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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:ECC? (Score 4, Interesting) 138

The Ryzen CPUs support ECC, but the parts haven't gone through the server level validation for it. It's up to motherboard manufacturers whether or not to support it, and I expect we'll see "home server" 300 series boards with ECC support in the near future.

The Naples parts will absolutely support ECC. It's pretty much mandatory for server parts these days.

Comment Re:$700 GTFO (Score 1) 151

This. 1440p / 144hz is pretty much the place to be for high-end PC gaming these days. 4K support - both from a hardware and software perspective - is spotty at the moment, while 1440p@144 is both well supported by applications and can be powered without selling your first-born child or running multiple GPUs.

As for complaining about the cost... dropping $2500 for mid/high end PC every 5 years isn't that high as far as hobby spending goes, especially if said PC is your primary form of entertainment. Hell, there are people with cars as a hobby that spend more than that on fuel.

Comment Re:My big complaint ... (Score 1) 89

If you're paying about sixty dollars a month, then you end up missing out on about thirty cents a year in interest by "loaning" the money to the company in this way. If you make fifteen an hour, then that's a bit over a minute of your time.

Personally, the principle of the matter just isn't worth it to me.

Comment Re:Well Trump has one thing right (Score 1) 540

This.

The whole reason we have standard-of-living laws (including, but not limited to, minimum wage) is because people with nothing to eat and no hope tend to be willing to do things that are very disruptive to the civil function of society. If I have no food, cannot afford food with the jobs I work, I will take food - because if the choice is "possibly face consequences for my actions later" or "starve to death now," it's pretty obvious which one I'm going to pick.

And before you say, "but I have a gun and will defend my home," let me point out that there is very little stopping me from stealing firearms, too.

Desperate people do desperate things. We don't just care for our fellow man because it's the right and generally accepted "moral thing to do" - we do it because there are very good self-preservation reasons to do it.

The same thing applies to other social support systems, like health care, welfare, jobs programs, and the like. Yeah, we can save a few personal dollars to get rid of them, but getting rid of them isn't going to magically make the problems those programs exist to solve go away - it's just going to mean we're choosing to push the consequences for the existence of those problems wholly onto the people that suffer from them.

You might argue that's fair - but they'll still rob the local grocery store to get something to eat, and you end up indirectly (or directly, if you're the grocery store owner) paying for the problem anyway.

Comment Re:He's literally not (Score 5, Insightful) 551

Okay, I normally like to stay out of these discussions so I can moderate instead, but this is ridiculous.

1. First, unless you want to start a mercantilism-esque trade war, "make Mexico pay for it" isn't really feasible. Second, more people are going to Mexico from the US than are coming to the US from Mexico. Building a wall would be a rather pointless waste of resources. See http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

2. Catch-and-release was used because it costs a great deal of money to imprison, house, try, and deport illegal immigrants. You need to do due process to avoid violating the constitution. In America, you're innocent until proven guilty - and that applies to people suspected of being in the country illegally. You cannot strip the rights of somebody because you *think* they don't have them, otherwise those rights are meaningless. If you want to end catch-and-release entirely, be prepared to spend a lot more money on law enforcement and the INS.

3. There are constitutional reasons why you can't compel the state law enforcement to do things. Also, DACA/DAPA (which is what I assume you mean when you refer to "Obama's deadly policies") didn't allow criminals to stay; if you had any serious convictions (any felony, any serious misdemeanor, or 3 misdemeanors of any kind) you weren't eligible.

4. Again: Constitutional issue. We preserve the right of law enforcement agencies to enforce laws as they see fit; "sanctuary city" is simply an extension of that. Sanctuary cities aren't "safe havens" for illegal immigrants. They're simply cities where the *local* law enforcement will not assist with matters that consist only of immigration status violations. The federal government is welcome to conduct their own operations, as is its right.

5. Sure, you can revoke DACA/DAPA - but be specific, it wasn't amnesty, it was an executive order to provide a temporary stay of enforcement. Amnesty is a different word that has a very different meaning.

