Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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:Children and bathwaters (Score 1) 112

Advertisers were successfully bullshitted into believing that their brands would be tarnished by appearing next to "offensive" videos

Except that isn't it.

There are literal terrorist groups that have videos on YouTube. The thing is, if an advert appears next to their videos, they get some money.

Do you really not understand why people don't want to actively find terrorist groups?

Nothing gives anyone the reasonable expectation that they need to be paid for their speech.

The problem is that YouTube went overboard and now considers everything "offensive" that's not basically cute kittens playing with yarn

News to me. None of my favorite channels have been cut and none of them are of cats. Some of them have caused a great deal of offence to very many people.

It's not like it's hard to very hosted if you want. My web host for random stuff (dreamhost) has the policy that anything protected under the first amendment in the US is OK. If you want a platform and can't be arsed to set up one of your own, pay them the few bucks a month they demand and speak to your heart's content.

Just don't expect other people who think you're a douchebag to pay you.

Comment Re:Not a struggle (Score 1) 79

This. I mean, you should be able to invest that in the stock market and average at least $8 million per year, permanently, allowing enough extra money to compensate for inflation. That's enough for a team of at least 20 engineers plus renting space for them to work, equipment costs, health insurance, etc. So barring the website being insanely complex, you should literally be able to run it on that without even touching the principal, even without bringing in a penny of revenue. What the heck are these people doing with all that money?

Comment Re:US Capital Reinvestment Problem (Score 1) 79

True, though there are thresholds below which expansion makes no sense. Say I have a bookstore. I have ten employees and overlap them to keep the store open during reasonable business hours.

  • Adding five more employees is unlikely to provide any additional ROI unless I can claim to be the only 24-hour bookstore in the region, and only then if there's actually a group of people who wake up at three in the morning, think to themselves, "I need to read something to help me get to sleep", then put on their clothes, drive to a bookstore, buy a book, drive home, take off their clothes, curl up, and read the book.
  • Adding ten more employees would be enough to open up a second bookstore in a nearby town. Assuming there are enough customers to keep both businesses alive, then yes, given available capital, there's more work to be done.

In big businesses, the interesting thresholds tend to be even bigger and more dependent on things other than available capital. You have a lot of opportunities for bringing in a new person in various parts of the company as workload increases over time, of course, but the really interesting, rapid growth happens when the company decides that they want to go after a new market segment, which means they have to ramp up their staff fairly dramatically. That requires more than just capital; it requires big ideas and a reasonable probability of making enough money to make it worth the effort.

That's why even though Apple's U.S. profits alone could cover the cost of hiring on the order of 700,000 full-time software engineers, they have on the order of one percent of that number. So probably only about one or two percent of their revenue goes into staffing (ignoring C*O and VP bonuses). Even if you double or triple that number to cover the cost of renting or building office spaces, assuming you ignore the occasional massively over-budget project like the spaceship, total employee costs still probably fall down in the single-digit range percentage-wise. In other words, if they needed more people, they would easily be able to afford many more people, so bringing more money into the U.S. won't change their hiring at all. This tends to be true for all sufficiently large businesses. In other words, there's a threshold of capitalization beyond which adding more money won't result in more jobs.

The bottom line is that if you want to increase the number of available jobs, the best way is to raise taxes on big businesses and use that to offset a reduction in taxes on smaller businesses. Those smaller businesses still have room to grow, and every dollar that they pay in taxes is a dollar that they can't pay their employees; for bigger businesses, every dollar they pay in taxes is just a dollar that they can't pay their shareholders, which although certainly beneficial, does not create jobs.

Comment Re:The main problem (Score 4, Interesting) 79

Of course, a big part of the problem is that in the 1970s, California enacted a property tax scheme that is perfectly designed to limit homeowners' ability to move. By making property taxes be based solely on the purchase price instead of on the actual value of the home, people would pay dramatically more in property taxes every year if they sell one house and buy a second one even if they break even on the deal.

Prop 13 drastically skews the proportion of renters to owners by forcing people to rent out their old place so they can afford the rent on a new place instead of selling and buying. It also discourages new people from entering the market by making them pay the bulk of the cost of goods and services while folks who have been there for a few years pay proportionally less. The result is one of the most screwed up real estate markets anywhere in the world.

