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


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

Comment Re:Can you say "the american way" ? (Score 5, Interesting) 475

If you work hard, you will do better than your parents.

Both of my parents earned 6 figures in 1975. I have an equal level of education as they do, and am capable of doing the jobs that they were (and in one case still is) doing. I am in the same industry as them. I had an opportunity to go work for the company my father works for, but the starting salary would have been lower than my father was paid when he started there in '72. I have spent the last decade working 70+ hour weeks for a fortune 500 company and in the end, all I really got was fucked for the trouble (Fuckers eliminated my pension). I have quit and moved on, but I have yet to earn as much today as either of my parents were earning 40 years ago, in spite of working nearly the same number of hours as the two of them combined. Hard work is not rewarded in this country anymore, and hasn't been since before I entered the work force.

Comment Re:way too generous (Score 2) 475

The article is saying the kids whine because they really are getting less income and they have more debt.

The issue is they are getting less income for the same amount of work, and having to go vastly deeper into debt just to get the job in the first place.

There is a perception that Millennials are lazier and or less qualified than their predecessors. Having seen the quality of resumes coming in the door, I fully understand that conclusion even though it is incorrect. The reality is that 50 years ago, there were vast numbers of jobs that any idiot could do, and thanks to the new deal and unions, those jobs paid well enough to live on. Today, those jobs pay significantly less than they did, and there are fewer of them. Inflation adjusted, the jobs on the bottom pay 30% less than they did in 1970, and many of them are being lost to automation. Its small wonder no one wants those jobs. So now all Millennials, not just the qualified ones are submitting resumes in the "shotgun blast" approach to job hunting. There are plenty of jobs at the top of the spectrum that pay decent, but all the qualified people are already employed, and much as anyone would like to pretend, you just can't take someone with a 90 IQ and teach them to be a programmer. It just ain't gonna happen. Millennials are not any more or less capable, its just Millennials are the first generation where the inept ones don't exercise any restraint in applying for jobs they are absolutely unqualified for, so now you get buried in resumes from unqualified applicants because the same inept 10,000 are applying for every god-damn job. In the end, the same 10% that was always capable is still out there, just they are no longer a significant fraction of the applicants floating around, the 50% that used to settle for a job as a ditch digger, suddenly find themselves in a world where there are far fewer ditch digging jobs, and the jobs that are available, they don't have a prayer of being able to do.

Comment Re:Is more education, better education . . . ? (Score 1) 475

If they are comparing salaries for the same age, then if more people are spending longer in college, that will delay their entrance into the workforce, putting them close to entry level salaries and thus drive the average down.

If you had read the article, or even a significant fraction of the posts so far, you would have learned that those with college degrees earn *more* than those without, meaning that if there were fewer with degrees, then the average would be *lower*, That is in spite of the effect your theoretical delays would have on salaries. The reality is that people today are making significantly less for the same amount of work. I'm sorry that doesn't jibe with your world view, but reality is reality, take it up with your deity of choice, but stop trying to pretend like it ain't really happening.

Comment Re:Delphi #11's written in Object Pascal (Score 1) 285

Calling out MSVC as the reference C compiler for execution speed is like calling out a parade float as the performance reference for internal combustion powered vehicles.

It works just fine, and is taylored to people who like to see large numbers in their benchmarks: "This compiler over here has a performance rating of 72 MSVCs, this other one has a rating of 104 MSVCs, and then there is clang with a whopping 463 MSVCs."

It works for me...

Comment Re:100 years? (Score 1) 173

That is pretty bollocks. The way how Plutonium "kills" is well researched in animal experiments. A 30kg dog dies from something like 40micrograms, roughly 1microgram per kilogram weight. Considering that a dog barely lives 10 years, I think it is safe to conclude that humans suffer in the same way as dogs.

Those tests were performed by injecting The Pu directly into the animals, which is tantamount to a 100% absorption rate. Ingested or Inhaled Pu has a much lower absorption rate. Either way, Lethal dose is much, much higher than cancer causing dose, and as I stated, the toxic chemical effects are more immediately lethal than the toxic radiological effects, so it is not the radiation that kills.

It should also be noted that Leukemia has a less than 50% fatality rate, and falling all the time as medicine advances. Cancer is quickly approaching a state where it can be considered a non-lethal disease.

