Sorry, from 100 C++ programmers there is probably 1 who can write a program that beats Java's garbage collector.
There are 5 of us in my office, and three of us can run rings around the java GC. The simple reason is that good programmers understand how not to mess up caching. Bad programmers use Java and or C#.
I earned a 4.5 GPA (scale of 5) and I have two degrees in computer science
I say this tongue in cheek, but be assured I am serious:
You screwed up your college experience.
School was never about earning the degree directly. Your GPA doesn't mean shit to anybody because everyone knows that thanks to grade inflation, anyone with an IQ above shoe leather can get good grades, all it takes is effort, which all but the laziest of people can do. Unfortunately, Even the most Herculean effort, and the highest GPA doesn't make a good programmer good.
And all of that is completely irrelevant to getting a job. Assuming that you can work well under pressure (Which test taking accurately indicates), the one thing you needed from your college education had absolutely nothing to do with your classes. The whole point of the exercise was to network and meet new people. Those are the very same people that you should look to when you want to find gainful employment.
Not for nothing, but if you actually needed classes in order to learn how to program (Which it sounds like you didn't), you would make a particularly lousy employee. Managers want employees who will learn how to get shit done on their own, because that makes the bosses job 1000x easier. If the boss has to send you for training every time (s)he needs you to take on something outside of your immediate experience, you wont last long.
What they did is look at all the common mistakes programmers made in C++, and tried to design a language it was impossible to make those mistakes in.
If you want to make furniture, you need to have some sharp woodworking tools. Insisting that a rubber mallet is the right tool for the job because nobody every cuts their fingers off with one is just plain ignorant.
C#, in ironic contrast to the name, is a rubber mallet. In the programming world, it just isn't that useful.
Just because a language lets more people create programs doesn't even remotely mean that any of those "programmers" have any business near a computer.
Redmonks statistical methods and analysis are horribly biased. Can we please stop quoting any conclusions he comes to? They are completely useless at best and actively misleading at worst.
If you want to know what is really going on in the CS world, look to the IEEE; everyone else has an agenda they are pushing...
He'll maybe get a stay in a psych ward somewhere, and then be freed when the psychiatrists get bored with him.
That's not the way that process works.
The way it actually works, is the judge finds that a defendant is incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions, and orders that the defendant be held in an institution for such people (This is a process known as being involuntarily committed, and can be undertaken by a judge or a family member). If at such a time in the future, the person in question is planned for release from the facility in question, they are remanded back to the custody of the court, and the original proceedings are continued. This is not a get out of jail free card, unless you mistakenly think that involuntary commitment is anything other than a prison.
Once a person has been committed, even the entity that committed them cannot get them released without the facilities consent or a court order to that effect.
People don't want fairness. People want blatant unfairness in their favor. Given the opportunity, they will create exactly that situation.
People will accept fairness as a far distant second option to systemic bias in their favor, but only when it is 100% apparent that they will never be able to swing the unfairness in their own favor.
This is economic Darwinism at its finest; brought to you by every economic model ever attempted.
No, its just plain wrong. Science is accomplished by presenting a theory and testing it. The vast majority of the time, the original theory is at least incomplete. Very often the original theory is outright wrong.
A scientist that always presents theories that turn out to be right is almost certainly either corrupt or incompetent.
I have a Galaxy S6. I get over the air updates regularly, it still performs reasonably quickly, and unlike my old iPhones, OS upgrades don't brick my phone.
If you are going to buy a cheaper phone from a less reputable company (Ahem, Huwei, I'm looking at you), then you deserve what you get. If you want quality, buy Apple, Google or Samsung. Microsoft might be on that list except you never know if they are going to support any of their products if you don't have an enterprise license agreement.
Tesla's attitude with superchargers is a bit odd to me.
Most of the other automakers have chosen various proprietary connectors and charging standards. Tesla refuses to pay these other car companies royalties to allow the other companies customers to charge the other companies cars at Tesla charging stations.
The reason you can't charge your toyota at a tesla station is 100% toyota's fault. Any time toyota wants to, they can put a tesla compatible charge port on their car, and then the car could charge at any tesla station. Toyota can do this 100% free of royalties because teslas charging system is free of royalties.
