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


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

Comment Re:Pathetic Crybaby As#hole (Score 1) 412

The reason for the earlier cutoff is that people apply "millennials" to those who were growing up during the turn of the millennium, not born around it. Otherwise why would you include 1985 at the lower end (seems kind of far away) and why would it not be symmetrical?

It's like if we were defining a "hippie generation" -- you wouldn't say "people born while hippies were prevalent" you'd say "people born who became young adults while hippies were prevalent", meaning the people who grew into hippies.

For what it's worth I've usually seen millennials defined as born between 1980 and 1995.

Comment Re:It's not Bechdel - it's puritan test (Score 1) 321

No. Example: a scene where a woman is dressing not done in a sexually suggestive manner isn't a problem

The quote says "depicted in sexually suggestive clothing" not "dressing done in a sexually suggestive manner."

If you think it's the manner and not the clothing that matters, then you should have said "yes" not "no" because you are agreeing that the quoted criteria are stupid.

Comment Re:More proof (Score 1) 415

And it makes sense the gap would widen without significant societal assistance.

And as others have pointed out, that's false. Significant societal assistance wasn't needed to make Chinese immigrants, who used to be among the poorest, into one of the most successful immigrant groups.

or that school districts with better funding often provide better education

Anybody who pays attention to education funding knows that's not true. Obviously there has to be a baseline of funding as well, but past a certain minimum (which we're well past) it stops making much difference. Hence examples like Washington DC and NYC public schools that have the highest funding per student in the nation and some of the worst results.

Comment Re:More proof (Score 1) 415

You can't have it both ways though. You can't say it's good to game the indicator by having things like "bonus points" for hiring minorities, but bad to game the indicator by hiring more white guys in retail.

The reason gaming the indicator actually works is that it has an effect upstream. If blacks see that they have a good shot at a good job in Silicon Valley, then they will be more likely to go into computer science and end up working in the industry.

Yet apparently you're not willing to concede the same for whites, that white people who right now are poor, on welfare, etc won't see "hey look at that, white guys can also get good jobs working retail, it's not all girls and minorities hired to prop up diversity stats" and do the same thing.

Comment Re:More proof (Score 2, Insightful) 415

If some people want to believe affirmative action is even on the same magnitude as believing other races are sub-human they are deluding themselves and making a very weak argument.

That's exactly what affirmative action is. It says blacks are not as good as whites, can't compete, and thus need a loving, guiding hand to help them up.

Comment Re:$78,000,000,000 (Score 1) 102

The reason circulating money adds to the economy is the assumption that circulating money equals work, and work improves life on the planet.

That's the most stupid bullshit I've read in a long time. [...] Or, in other words: Those $100 of money have turned into $700 of wealth.

That's what I said.

You are clearly confusing cultural value with economic value.

I'm not confusing it, I'm distinguishing it. Economic value is an approximation of cultural or moral value or whatever you want to call it. Quality of life basically. We can do things to economic measures to bring it more in line with something meaningful by applying things like inflation and PPP adjustments. It's still just an approximation which we bear out of necessity.

When it comes down to a single individual and a small list of actions, though, it is possible to make more precise judgments than just counting the number of dollars that circulate. If you give a random person a billion dollars, they might just sit on it and live a comfortable life and make their kids rich and just kind of trickle the money out for a few generations. Or they might be another Elon Musk and make strides in the space industry and electric cars. That's a big difference.

The problem with your original post was taking some crap you learned at university ("rich people hoard money in conservative investments, poor people spend every penny, so giving money to poor people results in greater overall economic stimulus") that spoke in generalities and large groups, and applying to a specific person like Bill Gates.

You spoke of scientific evidence... well where is your scientific evidence that Bill Gates himself spends like an average rich person? He doesn't. Most rich people are not tech-savvy philanthropists giving away billions with the specific goal of improving life through the application of technology.

Comment Re:Driving yes, but charging? (Score 1) 990

Quote: "We find that the energy requirements of 87% of vehicle-days could be met by an existing, affordable electric vehicle."

They're only looking at electric driving range, not other issues like infrastructure or charging time.

Also, they're not saying 90% of people would have their needs met 100% by an electric car. It could be 100% of people have 90% of their needs met, or 50% of people have their needs 100% met and 50% have their needs 80% met, etc.

I'd be curious about the actual breakdown but like you I didn't pay to read the whole thing. It's probably something like 20% of people have their needs 100% met for a year, 50% have their needs met 98% of the time, and 30% have their needs met at X% (X less than 90, not going to bother solving).

Comment Re:Driving yes, but charging? (Score 1) 990

800 miles is about my limit for driving in one day, with stops for lunch and dinner. But that means you're scenario would cost me an extra night in a hotel room. And that brings me to...

It won't be long until apartments start to realize that they can make money by installing charging infrastructure.

That is going to suck. Because it's going to be an extra fee. Same with hotels, stores, whatever. You know how you pay $10 for wifi at a hotel? It'll be $20 for a "charging permit" that you hang in your window or whatever. You know how apartments add $50/month for washer/dryer hookups? It'll be $100/month for an EV hookup, plus the cost of electricity. Heck maybe it'll be 2x the cost of electricity because the apartment complex makes a deal with the electric company to subsidize the up front cost of installing all those charging points.

It's all in the gimmick stage right now. It's promotional and they give it away for free to look cool, and it costs next to nothing because barely anybody uses it. When electric cars are more widespread, it's going to be brutal price gouging, because instead of gas stations that serve potentially thousands of people per day, and compete with a dozen other gas stations for local business, it's going to be little fiefdoms and monopolies. Your primary charging point has to be somewhere where your car is sitting 8 hours per day. That means home or office. Some businesses will do that for their employees (I'm sure Google will for instance), but the guy living in a cheap apartment and working a retail job at the mall? Nope.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders. -- Gauss