Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re: Own goal! (Score 1) 101

It can be worse than nothing because it distorts the free market. If these distortions produce unwanted side effects like high income inequality, low labor force participation, and high dependence on government safety nets then you would have been better off with slightly higher prices at Wal-Mart.

Comment Re:You just now started worrying? (Score 1) 248

The problem is that the government no longer can be reliably trusted to accurately give you the raw data, that is, the numbers upon which things like the unemployment rate are calculated. It was bad enough when they changed the way in which they calculated unemployment and then compared the rates before and after in order to present the picture they wanted you to see. Now, there are times when they make "adjustments" to the raw numbers before releasing them, sometimes without mentioning that they have done so when they release the data (not sure that this has happened with employment numbers, but I remember seeing it with regard to some other numbers).

Comment Re:Trump! (Score 1) 107

I mean, I'm not Trump supporter (by any means), but from the original Bloomberg report:

In late November, IBM completed at least its third round of firings in 2016, according to former and current employees. They don't know how many people have lost their jobs but say it's probably in the thousands, with many of the positions shipped to Asia and Eastern Europe.

Or, in other words, TFA has absolutely zero numbers on how many people were actually fired. They instead asked employees to estimate how many of their fellow employees they thought were fired. No facts, no figures, pure 100% speculation from employees who we have no reason to suspect know anything at all about how many people were actually fired. It might be true, but there's precisely zero evidence that it is, and it's being reported like a well-sourced fact. Modern day journalism, everybody.

Comment Re:Both numbers are correct, I would say. Older mo (Score 1) 135

The useful numbers for decision making are "how many people could be helped by addressing this issue?"

No, the first and primary useful number consideration is, "Now that we're 20 TRILLION dollars in debt and most new jobs are low-paying junk that barely creates any tax revenue, and we have an exploding entitlement spending problem the mere interest on the debt for which will soon displace nearly all discretionary spending ... what can we afford to research?"

You want to address the X in Y cases of Z disease in given populations? Return to producing the sort of economic health and largess that allows us to spend that kind of money in the first place. Otherwise, it's like a bankrupt person trying to decide whether to buy a new raincoat or an umbrella so they don't get their nice to outfit wet, because, you know, priorities. A house in fiscal order can spend vastly more money on everything from pure medical research to Mars missions without crushing the very economy that underwrites such things.

Comment Re:Gov't data (Score 3, Insightful) 248

Exactly what so many people seem to missing about all the hubub around presidency is the deep state is real, our bureaucracy for good and ill are quite resilient.

Just because you change out the man at the top and couple handfuls of his direct reports does not suddenly mean all the procedures, methods, systems, opinions, etc in use by all the 2,804,000+ federal workers and enumerable contractors both direct and corporate suddenly change too. That stuff is cultural and other than a few hot button issues that might get attention from POTUS directly takes decades to change, literally outlasting a single Presidents term of office in many cases.

In a lot a ways we are still feeling the effects of not exactly policy but popular opinion that dates to the Clinton Presidency and that of Gorge W Bush. People choose to get into civil service or not often depending on their admiration or lack their of for the top man in charge at the time they are ready to start a career. The people who started their careers in the late 90s and early 2000s are now the folks who have risen to positions where they are decision makers and mid-level bureaucrats. We have yet to see the real influence of Obama's millennial voters here yet (sadly IMHO, not looking forward to that all).

So the data is probably as trustworthy as it was 4 weeks or 4 years ago. Its probably as trustworthy as it was 8 years ago, or 16 or 20. That is to say its really not very trustworthy at all but probably less bias than you might imagine. There is a constant battle being fought between the left and right with the pendulum swinging both ways ever 8 years or so, but not as a far either way as the top men appear to swing. The real issue is that assumptions on either side are never really challenged or well examined because of the tug of war fought over the superficial stuff. So some labor statistic remains calculated they way it has been for the last 40 years when some probably well meaning person made a judgement call based on the information they had at hand. It never gets revisited in a serious scientific way because everyone is to busy doing studies and bickering over a handful of top line numbers that make for good headlines like the employment rate.

Comment Re:Gives us a tax break! (Score 1) 80

This is silly. The UK is not proposing putting tariffs on anything - part of the argument for Brexit (which I voted against) is that the UK could have more free trade deals with everyone else and avoid EU tariffs.

Agree, the chances on the tariffs for goods coming from China being higher are very low. However the data sharing issue is real, currently a data-centre in the UK can store data for EU companies without any issue. I hope that the EU will allow this to continue, as in many cases it will benefit them, but they could decide to be difficult.

Comment Re:Gov't data (Score 2) 248

More likely the new administration would just stop collecting inconvenient data, or change the metric as described in the summary.

If they did, then they would be merely continuing the SOP for all federal government data collected and reported, as done previously by Obama, and Bush and.....

Nothing new to see here folks.

Comment Re:Back up your lies here too retarded blowhard (Score 1) 177

As I have repeatedly explained to you, I AM NOT A PROGRAMMER. No matter how often you ask for my programs, it just makes me laugh, as you seem to think only programmers contribute to technology. I have also explained that I like not being in jail, so I won't and can't show you what I have done. As all you do is sit around your house, I understand the lack of understanding in that some people are bound by contracts not to talk about what they do for a living.

Comment Re: News for Nazis (Score 1) 1547

If you don't agree with it, than please redefine it. I can only work in the definitions I am given. Race is a characteristic used for census forms, it is a clear word. Hispanic is a culture, not a race, as there are black hispanics (eg Dominicans), white hispanics (like Zimmerman), and native american hispanics (what many people think of as hispanics), so they are not a unified race, but a culture that originates in Europe, therefore is included in Anglo Saxon. As for biologists, they would point out that we are all one race, so I am not sure how that effects someone misusing the word racist, as what, are they racist against dogs or monkeys?

Comment Re:Glen Burnie Maryland threats? LOL! (Score 1) 177

Um, WTF are you spouting off about? You seem to think I am the one harassing you as you are posting calling me the n word (which is blocked by /.) around 10 times? When have I harassed or stalked you? I pass up numerous opportunities to reply to you every day. You seem to confuse me getting tired of your stalking other people as being the same as stalking you.

Slashdot Top Deals

"For a male and female to live continuously together is... biologically speaking, an extremely unnatural condition." -- Robert Briffault