The reason the other manufacturers do not do this is because they all still cling to the hope that their charging standard will be adopted and everyone else will be forced to pay them royalties. It is just one more example of how the patent system in our world is screwing john Q public in favor of a few large corporations. No patents, no royalties, no incentive for the big car manufacturers to behave this way.
PLEASE DESIST IN THINKING THINGS ARE MADE BY SINGLE PEOPLE IT IS A VERY UNHEALTHY MYTH
It is absolutely true. There is no myth to it. I have been involved in dozens of projects from the tiny, to the absurdly huge. On the small projects I have worked on, they were almost without exception, single developer projects. A single guy building the hardware (for that type of product), and a single software / firmware guy doing the programming. For more medium sized projects, You might break the software into UI and server type setup where each piece is handled by a separate person, but they are essentially separate programs with an API in between. I have also worked on larger projects where I was the sole developer. I had one where I was the sole developer and produced a system that had 50k lines in it. (I was replacing a 250k line product that was written by committee and sucked a fat nut). Took me about a year to reproduce the entire thing complete with learning about the requirements and documenting the new codebase.
I am currently working on another large product (high performance database implementation). We have 4 developers on the project, plus two people who perform code reviews only. Of those 4, only two of us actually produce code in any significant quantity, 1 is an entry level guy that produces what you would expect form an entry level guy, and the other produces not much. The biggest stumbling block is the reviews and documentation process. We do peer reviewed designs and peer reviewed code. The problem is that one of the two review only team members is hopelessly out of his league, and we spend huge amounts of time and effort arguing with him about the designs and review because he simply doesn't get it. He used to be a code contributor to the project, but most of the code he produced has had to be replaced (It was accepted before there was a review process).
The original team for this project consisted of two people, the reviewer mentioned above, and one other person that is no longer with the company. They hired more developers to increase the performance of the "team", when all they needed to do was get rid of the problem and replace him with a competent person, and the project would have moved along just fine. By keeping him on, they are simply slowing down the entire team. I would estimate that he is contributing about -70% of a developer worth of work because he creates so much more work for others than he actually contributes to the project.
TLDR: more developers rarely gets the project done faster or better. You need high quality devs and you need to get out of their way. The biggest challenge is that there are many times as many mediocre or bad devs as there are good devs, and it can be very difficult to tell the difference in an interview. Experience doesn't always mean better either. The problem guy above has been programming for at least 15 years that I know of, and if you give him a hundred more, he still won't be any good.
But burn it cleanly in a fuel cell, capture (and perhaps compress) its exhaust gases, and convert them back into gasoline in a plant, using nothing but electricity from sunlight, and you got a perfectly clean, infinitely recyclable process, and a fuel that has *much* higher energy density than batteries.
The part you missed is how that process is only 5% efficient at converting sunlight into kinetic energy in the car. The equivalent process for EVs is around 20% give or take. The only two advantages that Hydrocarbon fuels have over pure electric are energy density of the fuel, and the fact that we can pump the hydrocarbons out of the ground in a form that requires relatively little modification to use as the fuel.
Continuing improvements in batteries are wiping out the first advantage, and the second advantage is strongly offset if not completely wiped out by the inherent dangers of the open cycle of burning fossil fuels and releasing the waste products into the atmosphere.
That will be far more devastating to them than if they are have a period of time to actually get new jobs.
These folks are not qualified to do anything other than drive for a living. A very large percentage of them are barely trainable as it is. The jobs they are capable of learning to do, automation is already wiping out. Like the manufacturing workers, their ranks will be decimated, and they will end up blighting the country because we force them into abject poverty. There is nothing of value that society will be willing to pay them to do, so we better figure out what the plan is because Manna is comming.
Over the years, the teamsters have had to fill their ranks from among those who could get and wanted the pre-requisite jobs (The inside minimum wage jobs that nobody wants). The result is that their rank and file are barely qualified to draw oxygen from the atmosphere. (Yes, I know there are exceptions, there always are, but on balance if they were smarter, they would go get jobs in better industries).
For a long while, that was ok, because there was no other way to move goods around the world. There is a better way now, and the world no longer needs the people the teamsters are protecting. There simply aren't jobs left for people who can barely read and write, and who's only skill is driving. I warned these idiots 10 years ago that their jobs were going to be replaced with automated systems, and they just looked at me funny and insisted that *I* was the idiot. "Computers will never be able to drive trucks" they said. I moved on. They didn't.
