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!



Ask Slashdot: Hungry Students, How Common?

stenvar simple trick (350 comments)

Choose a cheaper college in a cheaper town.


California Utility May Replace IT Workers with H-1B Workers

stenvar Re:Ahh Yes the trend continues.. (212 comments)

Manufacturing may be, but what about manufacturing EMPLOYMENT? When you use robots and automation, there aren't so many employees.

I believe manufacturing employment has also not shrunk, but it's harder to find statistics on that and it depends on what you mean by "manufacturing employment". If you mean jobs for people with high school education, those have shrunk, simply because more and more people are actually getting college degrees.

And it may look large because US manufacturing is focused on large-ticket items, like aircraft and rockets and tanks. It's still the case that 99% of the routine goods that you buy (whether clothes or household items or toys or electronics) are made in China.

It doesn't just "look large", that makes it objectively large. And, yes, the US focuses on high margin, high value items because those support the high salaries that US workers demand.

Mostly, these jobs move to China or Europe because Americans don't want to do them anymore.

See what Rowe has to say about this:



Mr. Schmidt Goes To Washington: A Look Inside Google's Lobbying Behemoth

stenvar Re:power honeypot (120 comments)

There is a fundamental difference between how the UK relates to the EU and how US states relate to the US government: The UK issues it's own currency.

I'm sorry, are you serious? Do you actually believe that federal/state distinctions are determined by who issues currency? Does that mean that Germany is part of a "European nation" because it uses the Euro while the UK is not? The current identification of currency with nations is a novel economic phenomenon, and one that probably isn't even going to last.

So you listing some reasons is good but... so what? You didn't actually respond to the central point, relating back to the start of this: the proposition that the constitution was written by and for capital owners.

So what? The people who wrote the Constitution also wore wigs and smelled bad. What does that have to do with anything? What exactly are you trying to get at here?

...which you just assumed for some reason, then...

No, it's an observation: political, cultural, and historical ignorance is extremely widespread among Europeans, as are erroneous assumptions about the US; you confirmed it by asking these truly elementary questions about the US. Don't get me wrong, it's good that you ask, but US government and history really is something all Europeans ought to be learning about in great detail in secondary school.


Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

stenvar Re:No, that's not what it found (805 comments)

If you want to find out who out of two groups decides, you can't look at the cases where they agree.

People at the 90th income percentile are not "a group" and don't make decisions as a group. They are merely a population of individuals that these researchers decided to single out.

If, for example a 30000 people group always wins when they disagree with a 30 milliion group, then either the 30000 group decides, or its interests align perfectly with a third group that does decide.

The paper shows a correlation involving people around the 90th percentile and people around the 50th percentile. The paper simply provides no data over who decides in cases where "the 30000" and "the 30 million" disagree. So you cannot infer that "the 30000 always win" from the paper or any of its references.

It doesn't ignore them. They enter into the the calculation, but they don't provide any information about the power structure.

"Domination" and "power" are quantitative issues. If on most issues, governmental decisions reflect the will of about 50% of the population, then you can't say that a small group "dominates". Even if the correlations they found were valid, they would amount to nothing more than "slightly disproportionate influence", not "domination". And that the 90th percentile has a slightly disproportionate influence on politics and policy is no secret and pretty uncontroversial: that population consists mostly of older people and more politically active people.

You speak as if the economic mobility in the USA were perfect. it isn't.

This has nothing to do with economic mobility, it has to do with demographics. Many people reach the 90th percentile after working for a few decades and drop out again when they retire. They certainly aren't in the 90th percentile while getting their education.

I don't understand your reasoning here. The groups were selected solely based on their income. They weren't selected based on their opinions or how closely they correlate with political decisions (that would be circular). The groups don't need to have consistent or stable preferences.

You are confusing a sociological and political meaning of "groups" with a statistical meaning of "populations". People whose last name starts with the letter "X" are a population, but they aren't a "group" in the sociological or political sense.

Why? I don't think that's obvious. You're saying that if I to a multivariate analysis of the preferences of a large group and a small group vs. political decisions, I should expect to find most of the explanatory power with the small group, regardless of which small group that is? That's a pretty outrageous statement, which needs to be substantiated.

