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: Sanders has an option (Score 2) 801

And the FBI was able to recover 3 of Clinton's email chains that contained information that was classified (they were already classified at the time that they were sent so there is no "that was classified after the fact" defense) from her "wiped" server. No one has produced any evidence that Powell deliberately deleted evidence during an FBI investigation. It's never the crime, it's the coverup.

Comment Re:Generators (Score 4, Informative) 637

I was actually just speaking with a police officer the other day who said criminals don't care much about electronics nowadays because the stuff depreciates so fast if you have a 4 year old laptop it's not worth much after depreciation and the black market discount. Even dumb thieves know to go straight for the bedroom and take the women's jewelry and the men's watches. They also check the top drawer for cash. But yeah, unless you are a high value target for information, nobody is rummaging through your desk for sticky notes.

Comment Re:Suzie can vote. Suzie can get a pitchfork. (Score 1) 954

Why is it more likely that we will have a new world with 1 machine, 1 employed person, and 2 unemployed people making the same amount of stuff as before, rather than 3 machines and 3 employed people making 3 times the stuff they were making before? Or 2 people working on 2 machines making twice as much as before, with one person employed building the 2 machines in such a way that the 2 other people can use them effectively?

Comment Re:I actually found this funny (Score 1) 908

Wow that is an awfully obnoxious way to show your ignorance. Please review your basic economics about Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the relationship between GDP, total income of everybody, and inflation. You can't have inflation without income going up.

Some people will not see increases in wages but that doesn't mean that overall income is flat, just like if the cost of 1 TB external hard drives doesn't go up it doesn't mean that inflation is zero.

NB "sticky" wages mean that they don't go below zero; rather, people get laid off. It does not mean, as you seem to think, that wages like to stay at zero.

Comment Re:I actually found this funny (Score 1) 908

In 35 years you had better be prepared to have double the amount of income you think you needed today - just to tread water

Inflation is the increase in the overall price level of the economy. While you are still working, your income is a price to your employer. So when inflation runs at 2%, then the price of labor goes up by 2% each year as well.

People misunderstand this because they usually mistake a supply shock for inflation. When the cost of, say, oil, goes up, but the cost of labor doesn't, it is not inflation that causes misery. It is whatever shock is causing the increase in oil prices that causes the misery. So for example, in the 1970's, oil prices increased faster than incomes because of the oil embargoes. Even if inflation ran at 0% during that period, people would have been stressed because the difference in the rate of increase in oil prices would have outstripped the rate of increase in incomes. In fact, at lower inflation rates, it would have been even worse, because a small or no increase in the rate of increase in oil prices would have implied that incomes would have to drop precipitously, so even the constant priced oil would still have been difficult to afford.

Comment Re:The Angry Mob (Score 2, Informative) 707

The protectionist measures suggested by Trump will harm everyone including the ones supposedly being helped.

This is a bit of a misunderstanding of free trade. In theory, free trade *on balance* benefits everybody, but even with the theoretical best free trade agreement possible, some people are more adversely affected in the short run than others. And in practice, reestablishing equilibrium at a higher rate of output may be difficult to achieve, as argued in an important new paper about free trade.

It would be wonderful if there existed policy positions that have all upside and no downside, but free trade does not appear to be one of them.

Comment Re:Overturn States' Rights? (Score 2) 140

Unlike the right to be secure in your effects, there is no constitutional right to buy a car with any particular characteristic, including a high level of emissions. Therefore the Feds have an important say in the encryption debate, but in car emissions, much less so.

Since the answer about CARB compliance isn't found in the bill of rights, it is just up to legislators to decide how they want to run their states. And from a practical standpoint, one can argue that non-CARB compliant cars cause bigger problems in large and dense cities. As a result, states with large and dense cities might conclude that the difficulties of making and distributing different versions of cars are more than offset by the benefits of lower emissions, while states without big cities (or lots of car manufacturers) might balance the scale in the other direction and allow higher emissions.

But even though you made a bad analogy, at least you made a *car* analogy and for that you should be commended.

Comment Re:Boring... (Score 1) 91

Do you really not understand or do you just not approve and want to appear superior? On the off chance that you aren't just being a jerk, the fact of the matter is that many human beings like to experience non safe things. Whether it is merely the feeling of being not safe (e.g. roller coaster), or living vicariously through someone else doing something unsafe (e.g. NASCAR, UFC bouts, daredevils), people enjoy the adrenaline rush. Of course, I find it bizarre that I have to explain this to someone whose handle is "Opportunist."

I don't particularly like NASCAR but I don't think we should s4!7 all over somebody else's preferred form of entertainment. People who live in glass houses...

Comment Re:Think? (Score 1) 522

I'm not sure why you think it isn't fair. If someone buys a house in one location (out of town) instead of another (in town), then things are going to be different. You might have a longer commute, you might have to drive to get to a store, but you might get more room for your money. And you might have to pay more for utilities. The mere existence of a trade-off doesn't make a situation "unfair".

But I am assuming that you believe that it is unfair for someone to pay $126/mo to get 25/5 speeds. If so, what is the "fair" price for someone to pay for their 25/5 connection? Furthermore, what is the "fair" price that someone should pay for someone else's 25/5 connection? Because that is what we are talking about here. If you aren't willing to pay to get your own improved speed, why should someone else pay for you?

Comment Re:I'm Clueless, But... (Score 1) 53

Not necessarily, for 2 reasons. First, math is math, and most of the building blocks of machine learning are pretty well known. What is valuable is how the building blocks are assembled and set up for a given problem. Second, without large amounts of collected data, even knowing the exact setup of somebody's model isn't particularly valuable. So a company can open source a lot of good general optimizers and other functions without giving away any "secret sauce."

Slashdot Top Deals

Your fault -- core dumped