(BTW, Sunnyvale mobile home parks are only ~$1k per month and only maybe $50–75k to buy an old house and move it out of the way, plus the cost of whatever you move in. That extra $1,500 per month + $75k is the Google tax you pay for living five minutes closer to work.)

Another part of the problem is that the Bay Area lacks a proper region-wide planning commission with authority to regulate zoning across the various cities. So you have places like Menlo Park, where the only housing is private estates for the rich C*Os, with lots of businesses out near the shore where land is cheap (because it smells of rotting fish), and you have Gilroy and Morgan Hill that are almost entirely housing, with few businesses.

IMO, what we really need is to have some government entity that slowly converts business-use land in the South Bay to residential use and says "No" whenever big companies say that they want to expand their presence in the South Bay, encouraging them to build satellite offices farther south instead. And offer tax incentives to locate new businesses outside the SF/Peninsula/South Bay area. Adding more businesses farther south would increase the reverse commute traffic and reduce the primary commute proportionally, and opening up more farmland to development would go a long way towards reducing the cost of housing as well.

Unfortunately, that's unlikely to happen unless there's a single management agency that has some authority across all the different administrative districts. Right now, each city wants to get its share of the tax revenue from new businesses, and they mostly don't care about the clustering problems that result from it. Nobody is taking a bird's eye view of the problem, or if they are, they don't have the authority to do anything about it.

Comment Re:Age? Nationality? Race? and.... ? (Score 1) 304

before you waste our time finding actual statistics to back up your argument, I must warn you that any such numbers are very unlikely to convince me

In other words, you're impervious you facts and your arguments are based of something else entirely.

* excuses for why that's ok follow*

Though I don't really follow how the spiraling cost of higher education massively outpacing IT salaries implying that said salaries are therefore not a significant factor is a point of principle or an ethical case. actually I did follow: basically you decided to quadruple down (bonus points for inventing an argument that you claimed I made in your other post, then hallucinating lawsuits I filed in a country I don't even live in, in this post) and declare that your principles are to ignore reason and so therefore your conclusions are unimpeachable.

Well I guess it's impossible to rebut that, in much the same way it's impossible to rebut the time cube.

Comment Re:Drill baby drill (Score 1) 148

Until his supporter who wanted jobs realize they are not coming back. For example his promise to bring back coal. Coal is in a worse state that offshore drilling. At least with drilling, companies can get oil and natural gas which are used in many applications. The uses of coal are dwindling.

Comment Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. (Score 1) 304

Greece, as best I understand it, is screwed up because the government paid for it without actually having the revenue to pay for it. That makes them far more like the modern borrow-and-spend Republicans than the tax-and-spend progressives. When, over a five-year period, a country's tax revenue increases by 31% and government spending increases by 87%, you're going to have a serious increase in your national debt. The United states solves this by devaluing its currency. Unfortunately, the Greeks are part of the Eurozone, and thus are limited in how much currency they can print each year, which means they can't just print more money to avoid becoming crippled by their national debt.

Of course, to make matters worse, their national debt is so huge relative to their GDP that it probably wouldn't help even if they could print money. Even in relatively good times, Greece was borrowing over 8% of their GDP every year. That's simply unsustainable. As a result, while U.S. states have debts that are on the order of a third to half their GDP, Greece has debt that is on the order of double their GDP. Imagine if the state of California took on a third of the national debt by itself, and you're in the ballpark. Nobody in the U.S. government—even the most socialist progressives who advocate a base income—are crazy enough to borrow that kind of money, I don't think.

But a bigger problem is not the amount of spending, but rather the types of spending that the Greek government has done. Instead of building infrastructure that would actually benefit them financially (e.g. factories), they spent frivolously on things like a giant sports venue for the 2004 Olympics that didn't cover its costs and that they couldn't afford to actually maintain afterwards. Their social security system is or was broken, with such fascinating flaws as paying out pensions to single female children of dead retirees. The state airline was a giant money pit for many years. And their military spending at the start of the crisis bordered on insanity (sound Republican enough for you?) at something like 7% of their GDP—proportionally more than the U.S. spent while fighting two wars.

