Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

States That Raised Minimum Wage See No Slow-Down In Job Growth

ArmoredDragon Re:Local testing works? (774 comments)

At least in my case, the more I made, the more I spent, and the more I saved. I'll bet it's the same for other people.

Other people yes, but not most. I myself have always maintained a cash surplus, even when I had zero income. The majority of the world isn't that way; I can't tell you how many people I know who when they have a hundred dollar bill they say that it is "burning a hole in their pocket" (e.g. they want to pay off their debts and/or buy new things with no concept of savings.)

This is further emphasized by the vast majority of lottery winners who within a few years aren't rich anymore. (When they have money, they can't help but spend lavishly until it's all gone.)

You think that Germany's economic system isn't very restricted?

No, and I don't recall taking that position either. The US's is very restricted as well, perhaps even more restricted, just in different ways, which mainly comes in the form of the government entities arbitrarily creating laws whenever they feel like it. Look at the shit Uber and Lyft have to go through, and because they're providing competition to the official taxi's sanctioned by the city governments, they arbitrarily invent rules that make it impossible for them to operate. Then look at Tesla who wants to skip the dealerships, only they can't because the auto dealerships and their respective unions complain that they'll lose their jobs, so the politicians create laws dictating how Tesla Motors will run its business.

Germany doesn't even have it that bad.

However Germany's labor system is a different story. No wage floors, no overtime rules, few restrictions on how and when you can employ somebody, let them go, etc. If you want to start a business that involves hiring somebody to work directly for you, Germany is heaven compared to the US. In the US it is so bad that hiring somebody merely to clean your toilets is VERY risky, especially in certain states, to the point that you'd rather just hire them on a contract basis (which involves a third party who skims off of the top.)

I don't care if their system has the "socialism" label; it really doesn't strike me as being actually socialist, and in many ways it's better than ours is. I mean shit, I'd even prefer German unions because they're at least out to protect the business they work for rather than just existing as a means of extracting money from it like the mafia thugs that US unions really are. (Which is why Volkswagon wanted to unionize its shops in the US; namely because they are used to unions that aren't total dickwads that are dead set on sabotaging the business if they think it might earn them a nickel.)

3 days ago
top

States That Raised Minimum Wage See No Slow-Down In Job Growth

ArmoredDragon Re:Local testing works? (774 comments)

Well okay, but then I'm going to claim that lowering the minimum wage raises employment linearly the whole way down to 0, when everyone is employed, and all social problems are cured.

Prove me wrong?

Well actually I could prove you wrong easily on that one. Namely, it completely throws out frictional unemployment, seasonal workers, migrant workers, those who simply refuse to work, and those in transition. No amount or lack of wage controls will change that.

(Which by the way, while I'm not on his side, I am against wage restrictions in general. If you look at Europe, the countries with stronger economies tend to have the fewest working restrictions, such as Germany which has no official wage floors, overtime rules, etc. Likewise, the one with more restrictive policies tend to do worse, e.g. France.)

3 days ago
top

States That Raised Minimum Wage See No Slow-Down In Job Growth

ArmoredDragon Re:Local testing works? (774 comments)

Not that I'm on his side, but what you're asking for is an inherently difficult thing to do. Nobody exactly keeps open books on how precisely they are breaking the law.

Also if he were to name names, you'll cost those people their jobs (legitimate or illegitimate they may be) and/or he ends up on the wrong end of a lawsuit when the illegitimate employer is made aware, covertly lets go of those illegal workers, and then claims defamation when nothing is found to be wrong.

4 days ago
top

New Treatment Stops Type II Diabetes

ArmoredDragon Re: Cure? (253 comments)

That's called bad slashdot submitters and equally bad editors. It's nothing new. I think it's pretty well established at this point that you take slashdot summaries with a pinch of salt (especially the ones about graphene.)

5 days ago
top

New Treatment Stops Type II Diabetes

ArmoredDragon Re:There's another treatment that stops most T2 (253 comments)

I'm anti-GMO for the main reason that it's not been proven "safe". Something about creating "frankenfood" (what else can you really call it when you're combining genes from different organisms or even those completely fabricated in a laboratory?)