Honda has already manufactured a special wire-wrapping tape
This is simple: Poison
Just like pressure treated lumber, add arsenic to the insulation in relatively small quantities. Just enough to kill anything that eats this as a primary diet, but not enough to prevent biodegrading. Quickly enough critters will develop a strong distaste for the stuff.
What idiot would have a fleet of one or two hour only aircraft?
Electric motors are already far more efficient and cost effective in stationary applications (you don't see any factories that have their conveyors and machinery run on any kind of hydrocarbon engines). Even base load hydrocarbon electric generation is quickly becoming more expensive than solar and wind, even including the cost of battery storage. Standalone IC and jet engines are significantly less economical than electric already, and the only reason they are not already replaced with electric motors is that the battery technology has been insufficient for the task. There are multiple different technologies in development right now that show promise of continuing the battery improvement equivalent of moore's law. Even if batteries cost 10 times what they do now, if they had double the volumetric energy density of todays batteries, they would be an economical replacement for jet-a. That density point should be reached in commercially available batteries in less than 6 years. GE, Rolls-Royce and Pratt and Whitney are all in late stage development of electric aircraft motors that can replace jet engines. These products should be available for aircraft designers to use within 4 years, although specs are already available for these motors today, allowing the aircraft manufacturers to start designs based on them today.
Within 10 years, the first all-electric aircraft will be rolling off the production lines in large quantities. They will be significantly cheaper for the airline to operate, they will be quieter and more comfortable for passengers, and after the initial bugs are worked out, they will require far less maintenance while having much higher reliability. All told, this will be a revolution for the air industry that has long been hard set on all sides by extremely thin margins.
So we know that... somebody is affected, so it must be indicative of MS's gross incompetence. Oh, and let's be perfectly clear about something. If Microsoft delayed this patch, for any reason, whatsoever, you would still be condemning them for not snapping their fingers and producing a patch for this critical security vulnerability.
incompetence is incompetence. This fault has been around for 6 months at least (I heard July 27th). Apparently all of this time has been necessary to allow all of the major players (except Debian) to create a patch. I find it very difficult to have any sympathy for any organization that cant get a sev 1 problem fixed in 6 months. That is just shameful.
I, for one, want to know why it takes Microsoft that long? Is it incompetence? Do they not think that our security is that important? A single individual could re-write a lot of code in that much time, what about an organization with billions of dollars at their disposal?
The system works only because police have limited resources so have to let almost everything go uninvestigated.
And yet, almost every police force in the country seems to have nearly unlimited officers that they can park in various places to create "speed traps" to enforce arbitrary speed limits. Methinks the resources are simply being criminally misallocated...
Isn't there something about lithium-ion batteries having a 3-year shelf/life
Un-conditioned lithium batteries tend to have a relatively low life, as measured both in charge/discharge cycles, and in total lifespan. Cell phones have this problem because the cost of Battery conditioning hardware, and the space/weight of such equipment makes it unacceptable for cellphones. As a result, Cell phone batteries (and for similar reasons, laptop batteries) have a useful lifespan of only a few years.
Car batteries by contrast feature bettery conditioning which maintains temperature conditions in the battery within an ideal operating range which greatly extends the lifespan of the battery (3x to 5x improvement).
The first citation shows only that the majority of persons in the bottom fifth are unemployed. It makes no claim about full time or part time, only whether they earn or not.
I think the way you phrased the original assertion is a little misleading. It would tend to suggest that poor households are poor because they are only working part time, and not full time. At an average earnings of $30k per earner in these households, that is very much not the case. For a full time job, this equates to about $15 per hour. Since part time jobs pay less not more, it is unlikely that the typical scenario is someone earning $30 per hour for 20 hour weeks. The more likely answer is the $15 per hour full time i mentioned above. I was unable to find any information either way, as the BLS seems to not know or not care.
The data in the links you provided strongly suggests that the fundamental problem is unemployment in low income households, whether it is a result of unemployability, or more likely, child rearing / eldercare.
