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:Plan to succeed or plan to fail... (Score 1) 318

Actually, they dropped dead much earlier than that.

Only 53.9% of men and 60.6% of women made it to 65. https://www.ssa.gov/history/li...

Well duh, they dropped dead before reaching their 20s.

Straight quote from your link: "Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood."

And then they show of all the 21 yo men alive in 1915, 54% of them reached 65 yo (in 1960). Those had 13 more years of life expentancy. So it's retire at 65, drop dead at 77 for that cohort.

Comment The camera moves (Score 1) 237

"The only way to completely avoid this is to have a perfect model that is right all the time."

Far from true. Many pathological interpretation will solve themselves as the camera moves.

For instance, a pedestrian could blend into the pole behind. Half a second later, the perspective has changed and the pole is behind something else.

So the "tiny change" must hold true as the camera moves, or it won't cause failure.

Comment Re:Finally (Score 1) 361

Well.... you were arguing whether being rich was enough... your words. You have a confusing form of logic, buddy.

Right... as if

The OP was making a point about "weird guys ... get a product out the door". Someone missed the forest for the tree and perverted the point into "being rich".

You are defending reductionism.

Comment Re:Finally (Score 1) 361

If you were an apolitical entity betting on who'd become rich, you wouldn't factor in their IQ, or their academic performance.

We're talking about getting shit done and being successful. Why are you stuck on "being rich"?

Is Linus Torvalds yet another "Exception that proves the rule" that only rich people can be successful?
Would having 2 eyes be another such "Exception that proves the rule"?

As if you needed to have your own billion-dollars company to be successful. That's pretty warped and sad at the same time.

Comment Re:Finally (Score 2) 361

Seems to me lately only weird guys with personality disorders like Jobs, Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg can both raise the money [and push the right people just the right way to get a product out the door.]

I don't think it is their wierdness that made them succesful It is that they were BORN rich. They went from being very rich to being super rich. Being born rich is the key qualifier for success.

You dropped "get a product out the door" as if you believed being rich was enough. There's enough rich failures to show the opposite.

Comment Re:Coding achieves the "expand your mind" objectiv (Score 1) 328

Please go find any random middle aged person whose only exposure to foreign language was their 2 year requirement in high school and ask them how much Spanish, French, German, etc. they remember?

First, they learned different cultures and improved their understanding of the world. You have to think in Spanish to speak Spanish properly.

Second, they read more and learn new words. Maybe enough to know capitols are buildings, principals are people. Something programming will never solve.

Slashdot Top Deals

In English, every word can be verbed. Would that it were so in our programming languages.

Working...