Except nobody is combining genes from different organisms. What you're reading about is experimental research done to understand what the genes do, but that is never made into actual food that lands on your plate.

There really is no such thing as "frankenfood." In fact it doesn't even qualify as a myth, rather it's just a lie invented by the dietary fanatics I speak of. The ones who perpetuate it know it isn't true, rather they just in principle are spreading shit because they don't like it being on the market. Some of them have a financial interest in it not being on the market, namely because they're in the business of selling organic food, which makes HUGE profit margins.

After all, we thought DDT was the be all and end all all purpose insecticide, until decades later - gee, that stuff is hampering the survival of a bird or two. Or what about Freon?

Well let me say this much: GMO foods have very few modifications made. Generally the count is about 15 genes. Considering that a given plant can have millions of genes, this is a very tiny number. Basically this small change makes the plant resistant to glyphosate, and it is inspired by other plants that are already resistant to it (but isn't copied from them, rather the gene sequences are engineered in the literal sense.)

Now consider that when a plant naturally reproduces, literally thousands of genes are mutated in ways completely unknown. Absolutely 100% we have no idea what these mutations do. 100% completely unknown "tampering" done by nature on a very massive scale compared to what GMO does deliberately. Yet the organic crowd insists that these thousands of mutations are harmless, whereas a very tiny deliberate change, the effects of which we know precisely what they do, that GMO does is supposed to be considered dangerous? How the HELL is that even logical?

There really is not any compelling reason to be opposed to GMO plants.

5 days ago
top

New Treatment Stops Type II Diabetes

ArmoredDragon Re:There's another treatment that stops most T2 (253 comments)

One thing I can caution you about, as a med student, is to question where the guidelines for the "correct" cholesterol came from. Hint: it's probably an echo chamber, and not tied to scientific evidence.

And this may be true. To be honest I'm not overly concerned about the cholesterol, rather my bigger concern was the triglycerides being too high. The statin drugs are regulating that rather well.

Besides, lovastatin literally comes from an oyster mushroom. You can literally eat oyster mushroom (about 2 grams according to my calculation) and get the same effect.

by are still in "hypertension" according to the experts echo chamber definitions. I mean, obviously they aren't, if their blood pressure is causing orthostatic hypotension.

I have hypertension myself, which I happen to know shouldn't be there (and I should be taking medication for it) because of damaged renal function. Since my kidneys are impaired, the renin cycle is thrown out of whack, which means my blood pressure is rising higher than it's supposed to be. Again, IGAn is the root cause of this. There are potential medications for correcting this (ARBs to be specific) but they're still considered experimental.

5 days ago
top

New Treatment Stops Type II Diabetes

ArmoredDragon Re:There's another treatment that stops most T2 (253 comments)

If that was the case (which it isn't) then pharma wouldn't ever manufacture antibiotics, or any number of drugs which permanently remove acute conditions. Instead they'd sell a treatment that never gets rid of the underlying cause.

Sorry but you're just subscribing to yet another bullshit conspiracy theory, only to a lesser extent, but bullshit all the same.

5 days ago
top

New Treatment Stops Type II Diabetes

ArmoredDragon Re:Cure? (253 comments)

It doesn't seem to me that anybody ever claimed it was a cure. So what point are you trying to get across?

5 days ago
top

The Least They Could Do: Amazon Charges 1 Cent To Meet French Free Shipping Ban

ArmoredDragon Re: Not France vs US (308 comments)

That's not exactly what I said.

I quoted your words to the letter, so of course it is.

Workers don't necessarily do better because a company's profits went from 30% to 60%. Not any more, at least.

Of course they do. You're only saying it doesn't because it doesn't come in the form of a raise, and there's a good reason for that: Salary is merely required to keep an employee; numerous research shows that increasing it doesn't increase their happiness or their productivity, rather it just helps to ensure that they work for you instead of somebody else.

Instead it comes in the form of long term job security, increased number of workers to meet demand (which means more jobs) and as a result of that, potential promotions (i.e. we need more people to supervise these new workers, and typically your veteran employees are better suited to this than new hires.)

