I have a Mac that is a couple of versions behind on the JRE because the updater is complete shit. It always fails. So, it means a complete uninstall and download/reinstall of the JRE and a bunch of other Java shit - according to the 'help' docs on Oracle's site. If it wasn't for my wife's employer using some scheduling software written in Java, I'd rip Java out for good.
I thought all those Silicon Valley people were supposed to be the best of the best? Or has Java development and maintenance been offshored by Oracle?
Most of the time the problems I see with Java are not that the JRE update failed, but that the JRE update was successful and now the underlying Java application doesn't work anymore. After all, when we develop an application, we test it on a certain version. If Automatic Updates automatically update your JVMs major version, which has happened in the past, then how can we guarantee it will work? I remember back when Java 7 was just coming out and was chock full of bugs, I kept getting calls from people whose application suddenly stopped working. Well, it was certified on Java 6, and they had allowed Automatic Updates to install Java 7, which the application was not tested on and which we weren't planning on testing on until certain bugs and vulnerabilities were patched.
Automatic Updates should never be allowed in production. That includes Firefox and IE automatic updates as well.
I have to think Java works well as an instructional language. I learned on Basic on a TRS-80 COCO by myself in 5th grade. I learned C myself reading K&R before college. In College, I picked up Fortran and Pascal. I never had college training in OO. It was around in the form of C++, but hadn't made much inroads in academia yet. I got a student discount on C++ and tried to use it. But basically I ended up using it like C and couldn't understand how to use the OO pieces.
20 years later, I picked up Java for a project at work. I read through Herbert Schildts Java book and did all the exercises. With the simple examples and descriptions of objects and relationships, it then became very easy to understand Java, but not only that, but after reading this Java book I found myself suddenly understanding how to do Object Oriented Programming in C++ as well. Basically, Java made it easy to understand OOP and made it possible to apply that same understanding to other OO languages.
The actual reason that EV cars often look strange is because the designers are trying to make them as aerodynamic as possible in order to extend their range.
Well, then they should make them look more like cool cars, because most cool cars have much lower total drag area than EVs. My BMW sedan has about the same Coefficient of Drag as the Nissan Leaf, but about 30% less front surface area.
The aerodynamic aspect can't really be an argument since ICE car manufacturers are also interested in higher mileage, so they have just as much reason to make cars aerodynamic as EV manufacturers.
Nope all the way around. The LISD's own IP policy [tasb.org] says that students retain the rights to all works unless they were an employee of the school system. If the student wasn't being paid to do what he did, the district has no rights to the images.
If the students own the images, then how are the students compensated for the use of those images in the yearbook? There must be some sort of agreement.
I think you're missing an important aspect: The principal's motivation. Why is he suddenly intervening? Do you think he's doing it because he just felt like it? I have a feeling that if you look closer, you'll find an influential parent forcing his hand or some other motivation that we're not reading about.
Yes, this is probably the issue. Most likely he has taken a picture and published on the internet a picture of someone who indicated on their annual information sheet that they don't want photos of their child posted on the internet. However, the school was not responsible for the posting, so they cannot be held liable. But the parent probably browbeat them and threatened a lawsuit.
Additionally, I have to imagine there is some sort of agreement when a student signs up for yearbook. Clearly some of the photos they take end up in the yearbook. Either they must give them away wholesale to the school and they are the schools property completely, or at least the student relinquishes license to the picture and may not demand compensation for the money which the school receives for publishing the picture.
Clearly it is all conjecture without having all of the information. But that is what we are here for, right? To fill in our own facts and come to our own conclusions.
The one question that should have been asked is why are electric/hybrid cars so boil-on-a-buttcheek ugly? The exceptions to the rule (Tesla, BMW i8) are the ones grabbing all the headlines and have all the desirability. Why can't automakers create lower priced electric cars that appeal to the eye?
People looking at the car have to be able to tell that that car is an electric vehicle and not an ICE, in order to properly appreciate how the EV owner is saving the planet. By making it ugly, they can also allow the owner to sacrifice further by not driving a good looking car.
Really, the rich people's sports cars and luxury sedans are bigger and heavier than the poor people's Escalades, Expeditions and Hummers?
The Escalade is $73,000, the Expedition is $63,000, and I couldn't find a new Hummer price, but it's sure to be in the same range. These are not poor people's cars. Maybe you're being facetious. I'm not sure.
Well, all I am saying is that around here, the rich people are driving around $50-$60k luxury sedans, and the poor people drive around even Escalades, Hummers and Expeditions. Oh, and the occasional late 80's Monte Carlo on bizarrely oversized wheels.