Let me try to illustrate. Assume the US consists of 100 subpopulations, each with 100 preferences they particularly care about, but overall, the population is divided equally on all preferences. If you randomly pick one person from each of those subpopulations and look at how policy aligns with their preferences, you won't see any consistent agreement because you just picked 100 random people; any preference that you identify within that population is just a statistical fluke. If you pick 100 people out of just one (or a few) of these populations, they do have many consistent preferences. And since politicians do implement something, you'll actually see some of these agree with policy. It's not "outrageous" at all. More importantly, it's the authors' job to show that their statistical methods are reasonable and valid, which they haven't done at all; there are no control groups in the paper, for example.

If you have a good dictator, nothing beats a benevolent dictatorship. The problem is that dictators tend to go bad. When those that wield power are out of touch with the general population, they tend to use it to further their own interests at the expense of the people. Democracy is the best safeguard against that that has been found.

Democracy by itself doesn't deliver that. It is the combination of democracy and limits on the power of government that protects our society from dictatorship. But limits on the power of government mean that many preferences that the population has simply shouldn't be heeded by government at all. Most of the preferences of the 50th percentile in this study that representatives fail to implement at the federal level are probably preferences that should be ignored by the federal government in the first place because heeding them is not the function of government in a free society.

As I was saying: the fundamental assumption that we ought to make decisions as a "majoritarian electoral democracy" is wrong; that is not what our nation is supposed to be, and for good reason. That's one of the reasons that even if the correlations they observe in the paper exist, there would be nothing wrong with it. It is not intrinsically anti-democratic, it is simply not a "majoritarian electoral democracy" because it is not supposed to be.

The terminology of the paper is confused because we actually do have "majoritarian electoral representation", but the paper tests for simple "majoritarianism" on each issue. The former is not intended to deliver the latter.

If people want to argue that we ought to change our political system to that, we need to have an argument about the fundamentals of our society, not about hokey statistical analyses.


Mr. Schmidt Goes To Washington: A Look Inside Google's Lobbying Behemoth

stenvar Re:power honeypot (120 comments)

And states vary hugely in size and population and any number of factors.

A common principle of government is that decisions should be as local as possible.

You're right that states vary hugely in population size and monster states like California were never envisioned by the Founders. California probably needs more levels of government than Wyoming. But the large variance in size between states, as well as population growth, is another reason why federal power should be limited, because political power becomes more and more unequal between citizens of different states and different states at the federal level. Limiting federal powers is one way of limiting the impact of that.

The narrative seems to talk about the federal government as this monster that has to be controlled, while state governments are mostly left out of that narrative, and I've yet to see an explanation for why they are cast so differently.

That's elementary: in the US, the federal government has enumerated powers; those are the only things it can do. It vastly exceeds these these days. The relationship is not much different as it is between the UK and the EU. How would you like if Brussels unilaterally decides that the UK should adopt the Euro and speak German, your local opinion doesn't matter? A second reason is that the federal government is fundamentally different: individual states are in competition with each other for people and business, so if California screws up, people move away; you can't easily move away at the federal level.

Then the conversation is really about how the government reflects the wishes of the other entities.

Here is another mistake you make: US government isn't intended to be majoritarian democracy; it's not supposed to grant wishes, it is supposed to protect liberty and justice for all. "Justice" not in the modern, perverted sense of "social justice", but in the sense of equal treatment under the law.

Who is the axiomatic limitation of federal authority designed to protect, and from whom?

I know to Europeans, the US is just one big homogeneous mix of people; why should Texas be governed by different laws from California or Massachusetts? Well, for the same reason that the UK, Germany, and Spain are governed by different laws: they have different cultures, economies, and histories. And these differences are stable, because people are different and they move to the states that reflect their preferences.

It's interesting to look at this discussion from outside the US.

Subsidiarity is a key principle for government in Europe. Among other things, it's part of the Maastricht treaty, and the laws of several member states. Many member states would have joined the union if it weren't so, both the United States and the European Union. The people of your own country are adamant about it. The return of political control to local and regional entities has been a significant movement, and the UK of all places has strong and active devolution.