Although I'm not in management (I fancy myself as more of a Mr. Spock than a Captain Kirk) I do understand management and the reason for decisions like these. You can play armchair general all you want, but you are very much wrong here.

Start your own business and see if you'll do any better (which is actually rather easy to do these days, in spite of the typical slashdot doom and gloom; in fact entreprenuerism is very strong in the US, which happens to be one of the major five factors of production right along with land, capital, labor, and knowledge.)

We now have data on NAFTA, CAFTA and other "free trade" agreements. They all resulted in an upward redistribution of wealth.

Since NAFTA has passed, exports to Mexico have increased 150%, and exports to Canada have increased 66%. It seems to have exceeded its goals to me, making it a success.

But anyways, everybody has had increased wealth across the board. Maybe the rich have gained more wealth than anybody else (I don't know whether or not they have, but I'll just take your word for it,) but the poor and middle class are certainly wealthier than before, that I do know for a fact.

You're probably talking about distribution of income and not wealth. That is, you're talking about money. Money is not wealth. Wealth is material possessions.

Since this is slashdot and we like technology here, let's consider technology: Back in the 80's, only the filthy rich had car phones upon which they paid a fat per minute rate for, big screen TVs, and personal computers.

Today even the poor have smartphones with unlimited minutes that fit in your pocket, let alone the trunk of your car. The big screen TVs the poor own today make those big screens from the 80's look like a total piece of shit with their vastly superior resolution and color accuracy, in addition to smaller size. Personal laptops which most rich people couldn't even afford then are now so cheap you even see homeless people walking around with them.

Also consider that in the 80's, there were still some people that were so poor that they were starving, even in America. That problem doesn't exist anymore. (You pretty much have to choose to starve these days. Even if you're homeless, food is so cheap now that organizations can give it away without a second though.)

In light of the above, I'm having a difficult time seeing just how badly the poor have been harmed by NAFTA. Have the rich benefited? Maybe, but why is that such a bad thing? The reality here is that you choose have a shitty opinion of life (and yes, that is very much your own choice to make,) so you choose to find things to be negative about, even though by every measure life has become easier for you today than it was 30 years ago. It's a pretty destructive thing to do, but so long as it doesn't harm me or anybody else you are welcome to continue along your path of self destruction.

5 days ago
top

The debate over climate change is..

ArmoredDragon Re:n/t (278 comments)

I would like it to stay the way it is.

But it won't. Period. Not long ago, (as in well within the span of the existence of modern humans) all of present day Los Angeles was under ocean water. And it probably will be again, even if we never existed to begin with.

about a week ago
top

The debate over climate change is..

ArmoredDragon Re:n/t (278 comments)

If the sand washes away your property values drop and then your house washes into the ocean, and when the barrier islands are gone, the mainland starts to go pretty fast also.

This is going to happen regardless of AGW. If we didn't exist at all, the coastlines would always be changing. Any time a coastline or beach front property is wiped away, you can't just say "oh well let's blame the deniers and do nothings while the rest of us sip on our latte's while we talk about saving the rainforest but never actually do anything ourselves except blame other people because it makes us feel good about ourselves."

about a week ago
top

The Least They Could Do: Amazon Charges 1 Cent To Meet French Free Shipping Ban

ArmoredDragon Re: Not France vs US (308 comments)

And believe it or not (I'm sure you don't) but the levels people doing well do not rise and fall with how profitable corporations are, or with imports.

Boy are you wrong. They very much do. Some 60% of the workforce works for corporations, most of them large. What do you think happens to their job if that corporation isn't profitable?

Furthermore, domestic jobs profit immensely from imports. Tell me, how many countries have companies as big as Microsoft, Intel, Google, Apple, AMD, nVidia, and Facebook? Oh, that's right, not many. Guess what else? These companies would never make it without being able to import goods. In fact one of the reasons they reside in the US and nowhere else is precisely because we have so many trade agreements that have removed exactly the kind of barriers that you advocate.

But they do with tariffs.

They fall with tariffs, if that's what you mean. Again, look at what happened as a result of Smoot-Hawley, which ironically was a republican move, and the likes which of Al Gore was pointing at when republicans opposed NAFTA.