The article says 4 hours is a lot longer than other drones out there... but how much are we talking about? How long can a lithium ion powered drone stay in the air?
From what I have seen, somewhere between 30 seconds and 5 minutes.
Is anyone else bothered that some people get so much pleasure in pretending to be psychopaths?
You don't HAVE to pretend to be a psychopath. I generally try to play the GTA series with as little mayhem as the story will possibly allow, and I definitely go out of my way to not run over people or crash into cars. That said, I do like to finish the storyline, so you do end up having to kill a lot of people including innocents and police. I don't enjoy that part of it, but I enjoy the rest of the game, so I let it slide.
That sounds like a good idea. I will try to find someone who can look into it. I had major medical before and it was about $180 per month. Then it went to about $960 per month for the same plan, but with higher deductibles when ACA kicked in. Now I have the lowest cost plan available which has higher deductibles than my original plan and is about $400 per month. That's not quite 300%, but the other was more than 500%.
Consulting is quite a bit different than running a business that pays minimum wagers. An average restaurant, for example, makes a profit of about 3-3.5%. A restaurant tries to keep the labor component under 30%. If the cost of labor goes up by 25%, as is proposed in California, then the labor component raises to just shy of 35%, and the profit goes to about -3.8%.
Maybe that is backward in some locations. In Atlanta the poor live close and the rich commute AGES to get to work. My question on a per mileage charge is how is the tracking done. Reading the odometer is easy and doesn't have privacy concerns, but doesn't reflect if it was driven on private roads or out of state.
Yes, it is exactly backwards in my experience. In Chicago, there are a few ultrarich living in condos downtown, although why they would want to live so close to all the poor people, I'll never know. But anyway, once you get outside the loop, it is projects, then slums, then poor row houses, then eventually you get into more middle class like 20 miles out. The rich live in various pockets of different suburbs, all 25 - 40 miles out from the city.
In fact, now that the ACA has passed I am paying more than ever before and it goes up by higher percentages every year than it ever has.
Then you should seriously shop around, because most others are reporting lower percentage increases. Some are even paying lower premiums.
Not saying you can't be an outlier, but you should make sure you're not being taken advantage of by somebody.
No, I did shop around when my premium went up by 500%, and I ended up getting the cheapest possible plan, which was only 300% higher than what I paid before ACA.
You've obviously never owned a business, as evidenced by your question "how do they know how much someone is willing to pay for it without trying to raise prices?" It's like a question a 3rd-grader would ask.
As for - "Raise prices to justify higher pay" - that doesn't even make sense. You charge whatever the market will bear. Your labor costs don't set the prices, unless you're an idiot.
You've obviously never owned a business, although you have clearly taken Econ 101. The only way to know how much someone is willing to pay is by trying to charge them that. In Econ 101, you are given the demand curve at different prices and told to find the maximum. That is easy. In real life, you don't get a demand curve. You just have to try a price and see what happens. Or charge what your neighbor charges. Or less.
However, when you throw the labor component in, if you are forced to buy labor at a certain price, you simply must raise prices to make a profit. This will take you to the new maximum profit price point, which can only be less profit, and may even be negative, if very few consumers are willing to buy at that price.
The U.S. Government collected $6.5 billion in 1940 which is $94 billion in current dollars. The deficit in terms of GDP was about 3%. I used 1940 because that was the first year they listed. But if you look at the whole chart, it doesn't really matter what year we look at. Even in 1975, we are spending 3 times as much in constant dollars for about 60% more people. That doesn't make any sense at all.
Primarily because now the government pays for healthcare. That's the biggest change in expenses.
What? And here I am paying for my own healthcare like a dummy. In fact, now that the ACA has passed I am paying more than ever before and it goes up by higher percentages every year than it ever has.
Sorry but your chosen baseline year, viz. 1940 makes the whole comparison moot. The world was just coming out of the great depression and entering a global war. Why don't you compare 1975 with 2015 instead?
In this case government collection is up only 20% over the last forty years.
Well how do they know how much someone is willing to pay for it without trying to raise prices? If they have to raise prices to justify the new higher pay and nobody buys it, then they just close their doors and now all their employees are making zero per hour instead of minimum wage.
raising the minimum wage increases the amount of money flowing in the economy. everyone will have more money to spend. businesses will expand because people will have money to spend. there will be fewer jobless.
