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:The correct course of action (Score 1) 175

but there's clearly a necessity that those services be provided in some form or function, and the 538 members of Congress are clearly not up to the task of managing all of that on their own, especially once you consider that most of those agencies are far larger than Congress itself.

That's precisely the point; those who wrote the Constitution and those today who believe similarly do not believe many of those things are the job of the federal government, and for those things which are, Congress should be the only body in government with the power to pass laws, as they are elected which gives the people some direct way to keep them accountable and not appointed/hired. This delegation of powers is a large part of how the government has gone about expanding it's powers and scope.

The other problem is reinterpretation and redefining words and meanings of the Constitution to achieve political/ideological goals rather than using the means provided in the document to alter it. Maybe there's some civil right like the 2nd Amendment you disagree with (not accusing, I don't know nor care, this is just for discussion) and maybe this achieves your short-term goal(s), but it weakens all the other civil rights most people, including yourself, value, and renders them vulnerable to the same methods and strategies to effectively nullify/rewrite/abolish them. A case of "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!" for those


Comment Re:The view fails to account getting &*#@ed (Score 1) 468

Fair point and I like data driven counter arguments.

I thought it was due to bankruptcy changes but it may not be.

It's still a fact that as a late boomer, we could afford to go to college on minimum wage without debt.
And it was even easier for the early boomers.

And we did go to brick and mortar schools and today the schools are marble and granite palaces.

Comment Re:The view fails to account getting &*#@ed (Score 1) 468

And you have just rediscovered the classic fable, "The grasshopper and the ant".

Your life experiences are most likely going to require that you work until the day you die.

As for the rest..

You are playing the odds in a situation where the odds are against you. You MAY be right. But I'd put the odds at under 10%. And the upside if you are right is that you live a better life now but suffer when you are old. But a lot of that better life, you won't remember when you are old. Regular luxury means that the luxury becomes unmemorable. If you are not going to remember it in 6 months, then it's a wasted luxury.

Increasingly- many people who took your side of the bet are committing suicide as they reach old age.

Saving hard, diversifying, owning your own *reasonable* sized (or even small) home is on the 90% side of the bet. Focusing on free activities with friends and family (games, dinner parties, etc.) and the occasional luxuries (I still took ski trips. i still ate out really nice once per quarter and I can still recall many of those meals).

But it is harder for millennials and that can be discouraging. And they may not make it before automation sweeps in. But my daughter and her friends are doing okay so far and about 10 years in to paying off their houses and doing okay at balancing fun and responsibility/savings.

Comment Re:What happens? (Score 1) 110

Consider this: a late night host shows up on TV and does a 5 minute monologue 5 nights a week. Most comedians spend about 3-6 months writing and testing material to do 15 minutes.

Using writers is the only way to create more than a small fraction of the TV time people demand.

Well, there are talented people out that that *can* do it. Hell, Robin Williams (rip)...could pretty much riff off anything any time anywhere....

There's talented folks out there that can do it daily and don't need a ton of writers behind them.

Comment Re:Knee-jerk Reaction (Score 1) 22

Microsoft Office is commercial software, if you're not paying them to keep the software up to date, then what are you paying for?

Open Source Office products, are generally gratis, and are patched in a more responsible manner. AND you have access yourself to patch it ... yourself, unlike ... Microsoft Office.

Comment Re:TV show writers on strike. So? (Score 1) 110

Quite frankly, a monkey could write the garbage we get fed these days. "Scripted reality", yeah, right, what kind of drugs do you have to be on to consider this to be in any way even remotely close to "reality"? In between we got court TV and other garbage that needs zero writer or talent by the actors, sorry, "genuine people presenting real cases".

Even the most lame reality TV show is scripted. In fact, that's one of the things the Screenwriters Guild is fighting about. Currently, if you write a script for a reality show, you are treated differently than if you write for a drama or comedy.

You didn't think Honey Boo Boo was spontaneous, did you?

Comment Re:This is retarded conservatism to help 'coal' (Score 1) 425

The advantage for Americans is we expend our labor making other things, and we end up with more stuff being bought per person. That is to say: the import of cheap goods from China has made every single American--from the poorest class to the richest class--more-wealthy, improving our standards-of-living immensely. We would have to pay greater amounts of money for the same goods otherwise, and thus we would live at a lower standard--it'd be as if we were all substantially-poorer--to no advantage to the American worker or the American economy.

Comment Re:prediction... more good comments... not (Score 1) 425

Morality is irrelevant; minimum wage is an efficiency model. More to the point, though, minimum wage espouses a particular goal, and it cannot meet that goal if its purchasing power becomes continuously lesser.

If it were about morality, we'd have an unresolvable conflict: implementing a minimum-wage increase throws some of the poorest of poor out into the unemployment line to starve; while not implementing a minimum-wage increase lets all of those poorest of poor continuously face greater hardship until they begin to starve. QED, who gets randomly executed because fuck it?