The first treasurer of the US, Alexander Hamilton knew it. Abraham Lincoln new it. So did Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy LBJ and Nixon.

Which Roosevelt would that be? Because FDR AND Truman both instituted policies to counteract Smoot-Hawley; that is, they gradually repealed all of those tariffs. Shockingly enough, only very very recent democrats are in favor of high tariffs, and their reasons for doing so are very poorly thought out.

about a week ago
top

New Treatment Stops Type II Diabetes

ArmoredDragon Re:Cure? (253 comments)

No, but if it removes insulin resistance even temporarily then it can improve the hell out of their lives and dramatically reduce morbidity. Even taking that treatment once a day would be much better than dealing with the constant finger pricks, injections, and constantly having to be careful about what you eat (and I'm not talking about sugary foods, which are obvious and easy to avoid, but rather the glycemic load in other foods that are very much not obvious.)

about a week ago
top

New Treatment Stops Type II Diabetes

ArmoredDragon Re:wall-e (253 comments)

No, that's very wrong. Prior to the 1920's, diabetes was a death sentence. Most diabetics are just so good at managing it that you aren't very aware of what they are going through. Diabetics frequently die from other diseases which were caused by diabetes, heart disease being one of them (also kidney disease, liver disease, and many many others.)

about a week ago
top

New Treatment Stops Type II Diabetes

ArmoredDragon Re:Old wives tale (253 comments)

Environment definitely plays a role. Genes play directly into that, mainly as an adaptation to that environment. Is already well known that if you have relatives with diabetes (of any type) you are more likely to have it, but also statisticians found that Caucasians are least likely to have it, with Asian being higher than most, and Native American (who happen to be mongoloid, just like Asians) having by far the greatest chance of developing it.

And, as recent research turns out, diabetes isn't new to Native Americans. Furthermore, the high glycemic load foods they now eat make the symptoms stick out more, but this is mainly because their evolution centered around diets that had very low glycemic load to begin with (and are foods that Caucasians would more likely starve to death on because they don't provide sufficient caloric needs as our metabolic system isn't equipped to process them the same as natives do.)

http://www.livescience.com/218...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

At any rate, for GP's comments to be true, most diabetics would have to starve themselves to death long before they'd consume few enough sugars to not need insulin. Natives *could* be a different story, but remember that in many cases they literally did starve, and furthermore their metabolic system is more able to deal with that than ours.

about a week ago
top

New Treatment Stops Type II Diabetes

ArmoredDragon Re:There's another treatment that stops most T2 (253 comments)

No, that's not the problem. Only a half-wit conspiracy theorist dumbass would think they aren't trying to find a cure. The fact that they got here alone speaks volumes about just how badly they want one. What they've discovered is groundbreaking. They didn't choose for diabetes to exist. They also didn't choose for this treatment to only last two days, rather that's just an unfortunate downside of it. If you think it's so damned easy to find a cure, go publish your own damn paper.

Not everybody is involved in a conspiracy to deprive you of your wallet. The fact that you see it that way is entirely your choice to do so, and is probably the reason you feel like shit every day and think everybody is out to make your life suck. If you really hate civilization that bad, go live in a tree, shit in the woods, get a tropical disease, and see just how much better life is without all of the evil drug companies ruining it for you.

about a week ago
top

New Treatment Stops Type II Diabetes

ArmoredDragon Re:There's another treatment that stops most T2 (253 comments)

Surprisingly, I also have very low blood cholesterol levels -- many physically fit people with healthy eating habits have several times higher levels.

Yeah; your cholesterol levels are controlled by your liver. GGP comes off to me as being a dietary fanatic, the likes of which I've seen all too often, and they're kind of annoying because they play armchair general about what everybody shall and shall not eat, meanwhile their knowledge of biology and chemistry tends to be really bad, just like GGP's appears to be (or at least, a very VERY bad understanding of what diabetes is.) I remember one dietary fanatic telling me how his cholesterol was high, so he decided to become a vegetarian. I don't know whether or not he solved that problem, but if he did the vegetarian diet had very little to do with it, but he's just going on being smug anyways. (In fact the Harvard Study vegetarians frequently cite about read meat being "bad" doesn't actually suggest this, instead it shows a link between people with uncontrolled diets and various diseases...but interestingly it also suggests a link between vegetarian diets and high cholesterol, which they never acknowledge.)

In fact, in recent years we've found that dietary cholesterol has very little impact on blood cholesterol, and may even have no impact at all. What we have found to influence it is saturated fats; less of them will reduce your blood cholesterol. More unsaturated fats will also reduce it (i.e. omega-3.) Exercise also effects it. However dietary changes and exercise have been only found to reduce blood cholesterol by about 30% in the best case scenarios. Beyond that, statin therapy is very effective. People who claim to be "naturalists" (ironically none of them can seem to even agree what the word "natural" means) often tell me how I shouldn't be taking these pills, but I take lovastatin and as a result my cholesterol levels are well within normal range whereas before that and my triglycerides were really high (typically tryglicerides are high when you take in too many calories, which given I am losing weight rather quickly rather quickly, that simply can't be the case; the liver doing something it isn't supposed to be doing however would explain it perfectly.) No side effects either.

GGP types also tend to be those anti-GMO, pro organic extremists, which are even more annoying because at the end of the day there is zero conclusive evidence against GMO, and zero evidence that suggests organic is in any way better than anything else (but it certainly costs more!)

Anywho, being overweight in general isn't a good thing, but if you don't have hypertension and some of the other issues that go along with it, you aren't really in danger of anything bad happening any time soon. The main reason I had to lose weight was due to reduced renal function, which was caused by another unrelated problem related to the immune system (specifically, IGAn, which nobody has ever been able to identify the cause of, and it isn't any more prevalent in overweight people than anybody else.) However reduced weight means reduced body mass, which means reduced need for filtration.

about a week ago
top

New Treatment Stops Type II Diabetes

ArmoredDragon Re:There's another treatment that stops most T2 (253 comments)

Sorry but what you say here is a load of crap. Actually no I'm not sorry, it's just a load of crap said by somebody who doesn't know shit about the condition and just wants to find any old reason to attack their eating habits.

Insulin resistance doesn't magically get cured by eating right and exercising. Yes, you can much better manage the symptoms that way, but ultimately they don't go away. At the end of the day you still have to watch your glycemic load, which doesn't necessarily come from sugary foods. In fact several vegetables can cause hyperglycemia in diabetics. Pretty much the only way to avoid that in most cases is to eat so little that you aren't meeting your daily caloric needs, which means you'd need to starve yourself to death in order to avoid taking insulin.

I don't have diabetes, but I've been way overweight (at one point I weighed 290 pounds) and all of the blood tests I took indicated I was nowhere near being diabetic even at THAT time. Yet many other people who have a much lower BMI than I do even right now (I currently weigh 215) and are even younger than I am have type 2 diabetes. The added weight just makes it that much harder for your body to meet its own insulin needs, so losing weight can help manage the symptoms (and in certain cases eliminate them until your later years in life,) but it will never cure it.

about a week ago
top

US House Passes Permanent Ban On Internet Access Taxes

ArmoredDragon Re:This will die in the senate (148 comments)

It does meet every defining characteristic of a Ponzi scheme, however because it is government sanctioned it technically isn't one. Right now we're seeing the sunset of what a Ponzi scheme looks like; that is, where it fails because the new investors aren't paying enough to cover the dividends paid to the older investors.

I personally don't get why we don't just get rid of it in favor of a universal pension system.

about a week ago
top

People Who Claim To Worry About Climate Change Don't Cut Energy Use

ArmoredDragon Re:user error (708 comments)

People can live without a clothing dryer.

You can live without ever being in a car too.

In my case the dryer is mostly used for softening and in lieu of ironing in certain cases. I let most of the drying happen in my bathroom on the shower curtain, and after its finished put it in the dryer to soften it up and get rid of the wrinkles. It's probably more energy AND time efficient doing that than ironing them one at a time.

I don't dry clothes outside because of the tendency for dust/dirt to blow on to them, in addition to eliminating sun rot.

about two weeks ago

Submissions

ArmoredDragon hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

ArmoredDragon has no journal entries.

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...