Take your own advice asshole

Comment Re:100 years? (Score 1) 173

Some micrograms inhaled or otherwise get into your system are deadly.

No, 200 micro grams would likely be needed to cause cancer. Far more would be needed to kill you, and it would be the chemical toxicity of the plutonium that killed you long before the cancer. Plutonium is not very volatile, so it is far from the real dangerous stuff in these reactors. The odds of dying by cancer caused by plutonium are much lower than your odds of dying in a fireball generated by a plutonium bomb (think several orders of magnitude difference).

The real danger at a nuclear accident site comes from the iodine, cesium, strontium and other fission products that have relatively short half lives. These produce the vast majority of the ionizing radiation at an accident site, and within 100 years, they will have reduced to just 5% of the levels immediately following the accident. The real danger there will come from increased cancer risks, and a general shortening of life expectancy by a few years for people who are exposed to those levels their entire lives. There are already people living well within the exclusion zone, and there are large numbers of people who regularly work within a few hundred meters of the sarcophagus.

Ultimately nuclear materials are no more dangerous than many other industrial chemicals until and unless you get enough of them together in such a configuration as to create a supercriticality that results in significant instantaneous fuel burnup (a nuclear explosion), and even then it is just as likely to be the extreme heat that kills you. Even then, there are some pretty nasty chemicals out there: Think fertilizer .

Comment Re:depends (Score 2) 343

C++ is basically not very object oriented

That is *not* a bad thing. OO is not a good solution for every problem. Neither is procedural programming, nor functional programming. A good language is whichever one allows you to solve the problem at hand in the most optimal way. The kinds of problems that Lisp is good a solving, C is not. The kinds of problems that C is good at solving, Smalltalk is not, etc. C++ is an extremely capable language because, while it is not optimal for solving most types of problems, it is workable, and not badly suboptimal. This means that as a programmer, if you are choosing a language for a new project, and you don't fully understand the project, you are almost certainly not shooting yourself in the foot by choosing C++. The same cannot be said for the majority of languages out there. If you are not working close to the metal, then choosing C is going to make your life miserable down the road with no real ebenfit, especially if you have to do any higher level work or UI work. If you need performance at all costs, and you have chosen Python, Lisp, Smalltalk, or the vast majority of other languages, you have made a very serious error. With C++, you can achieve excellent performance, rivaling, and in some cases even exceeding C, but you still have the *option* of using an object oriented model, if that turns out to be useful.

Comment Re:Dear Matthew (Score 1) 531

Yup. That seems fair.

I saw an insightful sign in my sons elementary school:

Fair is not everyone getting the same thing
Fair is everyone getting what they need to succeed

It reminded me that everyone has a very warped view of fair, and that ultimately, our system of economy is inherently unfair, as Capitalism gives to those who can take what they want, and screws those that can't. Socialism gives to all in equal measure (Theoretically). Both are fundamentally unfair, but at opposite extremes. It seems like there should be something in the middle that can satisfy this enlightened definition of fair.

Comment Re:Dear Matthew (Score 5, Insightful) 531

It's a scam - not a loophole.

They are the same thing. The only way to ensure that there are no tax dodges out there is to simplify the tax code, and eliminate the words: "except", "but", "excluding", "omitting", "minus", "exempt", "without", and any other words to those same effects.

Americans are too stupid to ever vote for a poltiician that states they will raise taxes. This means that either politicians lie, or they actively undermine the tax base. Both of those situations are bad for the majority of americans, but they vote for the same scumbags over and over, and will soundly reject any politician who openly advocates tax increases. The result is a race to the bottom. Welcome to reaping what you sow, brought to you by Democracy(tm).

Comment Re:Great Opportunity for widespread stores (Score 1) 42

That's because there are stores all over that are in short range of many people, that would probably gladly welcome drone delivery of small items - like a cup of coffee or a Big Gulp or a burrito.

Now They can pursue even lower standards of service: A hot cup of coffee dumped on you from 300 ft up!

Slashdot Top Deals

"If you own a machine, you are in turn owned by it, and spend your time serving it..." -- Marion Zimmer Bradley, _The Forbidden Tower_