It's good that you ask, but it is disturbing that any European should have to ask in the first place, because these issues are a core part of European governance and politics. Having spent a lot of time in Europe, I find Europeans to be profoundly ignorant of politics, history, or culture, even their own.


California Utility May Replace IT Workers with H-1B Workers

stenvar Re:Unions (212 comments)

You can force companies to pay higher wages, but you can't force them to exist. If they can't compete with overseas manufacturers at those higher wages, they are going to go out of business. And that's the reason companies outsource in the first place and why some key industries have disappeared from the US. So, high labor costs are the reason jobs are moving overseas, even to Europe; US wages are some of the highest in the world, and the only way we can pay those wages is by focusing on highly productive jobs. Jobs that return less than what a worker minimally costs disappear from the US, and no union is going to change that.

2 days ago

California Utility May Replace IT Workers with H-1B Workers

stenvar Re:Ahh Yes the trend continues.. (212 comments)

It's a myth that manufacturing in the US is on the decline; it simply has become smaller relative to other sectors, but in absolute terms, it's been growing.

2 days ago

California Utility May Replace IT Workers with H-1B Workers

stenvar Re:What is an H-1B worker? (212 comments)

It's also worth mentioning that they are paid a lot more here than wherever they come from. And they are going to work in IT either way. If we don't bring them here, they are going to compete with us from abroad, pay taxes abroad, work cheaper, and help build competing industries elsewhere.

Furthermore, it is not that difficult for H-1B's to change jobs or get green cards these days, and many of them immigrate. Conversely, for employment based immigration, almost everybody starts off as an H-1B, so killing off H-1Bs at this point kills of most employment-based immigration.

2 days ago

Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

stenvar Re:No, that's not what it found (805 comments)

Here's a different way of looking at it. If you take the upper 10% that they study as a group, you'll find that they have disproportionately high levels of education and disproportionately high age. Let's just take the correlations at face value for the sake of argument. If we observe that the preferences of this group correlate with policy, the variable that correlates with policy preferences could be any one of the three. It's clear from economic data that age and education cause high income. Therefore, no matter how you look at it, the causative relationship is either that (1) age and education cause political influence via high income, or that (2) age and education cause both high income and political influence. The interpretation that high income causes political influence independent or age and education simply is not supported by the data. And between the two choices, (2) is much more plausible. Now, what's objectionable about older people forming an interest group? What's objectionable about educated people's preferences correlating more with policy?

2 days ago

Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

stenvar Re:No, that's not what it found (805 comments)

It *might* be as you say, that the US is run according to the preferences of the upper middle class, with the very rich just agreeing with them. Or it might be the other way around. ... They are using it as a proxy for the opinions of those much richer because their data set does not include the real economic elite.

No, it can't be the other way around. If a group of 30 million and a group of 30000 people agree on policy, you can't say that our policies are dominated by a small group of just 30000. The political outrage is over the fact that it is a tiny group that supposedly dominates, the group isn't tiny if 30 million agree with it.

But that's not the worst of it. The paper simply ignores the large number of people and issues on which there is agreement across income groups. In fact, on almost all of the issues, around half Americans agree with the policies that are actually implemented by politicians and about half of the upper income people disagree.

The term "oligarchy" also still doesn't apply to that group either. "Oligarchs" is a term that, in modern times, refers to the Russian situation and refers to a group of a few dozen billionaires. These are completely outside the scope of this study. (FWIW, as a rule, they aren't interested much in politics at all, they are just living well.)

I dispute that. That isn't the norm among high earners.

Of course it's the norm, in particular among high income earners. Age alone means that that group has a high turnover, because people clearly don't earn those kinds of high incomes right out of college.

Even if it were, the fact that the 90% quantile's preferences correlate more strongly with the richest and the median shows that either they do form a distinct, stable group, or their preferences change while they are in that quantile.