6. We... already do? Visas aren't issued blindly, and their requirements are based on nation of origin. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

7. This is a concern only with a few nations (mostly in the middle east) and I actually agree.

8. This would cost tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to set up and operate. We're not Israel; we don't have a single major point of air entry and a few heavily controlled land entry points. It would also not be terribly useful, because unless you're willing to track people once inside the country (and that opens up a whoooole different can of worms) it's not going to do a whole lot. You know person with X biometric data entered the country, great. Now what? They've moved and dropped off the radar. Good luck catching them.

9. The only way to make it not attractive to work here is to lower how much American companies pay, and I for one do not approve of dragging our standard of living down into the mud in order to accomplish that. You can punish companies more harshly for using illegal immigrants as labor, but making it objectively less attractive to work here isn't really feasible.

10. Which historic norms? Immigration's been pretty steady for the last twenty five years, give or take, so immigration as a function of population size has actually *dropped.*

America's problems (well, most of them) aren't because of immigrants. The real issues facing American workers stem from the ruination of unions in the 90s, the increased automation of the last 50+ years, and the willingness of other countries to not offer high standards of living for workers. The problem isn't going away, and blaming immigrants for it isn't going to fix the issue - especially when we have a ticking time bomb in the form of driverless trucking no more than a decade away.

Trucking employs about 1.8 million people, and contributes about ~700 billion to the economy - a bit under 5% of our GDP. It's also going to be gutted by automated vehicles. That's a crisis that we can already see coming, and there isn't an easy answer - because "just get a new job lol" isn't really workable for everyone involved in the single largest field of blue collar workers left in America.

Comment Re:If true, it's because Macs are starting to suck (Score 1) 376

Honestly, the apt comparison here would be the Surface Book with the Macbook Pro. They're both aimed at businesses / developers, they're both supposed to be quite fast, and they're judged on the basis of availability of features that a professional would use. While the surface pro is a fine system for light work, it's not really in the same market segment or performance category.

(That said, I use an original surface pro for classwork - and it handles things like photoshop, maya, and the like without issue.)

Comment Re:Oceans (Score 2) 186

Same. Climate change on land has some serious potential effects on species that cannot adapt quickly enough and will cause some long-term issues with human habitation (some parts of the planet near the equator might become uninhabitable due to temperature or storm severity), but ocean acidification has the potential to wreck entire ecosystems.

Too low pH in the ocean and sudden crustaceans can't make shells, and that's a MAJOR problem - and not just for people.

Comment Re:Fine (Score 3, Informative) 1368

California actually pays the federal government more money in taxes than it gets back in benefits, so... it would do fine, actually. It's not a lot more - I think in 2014 California got back 95 cents for every dollar in taxes - but it's still close enough that California could take over paying for federal programs itself without any significant disruptions in services or programs.

Comment Re:Thin-skinned, can't stand to lose even once (Score 5, Informative) 1368

I think it has a lot less to do with losing - the left has lost before, after all - but with who it lost to and what that person has indicated he wants to do to the nation.

Both sides have to deal with losing and the pain of seeing one's own view of what the nation should be ignored or overruled. That's part and parcel of politics, and has been for... well, as long as there have been opposing views. I see a lot of people worried that the changes Trump wants to implement will result in their direct loss of life and liberty.

If, for example, Trump follows through with his promise to deport all illegal residents, the fourteen year old sister of a friend of mine will lose her mother. She doesn't have Mexican citizenship, and her mother doesn't have U.S. citizenship. If he follows through with his campaign promises to roll back LGBT rights, then some of my friends may no longer be counted as married. If he follows through with his ban on Muslims, several of my classmates that are here on scholarships may be forced to return to their countries of origin instead of applying for citizenship like they planned on doing. If he stacks the supreme court and overturns Roe vs. Wade, many women will die due to seeking unsafe and back-alley abortions. If he repeals Obamacare, I will lose health insurance, and as a type 1 diabetic that's kind of a big deal for me.

So it's not just losing, its the very real possibility of having families broken apart, futures ruined, and lived destroyed. That's why many liberals and centrists are appalled at Trump's victory.

Comment Re:Dear Californians (Score 1) 1368

The only water California gets from out-of-state is a share of the Colorado River, which runs along its southeastern border. All the rest of California's water originates within the state's borders, due to the fact that the American Cordillera runs along the eastern edge of the state. It's why eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona are all very dry - they're in the rain shadow of the mountain range that runs along both American continents.

Slashdot Top Deals

You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.

Working...