Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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: Huh? (Score 1) 469

What would it matter? His business model involves:

1. Revenue
2. Cost

Cost is the development. If he didn't have access to $5 simple CAD design and only had access to CAD contractors who were overqualified but charged $5k, his ROI would not be worth it. He's only making tiny, cheap, simple things to sell to people here.

Just having access to capital through a loan doesn't change the fact that his business revenue doesn't bring in enough $ to justify spending that much on R&D. Lower the cost of R&D and you have a lot more business models who can all of a sudden work now.

Comment Re: Huh? (Score 1) 469

That's a load of bull.

Scenario A:
OP can't start his business because he can't hire cheap foreign labor. Foreign students don't get income. OP doesn't have a product and OP doesn't have a company. OP also doesn't spend money because OP has 0 income to spend at said neighborhood restaurant, leaving them with 1 (at least) less client.

Scenario B:
OP makes a product people buy. Foreign students get income. OP gets income. People get something that didn't exist before that (at least to them) improves their lives. OP (and possibly any employees he/she hires locally for more complex work) then has money to spend at neighborhood restaurant.

In every single way scenario B is better. It's also the reason economists tell you that economics is not a zero-sum game. And it's what the "but the furrennrrr" wharbble people don't get.

Comment Re: Huh? (Score 1) 469

At least 2/3 of the components in RPi's come from Shenzhen. Not to mention almost all of the R&D work happened because companies could manufacture computers in low-wage conditions and sell-them to make a profit. RPi can't exist in a vacuum. It leverages all of the work the big boys did over the past 3 decades to be so cheap and so affordable.

Comment Re:also in the news ... (Score 1) 469

Uber bleeds money every year. To the tune of a billion. You honestly think that if it were legislated to require all drivers to be full time that it'll just magically be able to?

The alternative isn't every Uber driver being full-time. The alternative is 75% of Uber drivers having 0 income. While the other 25% become what used to be called "cab drivers".

Comment Re:also in the news ... (Score 2) 469

As great as all of these concepts are. Reality is a spectrum. Without any government intervention, you can rest assured the negotiating power will consolidate into a bunch of conglomerates and as much "freedom" as you have will wither away as economic mobility opportunities decrease and labor competition increases.

On the flip side, just trying to legislate good jobs for everyone regardless of talent and/or economic conditions is obviously ridiculous.

Perhaps there's some right amount of government intervention. One that regulates the market so that there's plenty of competition and no conglomeration of powers that can abuse their monopolistic position. One that also provides some sort of basic safety net so that no citizen has to go into desperation-mode. And one that provides ample opportunities for self-improvement to all citizens.

Set those bounds to the free market and then let it do its thing.

Comment Re:also in the news ... (Score 1) 469

Actually, most of these gig companies aren't profitable. Even their CEO's are "rich" only in that they have a percentage of the theoretical value of their company.

This is the natural state of things. The alternative isn't Uber pays all its drivers full-time minimum wage with benefits or pays them part-time. The alternative is Uber doesn't exist and those people have 0 income.

I don't like the working conditions of the "gig economy". And I'm more than horrified at the glorification of it. Much like fast food work, it should be something to strive out of, not be in.

Comment Re:One word [Physics] (Score 2) 474

Speed of electrons or even light isn't the problem. It's the capacitance. The destination transistor feels the voltage change at the speed of light, but it doesn't change its own stored charge fast enough to register a "0" or "1". This has much more to do with intrinsic resistance of the material locally than how far the signal has to travel.

The problem is that a material that's a semiconductor will typically straddle some range between conductance and resistance (by definition). So conductance is hard to increase without impacting the resistive "mode" it needs to be set in. This is the problem with graphene and carbon nanotubes. They're really conductive, but not terribly resistive when we want them to be in the "off" mode.

Comment Because there's no such thing as one "performance" (Score 5, Informative) 474

CPU architect here. I'll try to provide some insight.

Performance for CPU/GPU or any computational tool isn't exactly just a number you hit. It's not like bandwidth for storage or communications nor is it like a battery's capacity.

A CPU and to a lesser extent a GPU is able to perform all sorts (all logical) computational functions. Each of these involves different usage patterns of the different computational paths inside a piece of silicon. And thus, speeding up each of these usage patterns requires different structures.

A single piece of code running something complex like launching an app or opening a webpage will generate hundreds of millions of instructions with lots of different patterns. Think about all those API's you call. How much code do you think is similar between them?

And thus the problem of improving "performance". The goalpost is a shifty one. Speed up one code pattern, and you risk your changes hurting another. Or you can spend extra transistors making a specialized accelerator for that code pattern. But'll be idle 95% of the time.

And if you speed up a particular function by 1000x (it's happened), your average speed increase for a typical benchmark or API call will still be 0-1%. Because that function is only a small piece of the larger codebase.

Think about how many non-similar libraries and functions there are in typical software, and think about how there's any way to speed them *all* up. You can make memcpy or memset (malloc uses these) faster by 5x and that'll speed up javascript processing by....0.01% or so.

The reason "performance" doesn't increase as drastically in the computer world is because computing "performance" is very very multifaceted. Much like how "intelligence" can't just be increased by 5x -- someone can get 5x better at specific tasks, like memorizing or image recognition, but that doesn't make them 5x more "intelligent".

Compare this with a simple metric like 0-60 acceleration or network bandwidth.

Comment Re:Why the comment from the fake news outlet? (Score 1) 217

While what you're saying is true. There is an actual issue with the current form of H1-B reform. That is to say *all* job positions regardless of talent level must consider "Americans first" in a vague way. That ambiguity is what's troubling and what leads to a lot of potential problems as it's left to the executive branch to enforce and interpret.

Let's say you have a dire need for data scientists and good ones. POTUS can now have his agencies force you to hire less talented people instead of those more talented from abroad, or ones who are here in the US as students who are seeking jobs.

So while we do need to address the issue of H1-B farms, the current proposed solution is kludgy, ill-defined, knee-jerk and probably won't have the desired effect...which is kinda inline with all things Trump.

Comment Re:Sad to see Trump... (Score 4, Insightful) 381

Because many recognize that just one number like "50k jobs" isn't the only number that matters. How much is the State giving away in freebies of taxpayer money to subsidize these jobs? How permanent are these jobs? If it's a large subsidy for temporary (like construction) jobs which will dry up long before the return-on-investment has been reached, the State would be better off just hiring these workers themselves to do something more long-lasting instead of having Foxconn skim off the top, make a killing in profit with very little cost, only to layoff these workers in a few years.

The problem with Trump and most of his campaign is that he's promising a quick, easy solution to a difficult problem: how do American workers stay competitive in a stage of increasingly easier global shipments? This is yet another example of something that feels good in the short term but can be a terrible deal in the long term.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can observe a lot just by watching. -- Yogi Berra