No, it doesn't raise the amount of money in the system unless more money is printed, and then that money will be worth less. The only way to increase the amount of money is by the economy expanding, not by artificially declaring the worth of a commodity. I minimum wage is raised, then stuff will cost more. Some slight benefit might be had for some of the poor, and a decreased standard of living will be incurred for the middle class.
"Thus, doubling those salaries would push that Big Mac cost up 80 cents."
Well, then by all means, let's double the minimum wage. If it will push the Big Mac (currently $3.99) up to 80 cents. Of course, that $3.39 is local. It is a lot more expensive in L.A., but as your article plainly proves, it is absolutely not at all related to the fact that the minimum wage there is 50% higher than it is here.
people need a minimum amount of money to live. if they are paid less, then they need public assistance. for example walmart employees who qualify for food stamps.
lower wages mean that employees will need more and more public assistance to feed and house their families.
you are a socialist if you don't believe in minimum wage, because you want the government to fund worker's pay.
Or conversely, you are a socialist if you believe in a minimum wage, because you want everyone to get paid the same regardless of the job or their ability to perform the job.
Meanwhile, tax avoidance is rife in the corporate world - which leads to much less tax revenue for Governments, which leads to a degradation of society and loss of services that benefit society.
Can't blame people for avoiding paying taxes if they don't have to. Did you buy a home instead of renting? Shame on you for getting that mortgage interest deduction? Have kids? Shame on you for getting deductions for your kids.
I could get a lot more worked up about how much more money we could get out of businesses, except for one fact, and that is that the government collects 30 times as much in taxes in CONSTANT DOLLARS as they did in 1940. Now granted, the population is 3 times as high as it was in 1940, so I could see why the feds would need 3 times the taxes (minus some amount for economies of scale of course). But there is just no room in my imagination for why they would need 30 times as much taxes to support 3 times the population and somehow manage to also run a deficit. Now, they ran a deficit in 1940 as well, but let's think about this for a minute. If $135 Billion in 1940 would have been enough to make ends meet, then how come with three times the population now, it takes $3.2 trillion? These are constant dollars people. The actual dollar figure in 1940 was $9.5 billion, less than 1/300th of what we spend now on triple the population.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a Mac that is a couple of versions behind on the JRE because the updater is complete shit. It always fails. So, it means a complete uninstall and download/reinstall of the JRE and a bunch of other Java shit - according to the 'help' docs on Oracle's site. If it wasn't for my wife's employer using some scheduling software written in Java, I'd rip Java out for good.
I thought all those Silicon Valley people were supposed to be the best of the best? Or has Java development and maintenance been offshored by Oracle?
Most of the time the problems I see with Java are not that the JRE update failed, but that the JRE update was successful and now the underlying Java application doesn't work anymore. After all, when we develop an application, we test it on a certain version. If Automatic Updates automatically update your JVMs major version, which has happened in the past, then how can we guarantee it will work? I remember back when Java 7 was just coming out and was chock full of bugs, I kept getting calls from people whose application suddenly stopped working. Well, it was certified on Java 6, and they had allowed Automatic Updates to install Java 7, which the application was not tested on and which we weren't planning on testing on until certain bugs and vulnerabilities were patched. Automatic Updates should never be allowed in production. That includes Firefox and IE automatic updates as well.
I have to think Java works well as an instructional language. I learned on Basic on a TRS-80 COCO by myself in 5th grade. I learned C myself reading K&R before college. In College, I picked up Fortran and Pascal. I never had college training in OO. It was around in the form of C++, but hadn't made much inroads in academia yet. I got a student discount on C++ and tried to use it. But basically I ended up using it like C and couldn't understand how to use the OO pieces.
20 years later, I picked up Java for a project at work. I read through Herbert Schildts Java book and did all the exercises. With the simple examples and descriptions of objects and relationships, it then became very easy to understand Java, but not only that, but after reading this Java book I found myself suddenly understanding how to do Object Oriented Programming in C++ as well. Basically, Java made it easy to understand OOP and made it possible to apply that same understanding to other OO languages.
The actual reason that EV cars often look strange is because the designers are trying to make them as aerodynamic as possible in order to extend their range.
Well, then they should make them look more like cool cars, because most cool cars have much lower total drag area than EVs. My BMW sedan has about the same Coefficient of Drag as the Nissan Leaf, but about 30% less front surface area.
The aerodynamic aspect can't really be an argument since ICE car manufacturers are also interested in higher mileage, so they have just as much reason to make cars aerodynamic as EV manufacturers.
Nope all the way around. The LISD's own IP policy [tasb.org] says that students retain the rights to all works unless they were an employee of the school system. If the student wasn't being paid to do what he did, the district has no rights to the images.