One other thing to note is that While the Adjusted household income ha remained flat since 1965, the number of earners needed to gain that income has increased from 1.25 in 1950 to 1.7 in 1990. This means that from 1965 until 1990 real wages dropped across the board, but the decline was masked because the workforce expanded to compensate. This is the reason for the economic boom of the 80s: More workers at cheaper wages means vastly increased economic output for the country. The fundamental problem with this is that from a societal point of view, all of those extra workers were not "unemployed" before, they were homemakers. They performed childcare and eldercare as well as housekeeping and other duties. Many families, especially those without social safety nets simply cannot provide the 2 full time workers that are required to continue earning the median household income, so they fall to the bottom, and since childcare / eldercare is essentially a lifetime commitment, they are basically screwed.
There are two fundamental components to the solution to basic poverty. The first is universal health care. A person can ignore or deal with just about any bad happening, and recover to a position where they can earn a living. The only real exception is health. If you loose your helath, you have nothing, so you must do whatever you are able in order to keep your health so that you can earn a living. Without universal health care, people do what they always do when faced with a problem they cannot handle. They ignore it until it bites them, and then they die, but not before costing our healthcare system far more than the cost of universal healthcare. A $500 medical problem can easily become a $50,000 medical problem if you ignore it long enough, and hospitals are not allowed to refuse life threatening emergencies. Someone pays the bill eventually, and you can bet it isn't the person who is on deaths door.
The second part is child/elder care. For obvious reasons this causes people to loose the ability to work in most cases. The only people for whom paying for childcare while continuing to work makes financial sense are those who are already in the upper middle class or better, and they are not the problem here. Universal childcare would go a very long way to leveling the playing field for the bottom 5th.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, from 100 C++ programmers there is probably 1 who can write a program that beats Java's garbage collector.
There are 5 of us in my office, and three of us can run rings around the java GC. The simple reason is that good programmers understand how not to mess up caching. Bad programmers use Java and or C#.
I earned a 4.5 GPA (scale of 5) and I have two degrees in computer science
I say this tongue in cheek, but be assured I am serious:
You screwed up your college experience.
School was never about earning the degree directly. Your GPA doesn't mean shit to anybody because everyone knows that thanks to grade inflation, anyone with an IQ above shoe leather can get good grades, all it takes is effort, which all but the laziest of people can do. Unfortunately, Even the most Herculean effort, and the highest GPA doesn't make a good programmer good.
And all of that is completely irrelevant to getting a job. Assuming that you can work well under pressure (Which test taking accurately indicates), the one thing you needed from your college education had absolutely nothing to do with your classes. The whole point of the exercise was to network and meet new people. Those are the very same people that you should look to when you want to find gainful employment.
Not for nothing, but if you actually needed classes in order to learn how to program (Which it sounds like you didn't), you would make a particularly lousy employee. Managers want employees who will learn how to get shit done on their own, because that makes the bosses job 1000x easier. If the boss has to send you for training every time (s)he needs you to take on something outside of your immediate experience, you wont last long.
What they did is look at all the common mistakes programmers made in C++, and tried to design a language it was impossible to make those mistakes in.
If you want to make furniture, you need to have some sharp woodworking tools. Insisting that a rubber mallet is the right tool for the job because nobody every cuts their fingers off with one is just plain ignorant.
C#, in ironic contrast to the name, is a rubber mallet. In the programming world, it just isn't that useful.
Just because a language lets more people create programs doesn't even remotely mean that any of those "programmers" have any business near a computer.
Redmonks statistical methods and analysis are horribly biased. Can we please stop quoting any conclusions he comes to? They are completely useless at best and actively misleading at worst.
If you want to know what is really going on in the CS world, look to the IEEE; everyone else has an agenda they are pushing...
He'll maybe get a stay in a psych ward somewhere, and then be freed when the psychiatrists get bored with him.
That's not the way that process works.
The way it actually works, is the judge finds that a defendant is incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions, and orders that the defendant be held in an institution for such people (This is a process known as being involuntarily committed, and can be undertaken by a judge or a family member). If at such a time in the future, the person in question is planned for release from the facility in question, they are remanded back to the custody of the court, and the original proceedings are continued. This is not a get out of jail free card, unless you mistakenly think that involuntary commitment is anything other than a prison.
Once a person has been committed, even the entity that committed them cannot get them released without the facilities consent or a court order to that effect.
