Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
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:No, the reason is laws. (Score 4, Interesting) 88

Meanwhile the illegals can't complain about working conditions - and will work for less than minimum wage in (those occupations where it applies.)

Well, pickers are often paid by the amount they pick, rather than simply an hourly wage. The reason your average young American can't make decent money is because these are SKILLED LABOR positions. It often takes a few years of picking a particular item of produce before you get enough experience to do it most efficiently. Many pickers specialize in certain fruits or vegetables; hence why many of them are "migrant," since they follow the harvest of what they're good at.

The problem isn't that one can't earn more than minimum wage doing picking -- it's that most Americans view picking as a temporary job or summer thing that they'll do until they find something better. But you have to do it for quite some time before it becomes profitable.

You might read up on what happened in some southern states that passed laws to make it more difficult to hire illegals. They still had migrant legal workers who were pros and could make money, but most of the Americans they'd try to train would quit in a week... It's hard work, and unskilled workers can't keep up enough to make decent money.

Comment Re:Plan to succeed or plan to fail... (Score 1) 541

People tend to forget that Social Security wasn't originally a retirement plan. It was an insurance plan... "Insurance" was in the name. Insurance against what? Living past the average life expectancy for the time, which was ~65. It was never designed to be for "retirement" which didn't exist for most people back then; if you lived longer than was reasonable for people to plan for at the time, the government would help you out. It's no wonder the math no longer works today when people are expecting 20+ years of retirement from it.

Comment Re:Truth (Score 1) 173

Yeah, you obviously haven't tried this a lot for obscure searches. For an easy way to see this, try searching for an obscure phrase enclosed in quotes in Google Books using sources from, say 1950 to 2000. Then try the search again for years 1950 to 1975. You'll likely end up with a different list of results from the years 1950-75 in the two searches. You can try this with all sorts of verbatim searches; for example, word order (outside quotes) will cause hits to appear or get dropped... Not merely differently ranked, but to disappear from the complete list of hits. I could go on with dozens of ways I've seen results added or subtracted in supposedly verbatim searches with the exact same search terms. I'll grant you the vast majority of Google users don't use it this way, but there are clearly a lot of cases where some nontrivial percentage of people would like this capability (and for it to function reliably).

Comment Re:Truth (Score 1) 173

Huh? My definition? I was following YOUR exceptionally narrow definition of search engine and actually trying to expand it to cover an additional decade of history. And if you re-read my post, you'll realize that at no point did I say the approach Google has taken is invalid or bad or not useful. What I said is that I don't understand why their new approach NECESSITATED breaking the old search for people who want/need it. Google is now a great tool for answering broad questions with relevant links; I never said otherwise. I find it unfortunate that it can no longer function reliably for serious research though. Not only the ranking but the actual complete list of links that show up in a search are not consistent, even with verbatim or allintext turned on.

Comment Re:Truth (Score 1, Offtopic) 173

Oh and BTW, the way you use a literal search engine with thousands or millions of results is to introduce more specific search terms to narrow your search to a reasonable number. Back then people COULD use search engines to find specific content very well that way. I used to be able to use Google to find specific pages again years later if I remembered a few specific unique words or phrases that could get me back to that specific page... I haven't been able to reliably do that in years. As you point out, that type of searching is less useful when you're doing a broader search for a vague topic and just want the "best" hits (by some metric). Early on, Google tried to combine the two, but the former approach requires search strategy and understanding how to use operators and such to get useful results in narrowing down a topic. Most internet users today never learned how to use a search engine -- they just want to type in a few vague things and expect good stuff to come up, even if it's not what they literally asked for. Google has thus decided to serve the latter crowd, though I still don't quite understand why that required them to screw up literal search for those who request it. (BTW, for those who don't know and want more literal search, verbatim on Google is really poor these days. Try the allintext: operator instead, though even that is a crapshoot was to whether the specific results you want will actually show up.)