If the students own the images, then how are the students compensated for the use of those images in the yearbook? There must be some sort of agreement.
I think you're missing an important aspect: The principal's motivation. Why is he suddenly intervening? Do you think he's doing it because he just felt like it? I have a feeling that if you look closer, you'll find an influential parent forcing his hand or some other motivation that we're not reading about.
Yes, this is probably the issue. Most likely he has taken a picture and published on the internet a picture of someone who indicated on their annual information sheet that they don't want photos of their child posted on the internet. However, the school was not responsible for the posting, so they cannot be held liable. But the parent probably browbeat them and threatened a lawsuit.
Additionally, I have to imagine there is some sort of agreement when a student signs up for yearbook. Clearly some of the photos they take end up in the yearbook. Either they must give them away wholesale to the school and they are the schools property completely, or at least the student relinquishes license to the picture and may not demand compensation for the money which the school receives for publishing the picture.
Clearly it is all conjecture without having all of the information. But that is what we are here for, right? To fill in our own facts and come to our own conclusions.
The one question that should have been asked is why are electric/hybrid cars so boil-on-a-buttcheek ugly? The exceptions to the rule (Tesla, BMW i8) are the ones grabbing all the headlines and have all the desirability. Why can't automakers create lower priced electric cars that appeal to the eye?
People looking at the car have to be able to tell that that car is an electric vehicle and not an ICE, in order to properly appreciate how the EV owner is saving the planet. By making it ugly, they can also allow the owner to sacrifice further by not driving a good looking car.
Really, the rich people's sports cars and luxury sedans are bigger and heavier than the poor people's Escalades, Expeditions and Hummers?
The Escalade is $73,000, the Expedition is $63,000, and I couldn't find a new Hummer price, but it's sure to be in the same range. These are not poor people's cars. Maybe you're being facetious. I'm not sure.
Well, all I am saying is that around here, the rich people are driving around $50-$60k luxury sedans, and the poor people drive around even Escalades, Hummers and Expeditions. Oh, and the occasional late 80's Monte Carlo on bizarrely oversized wheels.
The article says 4 hours is a lot longer than other drones out there... but how much are we talking about? How long can a lithium ion powered drone stay in the air?
From what I have seen, somewhere between 30 seconds and 5 minutes.
This seems an inventory question on one's ability to manipulate something 3d in the mind.
To me it seems more like a nonsense question used by an interviewer in order to make himself feel superior.
And that is, a life of crime can be pretty goddamn tedious.
Well, you know, crime doesn't pay.
Is anyone else bothered that some people get so much pleasure in pretending to be psychopaths?
You don't HAVE to pretend to be a psychopath. I generally try to play the GTA series with as little mayhem as the story will possibly allow, and I definitely go out of my way to not run over people or crash into cars. That said, I do like to finish the storyline, so you do end up having to kill a lot of people including innocents and police. I don't enjoy that part of it, but I enjoy the rest of the game, so I let it slide.
That sounds like a good idea. I will try to find someone who can look into it. I had major medical before and it was about $180 per month. Then it went to about $960 per month for the same plan, but with higher deductibles when ACA kicked in. Now I have the lowest cost plan available which has higher deductibles than my original plan and is about $400 per month. That's not quite 300%, but the other was more than 500%.
Consulting is quite a bit different than running a business that pays minimum wagers. An average restaurant, for example, makes a profit of about 3-3.5%. A restaurant tries to keep the labor component under 30%. If the cost of labor goes up by 25%, as is proposed in California, then the labor component raises to just shy of 35%, and the profit goes to about -3.8%.
Maybe that is backward in some locations. In Atlanta the poor live close and the rich commute AGES to get to work. My question on a per mileage charge is how is the tracking done. Reading the odometer is easy and doesn't have privacy concerns, but doesn't reflect if it was driven on private roads or out of state.
Yes, it is exactly backwards in my experience. In Chicago, there are a few ultrarich living in condos downtown, although why they would want to live so close to all the poor people, I'll never know. But anyway, once you get outside the loop, it is projects, then slums, then poor row houses, then eventually you get into more middle class like 20 miles out. The rich live in various pockets of different suburbs, all 25 - 40 miles out from the city.
The rich also drive bigger and heavier cars, which cause more damage to the roads.
Really, the rich people's sports cars and luxury sedans are bigger and heavier than the poor people's Escalades, Expeditions and Hummers?
In fact, now that the ACA has passed I am paying more than ever before and it goes up by higher percentages every year than it ever has.
