were, at one time, promoting that theory. Just because you've discussed it, doesn't mean that it never happened. If you have access to a university library, you can go peruse old periodicals from the '70s and '80s and find articles about how the earth could be moving toward a new ice age. Try "Omni". I think that's where I read about it.

"If you're still banging that drum, the only reason can be willful, mindful ignorance"

Why is it "ignorance"? Just because you want to ignore it? The fact that "global cooling" has changed to "global warming" in 30-40 years (the blink of an eye on a geological time scale) demonstrates that the authors and scientists who were studying the issue back then were not infallible. Or maybe they were right, and the current scientists are wrong?

Comment Re:Who could be happier? (Score 1) 145

"Can anyone tell me why [Snowden] did not go public until he was living in a country willing to shelter him?"

That's not true. He was in Hong Kong when he began sharing the documents with journalists. He didn't know if they would be willing to shelter him and as it turned out, they probably wouldn't have done so. He got out of there with the help of people from Wikileaks. Even then, there was no guarantee that Russia would shelter him. That's why he spent weeks in the Moscow airport before finally being granted asylum.

As far as "going public", it was Glenn Greenwald and other people in the media who began releasing the information to the public. Snowden never released anything directly to the public.

Comment Re:Simpliest and best solution to the problem: (Score 1) 291

"because they won't get off Facebook, Candy Crush, Pokemon Go, or ..."

Google maps? You really want to ban driving apps and force everyone to go back to using a road atlas or folding map for navigation?

Whether it's cars, guns, drugs, alcohol, chainsaws or whatever, there are always going to be careless and irresponsible people out there creating hazards. Trying to regulate the world so that it turns into a padded cell is an exercise in futility.

Comment So WTF is the non-fake news, Einstein????? (Score 3, Insightful) 403

What is all this sudden bullcrap about "fake news" in a country where it is LEGAL to fictional ALL news (thanks to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation's multiple lawsuits in federal court) and where the Koch brothers are responsible for most of the "content" on NPR, and everything on PBS and Frontline?

I mean, WTF is all this Prof. Elizabeth Sindars/Merrimack College (WTF that is????) bullcrap about???? This is the Land of Fake News, and has been during my lifetime.

And now . . . for some Non-Fake News . . . .

Comment Re:Remember, it's the Trump supporters (Score 1) 497

"I've seen several reports of violence in my social media feeds from both friends and friends of friends"

Yeah, yeah. I keep hearing that there's some Trump-inspired hate crime wave sweeping the nation, but the only "evidence" I ever see is graffiti, vandalism and second hand bullshit from "friends and friends of friends".

There are tens, if not hundreds of millions of cell phone and CCTV cameras all over the country. If there's some rash of violent incidents all over the country, it seems strange that they never make it onto YouTube. SMH If this bullshit was real, there would be plenty of stuff caught on camera and it wouldn't be on YouTube, it would be on national news broadcasts!

Video or it never happened.

Comment Excuses, excuses, excuses (Score 1) 232

I wasn't a huge fan of Trump, but seeing the ongoing deluge of whining, excuses and accusations from the mainstream media regarding the election results is wonderful entertainment. I like Trump a little more every day.

The media has always been slightly biased toward the left, but the degree of anti-Trump bias in this election was absolutely jaw dropping. They shed every pretense of neutrality and objectivity, went all-in for Hillary Clinton and they still ended up on the losing side. This relentless deluge of excuses ...

It was Facebook!
It was Wikileaks!
It was Comey!
It was Putin!

is nothing more than them being bitter about the fact that they can no longer control the narrative. For decades, they've been successfully telling the American people what to think, and this harsh rebuke by the voters is apparently hurting their delicate feelings. LOL That, plus the fact that Trump played them like a fiddle in the early days to build his name recognition(no such thing as bad publicity and all that).

Up yours MSM! Your candidate totally sucked and this time, the people of the USA weren't swallowing your propaganda.

Comment It's their choice to stay or leave. (Score 1) 1368

States joined the union by having their state legislatures ratify The Constitution, thus agreeing to the terms which grant the federal government its powers. According to the Bill of Rights, Amendments #9 and #10, the federal government has only those powers specifically delegated to it in The U.S. Constitution. There is nothing in that Constitution which states that the decision to join the union is irreversible. There is likewise nothing in that Constitution which grants the federal government the authority to use military force to coerce states into remaining in the union. Had those provisions existed in the document, none of the original states ever would ratified The Constitution until the offending text had been removed. In fact, when the Virginia legislature ratified The Constitution, they simultaneously passed a bill which clearly stated that they were doing so only with the understanding that their legislature could reverse its decision at any time.

This issue was not "settled" in the 1860s simply because the North was able to use brute force to subjugate the South. Lincoln was wrong(and an evil bastard) and the SCOTUS was wrong in its "Texas v. White" decision. The South was right.

The idea of CA liberals wanting to secede from the union is nevertheless hilarious. Movements who seek to restore state sovereignty as well as groups advocating outright secession have generally been right-leaning and are met with total condemnation by the political left. Still, if their state government votes to withdraw from the union and form a sovereign country, they have every right to do so.

Slashdot Top Deals

Multics is security spelled sideways.