No, that's circular reasoning. The paper didn't show that these groups are groups with distinct interests that have consistent or stable preferences, it simply selected a subset of properties with those criteria under the assumption that these are groups with consistent and stable preferences. If they aren't, they ended up studying correlations among statistical artifacts.

By the way, you could do the same study with average Americans vs African Americans, and you'd likely find the same result: on those issues where there is a difference in preferences, policy correlates with the preference of African Americans. Does that mean that African Americans dominate US policy making? Of course not. If you pick a large, diverse group and a smaller, less diverse group, you select issues where there are measurable differences, and the do a correlation between preferences and policies, you are going to find it. If you didn't, it would suggest massive discrimination against the smaller group.

The issues included in this article are first and foremost that kind of issue - they are issues that were important enough for opinion surveys to be conduced, making them at least much more interesting than the average question a representative has to consider. ... In those cases, you would expect the representative's opinions to represent those of those he represents

Political polls are mainly conducted on hotbutton issues, not an unbiased sample. Furthermore, the paper didn't even look at that sample, it looked at a biased subset of those, namely effectively where there were differences between preferences and decisions. Those decisions are made by representatives; it's the point of a representative democracy that our representatives make decisions that differ from the majority preferences because they are supposed to inform themselves. Now, our representatives are around the 90th percentile bracket, so it's not surprising that when their decisions differ from the population at large, they act according to their social class. Again, that's why we elect them in the first place: they are supposed to be more educated, and that goes along with being in that income bracket.

But there is a deeper, philosophical problem with the paper, namely the assumption that implementing majority preferences should be the goal of government; it should most definitely not be the goal. The US government was clearly not designed or intended to do that. It was designed to protect liberty, legal rights, and property. Majority preferences at times were to keep people in slavery, the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Germany, severe punishments for homosexuality, etc.; the fact that these were majority preferences doesn't mean they should have, or could have, become policy. Once the federal government has protected your liberty, legal rights, and property, your preferences for what else it should do largely do not, and should not, matter anymore. The only people who really should have significant influence on federal policy are people concerned with international trade, interstate trade, and defense, because those are the functions of the federal government.

Note also that progressives, who get most pushed out of shape over supposed political domination by the wealthy, frequently ignore the will of majority, implementing what progressive think is best for the average American instead of what the average American actually says they want.

No, the correct response to this paper is "That's intriguing and somewhat worrying. A more detailed follow-up study is needed".

The only thing that's "worrying" about this paper is that such incompetence comes out of a place like Princeton. This paper really manages to get everything wrong, from normative politics, to descriptive economics, to statistics. It's political advocacy masquerading as science, and it's corrupting science.

2 days ago

Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

stenvar Re:Terrible summary of an interesting paper (805 comments)

As I explained, the summary is wrong.

If in a country of 300 million, only tens of thousands of people are the ones that determine the course of public policy (not merely agree with it), then indeed, that does make them oligarchs, by definition.

Even if every single inference and conclusion in the paper were true, it looked at the 90th percentile, meaning 30 million "determine" the course of public policy; we'd be a country run by the upper middle class, not by a few tens of thousands of people.

The summary seems to quote the article in saying that "the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." This would imply exclusive control on the part of non-average Americans.

No, it doesn't even imply that for many reasons.

But most importantly, as I explained elsewhere, the assumption of the paper that it is the job of our government to implement the will of the majority is wrong. It's the job of our government to ensure justice and liberty for all, nothing more. You may want a free pony, but it isn't the job of government to deliver it, and your rights aren't being infringed by government failing to deliver. And if you want a free pony at someone else's expense, implementing your preference actually amounts to violating someone else's rights.

So, if average Americans mostly already get justice and liberty, then their policy preferences really shouldn't influence government policy. And if Americans as a whole are pretty well off in the justice-and-liberty department (as I think we are), then most of the preferences this paper counts and correlates are irrelevant and should be ignored, and the data becomes completely meaningless.

3 days ago

Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

stenvar Re:No, that's not what it found (805 comments)

1. Majoritarian electoral democracy (i..e how the system is supposed to work)

Let there be no doubt about it: this is not how the system is supposed to work. It isn't what our Constitution intended, it has serious moral and justice problems, and there is no reason to believe that such a system would even yield good outcomes for the majority. It's not even clear that majoritarian electoral democracy is a well-defined system. And it is known not to be stable.