People don't want fairness. People want blatant unfairness in their favor. Given the opportunity, they will create exactly that situation.
People will accept fairness as a far distant second option to systemic bias in their favor, but only when it is 100% apparent that they will never be able to swing the unfairness in their own favor.
This is economic Darwinism at its finest; brought to you by every economic model ever attempted.
If the theory it wrong, it is incompetent.
No, its just plain wrong. Science is accomplished by presenting a theory and testing it. The vast majority of the time, the original theory is at least incomplete. Very often the original theory is outright wrong.
A scientist that always presents theories that turn out to be right is almost certainly either corrupt or incompetent.
I have a Galaxy S6. I get over the air updates regularly, it still performs reasonably quickly, and unlike my old iPhones, OS upgrades don't brick my phone.
If you are going to buy a cheaper phone from a less reputable company (Ahem, Huwei, I'm looking at you), then you deserve what you get. If you want quality, buy Apple, Google or Samsung. Microsoft might be on that list except you never know if they are going to support any of their products if you don't have an enterprise license agreement.
Tesla's attitude with superchargers is a bit odd to me.
Most of the other automakers have chosen various proprietary connectors and charging standards. Tesla refuses to pay these other car companies royalties to allow the other companies customers to charge the other companies cars at Tesla charging stations.
The reason you can't charge your toyota at a tesla station is 100% toyota's fault. Any time toyota wants to, they can put a tesla compatible charge port on their car, and then the car could charge at any tesla station. Toyota can do this 100% free of royalties because teslas charging system is free of royalties.
The reason the other manufacturers do not do this is because they all still cling to the hope that their charging standard will be adopted and everyone else will be forced to pay them royalties. It is just one more example of how the patent system in our world is screwing john Q public in favor of a few large corporations. No patents, no royalties, no incentive for the big car manufacturers to behave this way.
PLEASE DESIST IN THINKING THINGS ARE MADE BY SINGLE PEOPLE IT IS A VERY UNHEALTHY MYTH
It is absolutely true. There is no myth to it. I have been involved in dozens of projects from the tiny, to the absurdly huge. On the small projects I have worked on, they were almost without exception, single developer projects. A single guy building the hardware (for that type of product), and a single software / firmware guy doing the programming. For more medium sized projects, You might break the software into UI and server type setup where each piece is handled by a separate person, but they are essentially separate programs with an API in between. I have also worked on larger projects where I was the sole developer. I had one where I was the sole developer and produced a system that had 50k lines in it. (I was replacing a 250k line product that was written by committee and sucked a fat nut). Took me about a year to reproduce the entire thing complete with learning about the requirements and documenting the new codebase.
I am currently working on another large product (high performance database implementation). We have 4 developers on the project, plus two people who perform code reviews only. Of those 4, only two of us actually produce code in any significant quantity, 1 is an entry level guy that produces what you would expect form an entry level guy, and the other produces not much. The biggest stumbling block is the reviews and documentation process. We do peer reviewed designs and peer reviewed code. The problem is that one of the two review only team members is hopelessly out of his league, and we spend huge amounts of time and effort arguing with him about the designs and review because he simply doesn't get it. He used to be a code contributor to the project, but most of the code he produced has had to be replaced (It was accepted before there was a review process).
The original team for this project consisted of two people, the reviewer mentioned above, and one other person that is no longer with the company. They hired more developers to increase the performance of the "team", when all they needed to do was get rid of the problem and replace him with a competent person, and the project would have moved along just fine. By keeping him on, they are simply slowing down the entire team. I would estimate that he is contributing about -70% of a developer worth of work because he creates so much more work for others than he actually contributes to the project.
TLDR: more developers rarely gets the project done faster or better. You need high quality devs and you need to get out of their way. The biggest challenge is that there are many times as many mediocre or bad devs as there are good devs, and it can be very difficult to tell the difference in an interview. Experience doesn't always mean better either. The problem guy above has been programming for at least 15 years that I know of, and if you give him a hundred more, he still won't be any good.
But burn it cleanly in a fuel cell, capture (and perhaps compress) its exhaust gases, and convert them back into gasoline in a plant, using nothing but electricity from sunlight, and you got a perfectly clean, infinitely recyclable process, and a fuel that has *much* higher energy density than batteries.