No, the Greek government is a prime example of what happens when Reagan-Republican-style borrow-and-spend budgets get out of control and are not tempered by true fiscal conservatives insisting on balanced budgets and rainy day funds and so on. It is the polar opposite of progressive ways of handling budgeting (which, if they got out of control, would result in a tax rate that's so high that the people themselves would demand cuts in spending).

Comment Re:big businesses asking for special favors (Score 1) 296

Netflix can arrange their network to get very low per packet costs because they can move their endpoint wherever they want.

You are aware that Netflix is not an ISP? They are not a T1 company; they pay a T1 for that. Comcast could do that too.

Comcast can't do that. So, necessarily, Comcast's per-packet costs are higher.

That's on Comcast. That's part of their business.

Yet Netflix and Comcast cooperate to deliver packets that benefit them both equally. When benefit is equal, but costs are wildly unequal, it makes sense for one side to pay the other. And that's what the free market developed over many decades.

Again, Comcast is in the business of being an ISP. No one is forcing Comcast to be in this business.

Comment Re:We need free bandwidth (Score 1) 296

Yes, I agree. The way it works now is with settlement-based peering. That is, companies do charge each other for peering when their bandwidth costs are asymmetric. As I said, the system the free market has built works just fine. But it does allow ISPs to demand whatever fees they want to build faster pipes to particular peers.

Again missed the point. It is not about peering. Netflix pays their Tier 1 so that they have almost no bottlenecks. Comcast however bottlenecks their own customers so they can extract more money from Netflix.

But that's just the thing. They didn't miscalculate pricing. So long as the costs are fairly divided between all the companies that did the work, their pricing is just fine. And today, that's how their pricing works. We do have settlement-based peering today.

Again you are asserting the the ISPs do way more than they actually do. How much of the traffic route of a packet is through the ISPs network? If it is merely the last mile then what you have said is that they should get more their share whereas all the intermediate companies get nothing.

I never said they did. ISPs simply have much higher per-packet costs than content providers do because content providers can put the endpoint wherever it's cheapest and ISPs can't. The endpoint is their customer's home or places of business.

No you asserted that ISPs deliver most of the way; factually they do not.

Comcast wasn't throttling Netflix specifically, they just had poor bandwidth to Netflix. A VPN allowed you to avoid the congested links between Netflix and Comcast.

No that's idiocy. If you go through a VPN through Comcast to get Netflix, you're still going through Comcast and Netflix. You are not avoiding congested links; you are merely adding an extra step.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you seriously denying that at typical Netflix->Comcast or Comcast->Netflix packet, all things considered, costs Comcast a lot more than Netflix because they have to maintain a network that goes all the way to their customer's homes and businesses?!

You are the one that argued that somehow because Netflix could build datacenters for cheap and that gave them an advantage somehow. That's not the point. ISPs could build more infrastructure should they chose; they simply do not choose to do so. Google built more network infrastructure because they saw it as an advantage to their business. Again the ISPs chose not to do so. Process that: a search company bought out dark fiber at a time when ISPs did not. Somehow it's not the ISPs responsibility for their business decisions; yet it's Netflix's responsibility for the ISP's bad decisions.

And again, it's not Netflix's responsibility that Comcast has not invested in their infrastructure. Netflix pays for it's T1 connection. If you don't think that's relevant, how about you pay for 1 month of Netflix's internet bill. I bet it's more than your annual salary.

Comment Re:Pay for your bandwidth (Score 1) 296

That makes my point, doesn't it? Will net neutrality prohibit that practice or not?

Yes it would have prevented the practice. Why didn't you already know that?

If not, what good will it do? If so, what are the new rules that will decide when Comcast can or can't ask for money to colocate equipment?

That wasn't the point. Comcast didn't want to solve the problem. They wanted to shakedown Netflix for money.

How much of the currently largely unregulated Internet peering/hosting/connecting landscape will have to be regulated to fix a problem that pretty much does not even exist?

You seem not to understand the problem: there was a problem. That is a fact. Netflix offered to solve the problem; Comcast wanted money.

Comment Re: A college confers... (Score 1) 730

Voila! Complete the course, you're an engineer.

My point again is that I can't listed my title as "Engineer" in the state of Oregon. In the other states, I can't list it as "Professional Engineer". In some states, I can't list "Licensed Engineer". Jarlstrom did that in Oregon. He was warned not to do so but disregarded the warning.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure