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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Desert (Score 1) 457

Global warming is practically caused 100% by burning fossile fuels.

And this is the level of critical thinking we skeptics have come to expect from global warming disciples such as yourself. Making a statement like this clearly illustrates your ignorance of the fact that the earth warmed and cooled long before fossil fuels were even discovered. No... but THIS global warming is caused ENTIRELY by humans. The sun has nothing to do with it. Ocean acidity has nothing to do with it. The other cyclical machinations of the planet... no effect. It's all humans burning oil.

Just so you know, not even the most ardent, militant, angry anthropogenic global warming evangelist claims that 100% of global warming is caused by humans. If you need proof, in your own words, "FOR FUCK SAKE GOOGLE IT YOURSELF."

Comment Here's my suggestion, if YT happens to see it (Score 2) 149

1: Never, ever, allow or in any way provide for "autoplay" on any individual youtube video, embedded or on-site. It's 100% user-hostile. No youtube video should ever, ever play in any wise unless the user actively clicks that triangle icon. No autostart, no hover-start, no timing start. Only if the user specifically says start, or, in the case of a playlist, if the user clearly and unequivocally and in a fully informed manner says to play the playlist.

2: If the user hits that "play" icon, put up a yes / no dialog that says "Would you like to view an ad on [insert concise description of ad's nature here]

3a: If user indicates yes, play the ad, still allowing for cancel, then play the video

3b: If user indicates no, just play the video.

4: Never EVER cover any part of the actual video with advertising interference such as banners, pop-ups, and so on.

I give Google / Youtube my permission to describe my plan, which I gift to them without reservation of any rights to income, as both "theirs" and "not being evil."

Thank you.

Comment Re:Globalization vs. Protectionism (Score 3, Insightful) 201

Median income growth was -2.3% in the US (that is just a hard fact) over the 8 years since Obama took office.

You mean through a recession caused by the Clintons, which came to force right at the end of Bush's economy-destroying war?

I know personally that 10 years ago I could buy more with my dollar than today

That's called inflation. The question is: could you buy more with the median income of dollars then than you can now? Answer is no.

Fact: The labor participation rates under Obama were the lowest they have been in 40 years (since Jimmy Carter).

Labor participation rates reflect the percent of working-aged Americans who feel they need a job. That is to say: if a two-adult, poor household is struggling to get by and both adults believe they need jobs, you have two people in the labor force; if a two-adult, middle-income household is comfortable and the woman decides to stay home and not seek employment because the household finances are fine and life is comfortable, you have one person in the labor force.

Labor force participation rates don't reflect the ability or lack thereof to get a job. Higher participation rates can reflect cultural behaviors (e.g. social status based in employment) or economic crisis (e.g. people can't survive, so every man, woman, and 16-year-old high schooler works themselves to the bone to try to get by). Lower participation rates reflect economic comfort.

elected Trump to do what every other leader of every other country around the world does and is expected to do: put his own country's interests first..

Cutting off the import of just men's and boys's pants from China means minimum-wage Americans work 3.03 hours instead of 1.87 hours to afford a pair of pants; median-income Americans work 0.92 instead of 0.55 hours to afford a pair of pants; and factory workers producing those Made-in-America pants work for minimum wage. If the factory workers make, say, $21/hr, then the minimum-wage Americans work over 6.13 hours to afford them; middle-incomes work 1.87 hours; and we have ~90,000 fewer American jobs in total versus current economy (a 0.06% increase in unemployment rate).

Is working long hours for lower pay in the interest of our own country?

Is expanding poverty to more households in America in the interest of our own country?

Is destroying good American jobs, either for hazardous low-pay jobs or simply to create a hole in our job market and an increase in unemployment, in the interest of our own country?

If you want to see the direction Trump is steering America, look to North Korea.

Comment Re:Shade, eh? (Score 2) 118

I assume that you think OS X is somehow superior to other OSs.

No.OS X plus the applications I am using form a computing ecosystem that is superior to anything I might plop down on my desk that would be fundamentally unable to perform the same tasks unless I put out a great deal of money, time and energy that is absolutely not necessary in any way, shape or form. Adding extra pixels won't do any of that.

I never could get used to its special keys (especially command and option) as well as the odd keyboard layout (no backspace???).

My keyboard has dedicated backspace and delete, which OS X understands perfectly well. Among many other amenities. I have no idea what you're talking about. Is this some kind of historical reference? As for not being able to get used to command and option... not relevant to me in any way. I have no problem with them. Or with switching back and forth when I'm working with Windows and Linux keyboards.

I'm much more comfortable with Linux and its applications. I gave up on Apple hardware and have now adopted Chromebooks (with Crouton Linux) for all my work. Much nicer user experience and better software options.

Wonderful.

Comment Re:Globalization vs. Protectionism (Score 1) 201

On the other hand these prices have fallen slightly

Two things when discussing economics like this.

First, prices are meaningless if we don't discuss them as prices in labor. If you pay $100 now for a microwave you paid $75 for in 1990, that's pretty meaningless. If the median wage earns that microwave in 3.7 hours today but 4.9 hours in 1990, the price of that microwave has decreased. If the median wage earns that microwave in 3.7 hours today but 3.3 hours in 1990, the price of that microwave has increased.

Second, equivalent-technology comparisons are almost never available. Today I purchase Internet for $86/month; but that's 200Mbit/s internet. In 1998, a 128k ISDN line leased for $35/month; this $83 line is equivalent to 1562.5 ISDN lines, which would lease for $54,687.50 in 1998. I believe Comcast had 1.28Mbit into the house for $40/month in 1998, meaning $350/month of ISDN downstream was suddenly replaced with $40/month of cable downstream; and by those numbers, I'm buying $6,250/month worth of cable for $83/month. You will not find 1.28Mbit internet for 53 cents today.

That second point applies to cars (more-complex antilock brakes, suspension, safety systems, radios, etc. at price levels equivalent to the same proportion of a target income), phones ($350 Motorola V3 Razor? I got my OnePlus One 64GB for $350; the OnePlus 3t is $440), computers, heat pumps, and information services (Netflix, Spotify, etc.). $10/month gets you access to enormous feeds of movies and music; $20 used to get you a CD with 11 songs.

In particular reference to your list, it's well-known that Americans spend more money on more and better healthcare now than in decades past. Housing is odd: the per-square-foot share of housing has fallen (i.e. 1,000 square feet of housing represents a smaller proportion of the median income), while houses and apartments have gotten bigger; and housing is also a speculatively-traded commodity, so its price fluctuates a lot along the way. Housing is also often misrepresented by sale price rather than by total price paid or mortgage payment; I believe the CES accounts housing based on actual expense (mortgage/rent, maintenance, insurance) rather than sale prices, which tends to incorporate additional expenses over the base cost of housing rather than exclude large chunks of the base cost of housing.

Food has also gotten vastly cheaper over time, and is somewhere around 12.5% of household income for the median-income household, although this has been relatively flat compared to the movement in the 40s-80s (16% in 1990). I find vehicle maintenance on a downward trend myself, but I suspect an actual economic analysis as done with food, housing, and medical care would reveal a flat trend; I've bought better vehicles with lower maintenance costs, and the economic reality is probably different than my personal experience.

College prices have been out-of-control for policy reasons which require long and complicated discussions. That's a sore spot in public policy which has distorted the economics considerably, leading to rising tuition prices and out-of-control student debt.

At least the total number of jobs has been increasing since March, 2010 [stlouisfed.org].

My point was more that the data doesn't say we're seeing jobs "come back to America" since January, 2017; we don't have enough data to see the movement of unemployment in general--just the seasonal dip after December. As for March to now, yes, we've long-term seen the total jobs increase faster than the total population and the total work force, hence why unemployment fell from 10% to 4.6%.

But yes, the labor force participation rate is higher than when women worked in the kitchen barefoot & pregnant...

The kitchen now has dishwashers and floor-mopping robots. Roombas handle the rest of the house. Automatic washing machines and dryers mean laundry day is a disrupted 10 minutes of your time here and there and consumes half an hour of labor spread across several hours.

I don't subscribe to the ideal that a 2-adult household needs to be a 2-working-adult household. The labor force participation rates are different in various countries. We had to legally establish a 40-hour working week in the past century, coming out of a 90-hour working week with 6 working days; I think we can allow some people to decide the husband/wife works and the wife/husband manages house.

Even with all of the advances in home economics, being a single bachelor is a brutal job. Do you know how much housework doesn't get done unless you have no leisure time? It's practically a full-time job. I briefly considered getting a girlfriend largely so I could make her keep the house in shape, but the irritation that comes with dating vastly outweighs the convenience; and wtf would I do if I ended up with a wife who got a job? Use her money to hire a maid? Either way, kids can fuck right off.

You discount the sheer amount of labor women put in around the house.

See US Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate [stlouisfed.org] which is currently 62.9%, down from a peak of just over 67% 1998-2000, now back to a level reached in mid-1977. It has been flatlined for about 2 years.

Yeah, "Above the maximum" doesn't make sense; I meant minimum, hence the "not at peak" thing.

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've been spending too much time on the computer when your friend misdates a check, and you suggest adding a "++" to fix it.

Working...