Comment Re:Truth (Score 3, Informative) 173

While I guess you have a point that Pagerank was designed to deliver better results, so were all other "search engines" of the time. Pagerank was just a better algorithm than others. But by your definition all search engines back then were "answer engines," since they all were trying to rank results somehow.

The thing is: back then Google's algorithms were still based on terms actually found in the searched pages. Hence, it was still a search engine. The ranking may have been tweaked, but you were still searching for actual text and actual search terms.

Somewhere around 2005 or so, it became possible for Google to serve up top hits that no longer contained the literal search terms. At that point it ceased to be a "pure" search engine and became about trying to guess what you wanted rather than just retrieving pages with your text. As the years went by, Google deprecated and screwed up the plus operator, increasingly screwed up verbatim search until it became nonfunctional for people who just want a literal search, and incorporated "personalization" to serve up pages more like other pages you've viewed, rather than what you literally asked for.

Google hasn't been a functional search engine in about a decade.

Comment Re:That's the point... (Score 1) 148

If I'm CC'ing him, we're well past the point where I don't trust things to be going as smoothly as they should.

Exactly. If you're to the point where you need to CC an authority that doesn't need to be there, you are deliberately conveying a MESSAGE that the recipient is untrusted to complete a task or whatever.

There are other situations where it's just routine to CC a supervisor. If you get worried about those, you're just paranoid.

Comment Re:Paragraph-by-paragraph verifiability (Score 1) 70

Very true. But each paragraph of an article also has to be verifiable.

Yes, but your previous post was about the NOTABILITY guideline. Obviously if you declare X source is not "reliable," then a paragraph with only that source can be removed.

But that has nothing to do with the notability guidelines. The entire point of your previous post was about how to pre-emptively ban an entire article through notability guidelines. As the summary notes, whether or not a particular source is "reliable" is often a judgment call. Even a "scholarly" souce can be unreliable if it's discussing information outside of its main purview. (E.g., if you're writing a paragraph on baking different types of bread, citing an academic book on Beethoven's music may not actually be a reasonable "reliable" source on bread-baking technique.)

I'm not at all making a judgment call on the Daily Mail here, just noting that judging a "reliable source" on a single sentence or something is quite a bit different from pre-emptively declaring an entire article to be non-notable for lack of ANY verifiable sources.

If your only point was "text with unreliable sources can be deleted," there was no point in even writing your previous post on notability... because basically the entire summary was about the unreliable source policy.

Wikilawyering at its best -- one policy fails, so quote another, even if it's irrelevant to the point you originally claimed to be making. I don't give a crap about Wikipedia policy guidelines, but your projection of making a pre-emptive strike at any subject matter ("ACK! This may not be notable! DELETE, DELETE, DELETE!!") is actually indicative of many editors at Wikipedia, and I think a major failing of the project. That was the MAIN point of my reply to you -- but your Wikilawyering instincts clearly took over and you chose to try to change the subject to assert your superior knowledge of the guidelines, rather than actually addressing the fact that deletionism is contributing to the ruin of Wikipedia.


Comment Re:Notability would ban that subject in the 1st pl (Score 1) 70

Why do you assume the "subject" mentioned in TFS was the subject of an entire article? It could also be the only source for a "subject" of a paragraph or even a sentence within an article that has multiple sources. There are other guidelines dealing with material within an article, but notability only applies if the "subject" is an entire article. (BTW -- what you just did there? Wikilawyering. That is one of the primary reasons people hate contributing to Wikipedia. And if you're one of the deletionists -- who tend to quote notability guides most often -- you're one of the main problems with Wikipedia.)

Comment Re:Pretty old news now but anyway.... (Score 1) 123

Well, I'm not exactly in favor of such models either, but I would note in the U.S. at least that it's been quite common to bundle "workbooks" or other such course materials with textbooks for decades. Some instructors make heavy use of them, and by themselves they've often cost ~$40 in the past. In this case, apparently students can forego the $100 textbook and just pay for the "online workbook" equivalent for $40, instead of what students would do 15 years ago and have to buy the $140 textbook/workbook combo.