Your labor force is made of adults. Children don't produce; they simply consume. Your laborers work for forty years--from age 18 to age 58, roughly, although it's longer now--and if one of them dies, you need eighteen years to begin replacing them. That assumes you can pop out a baby, feed it, clothe it, give it medical care, grow it to an adult, and then dump it right into a job without investing any more in preparation which you could have avoided by not killing your previous laborer. The other side of this is we expect retirees to be essentially cheaper than children, or at least we want the full ROI of their employable lifetime before they become an economic burden.

Minimum wage is a type of welfare. We have a minimum wage and public aid system, which ensures that the working-class at least get a minimum viable income, while the reserve labor force (the unemployed and underemployed--not working full-time) gets aid to keep them alive and healthy. It's spotty, and worked as best anything could before a Universal Social Security became technically and politically viable; now the United States can now end all hunger and homelessness at a $1 trillion reduction in total costs to the taxpayer--without raising taxes on anyone--and so that's technically-better.

These aren't feel-good moral actions. These are efficiency. When you come up short on efficiency in an economy, people die unnecessarily. You have the capacity to care for the sick, to feed the hungry, to supply the means to live, to stabilize lives; and you squander it, you waste it, and so people die of disease, they starve, they become homeless. The more-efficient your economy is, the greater the standard of living; and the more-stable your economy is, the less-likely people are to have good savings, a good income, insurances, everything to keep them ready for any sudden life crisis and still suddenly end up poor, homeless, and dying of diseases we should have eradicated decades ago.

We trade efficiency away for moral reasons. We accept more death, more poverty, and more suffering so that we can pursue things which we enjoy, and so we can go through life without living in constant fear. The ideals for efficiency by central command simply don't work; but efficient control through constant surveillance, state-controlled information to shape political opinions, and other means of crushing out freedoms can bring strictly-better prosperity. That's bland and it takes away peoples's humanity, or something along those lines; it's the kind of world nobody wants to live in unless they're in charge--and often not even then. Those are the things of which we accept the costs, although to be fair they're usually costs paid by someone else--most of us don't end up the one starving in the streets because of a little loss of efficiency, so we'll gladly trade it away.

You can't claim "morality" if you're going to be blind to what pain and suffering you do and do not cause taking your high ground. That gets you such brilliant, morally-sound ideals as cutting off trade with China, condemning hundreds of millions of people to joblessness, homelessness, and starvation, because we think their wages are too low and want to equate Chinese labor to slave labor. Murder on a grand scale far beyond anything Hitler ever did is what a surprising number of people believe would be "morally-correct" and "The Right Thing To Do(TM)", so long as they can stand far enough back from the carnage to claim their hands are clean.

Comment Re:What happens? (Score 1) 110 the very least this will display to the world what anyone who watched SNL in the early 00's will tell you, that Jimmy Fallon is the unfunniest person on tv.

Well, he *was* quite adept at laughing at everyone else's jokes and bits on SNL when he was a cast member.

LOL..that guy could NOT keep a straight face during any skit....

Comment Re:High-brow fails [Re:It depends on the use] (Score 1) 411

Addendum and corrections:

The "actor model" seems pretty close to event driven programming. I don't know the official or exact difference. But my key point is that the event handling programming and interface is procedural. The only non-procedural aspect may be that requests for further actions may need a priority value (rank) and to be submitted to a request queue. For example, a game character may request a "shoot arrow" event on their part as a follow-up. But the event handler writer doesn't have to concern themselves with the direct management of the event-request-queue.

"Any more than...query writers...don't have to know..." should be "Any more than...query writers...have to know...". Remove "don't"

Comment Re:bloat (Score 1) 40

I hear ya.

When I want a music player...I want a music player.

When I want video or streaming, I used the appropriate app.

I find with most things in life, the products that try to do all-in-one usually do none of them in a premium fashion.

I find it is usually best to buy dedicated units for most things, that are each engineered to do one thing and do it right.

Comment Re:High-brow fails [Re:It depends on the use] (Score 1) 411

is more important now because of the trend towards more and more cores

But the bottleneck is not CPU itself for a good many applications. And specialized languages or sub-languages can handle much of the parallelism. If I ask a database to do a sort, it may use parallelism under the hood, but I don't have to micromanage that in most cases: I don't care if the sort algorithm uses FP or gerbils on treadmills. Similar with 3D rendering: the designer submits a 3D model with polygons and texture maps, and a rendering engine micromanages the parallelism under the hood. That "root engine" may indeed use FP, but the model maker doesn't have to know or care.

And event-driven programming can hide that fact that parallelism is going on, or at least provide a non-FP interface. For example, in a game, a character may be programmed by how they respond to various events. There may be 10 events going on at once, but the app dev is only focusing on one at a time per character or character type. Granted, it may take better languages or API's to abstract parallelism well. The "root engines" may make heavy use of FP, such as the database, rendering, and event handling engines, but the 2nd level, typically called "application developers", probably won't need that any more than SQL query writers (usually) don't have to know how the database engine was written. But only time will tell...

Slashdot Top Deals

Asynchronous inputs are at the root of our race problems. -- D. Winker and F. Prosser