It is not the job of our government to help the majority get what it wants. Southern slavery and Nazi Germany were both compatible with "majoritarian electoral democracy" (and arguably brought into being by it), and they were both about the majority attempting to benefit economically at the expense of an economically productive or successful minority (African American slaves, German Jews).

It is the job of our government to ensure that the fundamental rights and liberties of each individual are protected, in particular against the will of the majority. It is the job of our government to protect minorities against being deprived of the fruits of their labor by the majority.

Majoritarian electoral democracy is a fallacy of European intellectuals, something that has brought us everything from slavery and colonialism to the Holocaust. It's merely a weaker form of the two other forms of dangerous European populism, namely Marxism and fascism.

3 days ago

Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

stenvar Re:No, that's not what it found (805 comments)

My point wasn't about criticizing the degree of agreement they uncovered, it was about their characterization of "wealthy". The group they call "wealthy" and where they imply domination by an "economic elite" is simply older, educated upper-middle class folks. They claim that those preferences correlate with those of the "truly wealthy", but even if that correlation were perfect, it wouldn't mean that the US is run according to the wishes of the "truly wealthy", it would mean that the US is run according to the preferences of the upper middle class and that the "truly wealthy" happen to share upper middle class preferences.

But that's only one of many problems with the paper.

First of all, high earners don't even exist as a stable group to express preferences, so they can't form an oligarchy. High earners each year are a temporary subset of older professionals and small business owners, people who have a few good years.

Conversely, it is wrong to identify the preferences of people around the median income with "the majority". The group of people near the median income is no larger than the group of people near the 90th percentile. People around the median income aren't even a useful social group with common interests. For example, assume that the US consisted only of two groups, high income earners and low income earners, each with their own set of preferences, and each equally listened to by politicians, with the median income earner being equally likely to come from either group. If you did the same analysis as in the paper, you'd find the same result: their model would show domination by an economic elite, even though there is none.

The paper implicitly assumes that preferences and policies are rational, zero sum, can be traded off, are consistent, and can be traded off. But the preferences of small businesses and intellectuals may simply be more consistent with each other and may actually be objectively the right policies, whereas people near the median income may be objectively not the right policies to implement.

The paper counts stated preferences as rational self "interest". But clearly many people vote against their interest, in particular in upper income brackets. High income earners, for example, don't have to worry as much about taxes as median income earners, which is why many high income earners vote for politicians favoring tax increases, although objectively, that is not in their narrow self interest and is intended to help median income earners.

The paper assumes that stated preferences all count equally. But just because I state a preference for gay marriage doesn't mean that I actually care strongly about whether my politicians implement it. Median income earners are likely a highly diverse group, and even if you identify issues on which their stated preferences differ significantly from the 90th percentile as a group, that doesn't mean that they assign a consistently high weight to it. As a result, politicians would have no consistent preference of "the" median income earner to implement as policy.

Even the choice of model name, "economic elite domination", is wrong. The 90th income percentile isn't an "economic elite", and correlation of their preferences with policies isn't "domination". "Domination" implies active, forcible policy setting against the interests being dominated, and there is not a shred of evidence for that. What they call "economic elite domination" is completely consistent with the way a representative democracy is supposed to function. That's the point of electing representatives after all: have people with a bit more time and smarts look at the issues and then make decisions on our behalf, and that group happens to be around the 90th percentile.

The paper is absolutely worthless because even the question it asks is meaningless. It's the political science equivalent of doing experimental studies in biology on intelligent design; if the entire framework in which you design your experiments is wrong or meaningless, it doesn't matter how good your correlations are.

3 days ago

Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

stenvar Re:Back to One Man, One Vote (805 comments)

The fact is that corporations are not persons, they are owned by persons. Given a corporation a separate vote gives the owner a second vote.

What are you talking about? Corporations have never had separate rights to vote. Nobody is proposing that they get separate votes.

Give Walmart a right, and it goes directly to the Waltons. They get that above and beyond the rights they have as US citizens. And that is undemocratic.