Then you should seriously shop around, because most others are reporting lower percentage increases. Some are even paying lower premiums.
Not saying you can't be an outlier, but you should make sure you're not being taken advantage of by somebody.
No, I did shop around when my premium went up by 500%, and I ended up getting the cheapest possible plan, which was only 300% higher than what I paid before ACA.
You've obviously never owned a business, as evidenced by your question "how do they know how much someone is willing to pay for it without trying to raise prices?" It's like a question a 3rd-grader would ask.
As for - "Raise prices to justify higher pay" - that doesn't even make sense. You charge whatever the market will bear. Your labor costs don't set the prices, unless you're an idiot.
You've obviously never owned a business, although you have clearly taken Econ 101. The only way to know how much someone is willing to pay is by trying to charge them that. In Econ 101, you are given the demand curve at different prices and told to find the maximum. That is easy. In real life, you don't get a demand curve. You just have to try a price and see what happens. Or charge what your neighbor charges. Or less.
However, when you throw the labor component in, if you are forced to buy labor at a certain price, you simply must raise prices to make a profit. This will take you to the new maximum profit price point, which can only be less profit, and may even be negative, if very few consumers are willing to buy at that price.
The U.S. Government collected $6.5 billion in 1940 which is $94 billion in current dollars. The deficit in terms of GDP was about 3%. I used 1940 because that was the first year they listed. But if you look at the whole chart, it doesn't really matter what year we look at. Even in 1975, we are spending 3 times as much in constant dollars for about 60% more people. That doesn't make any sense at all.
Primarily because now the government pays for healthcare. That's the biggest change in expenses.
What? And here I am paying for my own healthcare like a dummy. In fact, now that the ACA has passed I am paying more than ever before and it goes up by higher percentages every year than it ever has.
Sorry but your chosen baseline year, viz. 1940 makes the whole comparison moot. The world was just coming out of the great depression and entering a global war. Why don't you compare 1975 with 2015 instead?
In this case government collection is up only 20% over the last forty years.
No, actually it is up almost 300% since 1975.
Well how do they know how much someone is willing to pay for it without trying to raise prices? If they have to raise prices to justify the new higher pay and nobody buys it, then they just close their doors and now all their employees are making zero per hour instead of minimum wage.
raising the minimum wage increases the amount of money flowing in the economy. everyone will have more money to spend. businesses will expand because people will have money to spend. there will be fewer jobless.
No, it doesn't raise the amount of money in the system unless more money is printed, and then that money will be worth less. The only way to increase the amount of money is by the economy expanding, not by artificially declaring the worth of a commodity. I minimum wage is raised, then stuff will cost more. Some slight benefit might be had for some of the poor, and a decreased standard of living will be incurred for the middle class.
"Thus, doubling those salaries would push that Big Mac cost up 80 cents."
Well, then by all means, let's double the minimum wage. If it will push the Big Mac (currently $3.99) up to 80 cents. Of course, that $3.39 is local. It is a lot more expensive in L.A., but as your article plainly proves, it is absolutely not at all related to the fact that the minimum wage there is 50% higher than it is here.
people need a minimum amount of money to live. if they are paid less, then they need public assistance. for example walmart employees who qualify for food stamps.
lower wages mean that employees will need more and more public assistance to feed and house their families.
you are a socialist if you don't believe in minimum wage, because you want the government to fund worker's pay.
Or conversely, you are a socialist if you believe in a minimum wage, because you want everyone to get paid the same regardless of the job or their ability to perform the job.
Meanwhile, tax avoidance is rife in the corporate world - which leads to much less tax revenue for Governments, which leads to a degradation of society and loss of services that benefit society.
Can't blame people for avoiding paying taxes if they don't have to. Did you buy a home instead of renting? Shame on you for getting that mortgage interest deduction? Have kids? Shame on you for getting deductions for your kids.
I could get a lot more worked up about how much more money we could get out of businesses, except for one fact, and that is that the government collects 30 times as much in taxes in CONSTANT DOLLARS as they did in 1940. Now granted, the population is 3 times as high as it was in 1940, so I could see why the feds would need 3 times the taxes (minus some amount for economies of scale of course). But there is just no room in my imagination for why they would need 30 times as much taxes to support 3 times the population and somehow manage to also run a deficit. Now, they ran a deficit in 1940 as well, but let's think about this for a minute. If $135 Billion in 1940 would have been enough to make ends meet, then how come with three times the population now, it takes $3.2 trillion? These are constant dollars people. The actual dollar figure in 1940 was $9.5 billion, less than 1/300th of what we spend now on triple the population.