The part you missed is how that process is only 5% efficient at converting sunlight into kinetic energy in the car. The equivalent process for EVs is around 20% give or take. The only two advantages that Hydrocarbon fuels have over pure electric are energy density of the fuel, and the fact that we can pump the hydrocarbons out of the ground in a form that requires relatively little modification to use as the fuel.
Continuing improvements in batteries are wiping out the first advantage, and the second advantage is strongly offset if not completely wiped out by the inherent dangers of the open cycle of burning fossil fuels and releasing the waste products into the atmosphere.
Well, short of making them illegal, there'll always be a market for piston-engined/internal combustion-engined vehicles. They're so much fun to drive.
Spoken like someone who has not sat behind the wheel of a P95D. Try that, then tell me how much fun ICE cars are to drive.
That will be far more devastating to them than if they are have a period of time to actually get new jobs.
These folks are not qualified to do anything other than drive for a living. A very large percentage of them are barely trainable as it is. The jobs they are capable of learning to do, automation is already wiping out. Like the manufacturing workers, their ranks will be decimated, and they will end up blighting the country because we force them into abject poverty. There is nothing of value that society will be willing to pay them to do, so we better figure out what the plan is because Manna is comming.
Ahh Teamsters... so lazy
Not lazy... Stupid
Over the years, the teamsters have had to fill their ranks from among those who could get and wanted the pre-requisite jobs (The inside minimum wage jobs that nobody wants). The result is that their rank and file are barely qualified to draw oxygen from the atmosphere. (Yes, I know there are exceptions, there always are, but on balance if they were smarter, they would go get jobs in better industries).
For a long while, that was ok, because there was no other way to move goods around the world. There is a better way now, and the world no longer needs the people the teamsters are protecting. There simply aren't jobs left for people who can barely read and write, and who's only skill is driving. I warned these idiots 10 years ago that their jobs were going to be replaced with automated systems, and they just looked at me funny and insisted that *I* was the idiot. "Computers will never be able to drive trucks" they said. I moved on. They didn't.
Security is not relevant for a CAN bus.
Security is relevant everywhere. Some people are just in denial.
TCP/IP has no 'security' build in either
Look how well that is working for us.
Obvious answer is poison but thats not great for mechanics
If your mechanic is eating the insulation off the wires in your car, I think you need to find a new mechanic.
Honda has already manufactured a special wire-wrapping tape
This is simple: Poison
Just like pressure treated lumber, add arsenic to the insulation in relatively small quantities. Just enough to kill anything that eats this as a primary diet, but not enough to prevent biodegrading. Quickly enough critters will develop a strong distaste for the stuff.
What idiot would have a fleet of one or two hour only aircraft?
Electric motors are already far more efficient and cost effective in stationary applications (you don't see any factories that have their conveyors and machinery run on any kind of hydrocarbon engines). Even base load hydrocarbon electric generation is quickly becoming more expensive than solar and wind, even including the cost of battery storage. Standalone IC and jet engines are significantly less economical than electric already, and the only reason they are not already replaced with electric motors is that the battery technology has been insufficient for the task. There are multiple different technologies in development right now that show promise of continuing the battery improvement equivalent of moore's law. Even if batteries cost 10 times what they do now, if they had double the volumetric energy density of todays batteries, they would be an economical replacement for jet-a. That density point should be reached in commercially available batteries in less than 6 years. GE, Rolls-Royce and Pratt and Whitney are all in late stage development of electric aircraft motors that can replace jet engines. These products should be available for aircraft designers to use within 4 years, although specs are already available for these motors today, allowing the aircraft manufacturers to start designs based on them today.
Within 10 years, the first all-electric aircraft will be rolling off the production lines in large quantities. They will be significantly cheaper for the airline to operate, they will be quieter and more comfortable for passengers, and after the initial bugs are worked out, they will require far less maintenance while having much higher reliability. All told, this will be a revolution for the air industry that has long been hard set on all sides by extremely thin margins.
I would do exactly what Putin is doing to western nations, only I would push a somewhat different agenda...