Also, it should be noted that many college instructors have traditionally used textbooks mostly for the standard set of exercises they can assign from them. (Which is part of the reason publishers can often so easily force the adoption of new editions, since their most common strategy is to scramble the exercises, making it difficult to use more than one edition.)

Obviously in an ideal world, I suppose every college professor would write his/her own exercises, but if you're an adjunct getting paid $1500 to teach the entire course (more common than you might think), that's a lot more work.

Comment Re:as usual, title and summary incorrect (Score 4, Informative) 132

Thanks for the text, though your summary doesn't quite say the same thing as the text. You said it prohibits sharing of intimate images "that were taken without consent," but what this text actually bans is sharing of intimate images where "the depicted person did not consent to the disclosure." The word "disclosure" isn't defined, but presumably it would also cover instances where the TAKING of the image was consensual but the DISTRIBUTION was NOT consensual.

Comment Re:'Jucers' are a meme (Score 1) 359

People don't want to choke down 2 raw carrots and a cup of kale every day when they can slam it with some apple juice in one gulp.

Yeah, that "with some apple juice" part bugs me. It drives me a little nuts when you see those expensive "juice blends" sold at the store claiming to be full of veggies and labeled "green goodness" or "green goddess" or whatever.

Except a lot of times there's mostly high sugar apple or pear juice or whatever.

I get that most people like sweet stuff compared to savory stuff. But I think a lot of that is cultural conditioning. Stop eating a lot of products with added sugar for a while, and suddenly even a lot of vegetables start tasting "sweet" when they're ripe and fresh. It's frustrating that even the high-priced "vegetable" juice blends are mostly packaged sugar products, with a minor amount of stuff with more nutrients.

I never really got into the "juicing fad," but I did use a juicer occasionally for a while. But I rarely juiced sweet fruits -- the sweetest stuff I'd do would often be stuff like carrots. Carrot juice is actually quite sweet, sweet enough to pair with a lot of more savory or even bitter juices once you actually get used to it.

Comment Re:Not what I expected (Score 1) 359

Sounds like you have a relatively unusual issue. For most of the human race, a reasonable amount of fiber (with enough liquid consumption) helps to promote digestive transit time and softens stool. If what you say is true, though, you have my sympathies for the problems it sounds like it causes you.

I have a 2-3 week travel time. Bowel movements about 1 pound (fist-sized) occur every 18-26 days.

Are you serious? Do you eat food daily? Are you on some sort of strange liquid-only diet?

Sounds like "dietary fiber sensitivity" is a thing but nobody wants to claim you can overdose on fiber.

I don't think any reasonable dietician or doctor would say you can't "overdose on fiber." But it's so incredibly rare that most people don't talk about it. But yes, if you consume massive amounts of fiber every day it can screw up nutrient absorption and other even more serious things than messing with your bowel movement. Again, given how few people even consume the "recommended" amount of fiber -- let alone excess -- it's something rarely talked about though.

Comment Re:'Jucers' are a meme (Score 1) 359

And no need to go crazy on the fruit either, since most fruit is very high on sugar, and low on nutrients.

I wouldn't exactly say it's "low on nutrients," and the amount of sugar depends on the fruit. And part of the issue is how we tend to define "fruit" which is not a botanical definition but one seemingly mostly based on sweetness. If you include the varieties of botanical fruits (from cucumbers to peapods), "fruits" in general have a great variety of nutrients and aren't necessarily very sweet. And a lot of how your body processes the sugar has to do with what else you consume with it. A whole fruit at least has the fiber that regulates the digestive process a bit more.

But yeah -- if you define "fruit" as "sugary stuff" -- better to load up on more vegetables than lots of fruit in general. Still, eating whole fruit is often a lot better than eating a bunch of other junk food.

Slashdot Top Deals

"There is nothing new under the sun, but there are lots of old things we don't know yet." -Ambrose Bierce