So we know that... somebody is affected, so it must be indicative of MS's gross incompetence. Oh, and let's be perfectly clear about something. If Microsoft delayed this patch, for any reason, whatsoever, you would still be condemning them for not snapping their fingers and producing a patch for this critical security vulnerability.
incompetence is incompetence. This fault has been around for 6 months at least (I heard July 27th). Apparently all of this time has been necessary to allow all of the major players (except Debian) to create a patch. I find it very difficult to have any sympathy for any organization that cant get a sev 1 problem fixed in 6 months. That is just shameful.
I, for one, want to know why it takes Microsoft that long? Is it incompetence? Do they not think that our security is that important? A single individual could re-write a lot of code in that much time, what about an organization with billions of dollars at their disposal?
The system works only because police have limited resources so have to let almost everything go uninvestigated.
And yet, almost every police force in the country seems to have nearly unlimited officers that they can park in various places to create "speed traps" to enforce arbitrary speed limits. Methinks the resources are simply being criminally misallocated...
Isn't there something about lithium-ion batteries having a 3-year shelf/life
Un-conditioned lithium batteries tend to have a relatively low life, as measured both in charge/discharge cycles, and in total lifespan. Cell phones have this problem because the cost of Battery conditioning hardware, and the space/weight of such equipment makes it unacceptable for cellphones. As a result, Cell phone batteries (and for similar reasons, laptop batteries) have a useful lifespan of only a few years.
Car batteries by contrast feature bettery conditioning which maintains temperature conditions in the battery within an ideal operating range which greatly extends the lifespan of the battery (3x to 5x improvement).
Unlikely, since the income cut off for the bottom quintile is $24k. A full time job at $15/hr would put that household into the 2nd quintile.
I see it now, I misread the household income per earner as earner income.
The first citation shows only that the majority of persons in the bottom fifth are unemployed. It makes no claim about full time or part time, only whether they earn or not.
I think the way you phrased the original assertion is a little misleading. It would tend to suggest that poor households are poor because they are only working part time, and not full time. At an average earnings of $30k per earner in these households, that is very much not the case. For a full time job, this equates to about $15 per hour. Since part time jobs pay less not more, it is unlikely that the typical scenario is someone earning $30 per hour for 20 hour weeks. The more likely answer is the $15 per hour full time i mentioned above. I was unable to find any information either way, as the BLS seems to not know or not care.
The data in the links you provided strongly suggests that the fundamental problem is unemployment in low income households, whether it is a result of unemployability, or more likely, child rearing / eldercare.
One other thing to note is that While the Adjusted household income ha remained flat since 1965, the number of earners needed to gain that income has increased from 1.25 in 1950 to 1.7 in 1990. This means that from 1965 until 1990 real wages dropped across the board, but the decline was masked because the workforce expanded to compensate. This is the reason for the economic boom of the 80s: More workers at cheaper wages means vastly increased economic output for the country. The fundamental problem with this is that from a societal point of view, all of those extra workers were not "unemployed" before, they were homemakers. They performed childcare and eldercare as well as housekeeping and other duties. Many families, especially those without social safety nets simply cannot provide the 2 full time workers that are required to continue earning the median household income, so they fall to the bottom, and since childcare / eldercare is essentially a lifetime commitment, they are basically screwed.
There are two fundamental components to the solution to basic poverty. The first is universal health care. A person can ignore or deal with just about any bad happening, and recover to a position where they can earn a living. The only real exception is health. If you loose your helath, you have nothing, so you must do whatever you are able in order to keep your health so that you can earn a living. Without universal health care, people do what they always do when faced with a problem they cannot handle. They ignore it until it bites them, and then they die, but not before costing our healthcare system far more than the cost of universal healthcare. A $500 medical problem can easily become a $50,000 medical problem if you ignore it long enough, and hospitals are not allowed to refuse life threatening emergencies. Someone pays the bill eventually, and you can bet it isn't the person who is on deaths door.
The second part is child/elder care. For obvious reasons this causes people to loose the ability to work in most cases. The only people for whom paying for childcare while continuing to work makes financial sense are those who are already in the upper middle class or better, and they are not the problem here. Universal childcare would go a very long way to leveling the playing field for the bottom 5th.
Very few. Most poor households have zero full time workers. Most people earning minimum wage are 2nd or 3rd earners in middle class households.
That's a pretty bold claim. How about some evidence?