Citizens United is a non-profit corporation where a bunch of people pooled their money to express their opinion about a politician.

The Waltons don't need a corporation to make such a film; they are rich enough to pay that out of their own pocket, all by themselves.

The Citizens United decision allows associations, "corporations" (mostly non-profits in practice), and labor unions to speak more on behalf of their members and contributors. That is, it allows people with common interests to pool their money to produce ads about political issues they care about. That's scary, right? Citizens United allows me to give $100 to a non-profit that produces an attack ad on John McCain.

Obviously, this kind of freedom of citizens to circumvent the official propaganda channels scares Washington, which is why many politicians there have been up in arms about it.

What you and people like you want is to severely restrict people's ability to be heard. Apparently, the only people who should be able to participate in political speech according to you are politicians, a select group of media corporations, and a few people who are so rich that they can finance ads out of pocket. That's not a democracy, and it is wrong.

3 days ago

Survey: 56 Percent of US Developers Expect To Become Millionaires

stenvar Re:Headline is silly... (457 comments)

If you make $80k and save 10% every year in your 401k, you'll easily be a millionaire in 30 years.


Furthermore, things don't magically get better with defined benefit plans; if you were to get a pension for the same amount, you effectively have to save up the same amount of money somewhere, except that other people likely will take a substantial chunk of it away.

3 days ago

Survey: 56 Percent of US Developers Expect To Become Millionaires

stenvar and they are right (457 comments)

Do the math here:


Saving 10% of your salary is going to give you a lot more than a million dollars over 30 years, even in constant dollars.

3 days ago

Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

stenvar Re:Another way to look at "rich" (805 comments)

If you think about it, there's no control for expenses there, so it's not a very effective definition (I'm always kind of a amazed at the mindset in the US that tries to simplify things by drawing a numeric line in the sand, as if there were no other issues. And people put up with it. We need better schools.

That has nothing to do with schools and everything with political agendas. Progressives are trying to create the impression that the US is dominated by a permanent monocle-wearing economic elite, which they identify with the "the" top 1% of income earners. There are a few thousand super rich people in the US, and they probably do wield more political influence than they should But those people have nothing to do with the 3 million something top 1% income earners, most of whom are simply older professionals and small business owners with a good year.

Not trying to force that definition on anyone else, but that's how I see it personally.

I agree that that's a much better definition. Once you adopt it, though, much of the political program of progressives falls apart, because it is based on numerical targets and percentages, not life satisfaction and security.

4 days ago

Study Rules Out Global Warming Being a Natural Fluctuation With 99% Certainty

stenvar Re:Deny the deniers (857 comments)

Have you actually read this thread where people are completely and openly questioning global warming occurring, questioning the morals of the people involved in climate research, questioning antropogenic global warming, arguing that scientific research is a gravy train that keeps on running, forwarding a conspiracy theory that politicians and corporations worldwide have for the first time been able to collude globally, and generally display an attitude resembling young earth creationists and truthers? These are the denialists

That's a wide variety of positions, some of which are likely true, others of which are less likely true. There are obviously frauds and charlatans among climate scientists, just like there are honest and careful researchers. Climate activists erroneously present this wide range of people and positions as if there were widespread agreement on causes, effects, risks, and interventions. The only thing that there is fairly widespread agreement on is that it has been getting warmer and that humans have measurably contributed to that.

All 100 others are simply denying a problem exists.

See, you're doing it too: conflating the question of whether it has been getting warmer (lots of evidence and agreement) with the question of whether there is a problem.

4 days ago

Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

stenvar Re:Are you kidding (805 comments)

It defines the economic elite as 140k. This is not anywhere near the same as the social group you referred to.

$140k is about what software engineers make in the Bay Area on average. Note that that's individual salaries; if you're a dual income couple, you don't even need that. It's also what professors at good institutions make and it's somewhat below what we pay our legislators.

And we don't agree at all, because not only are you ignorant of economics or conservatism, you also deliberately mischaracterize what other people stand for:

The problem with the above mentality (i.e. "I've got mine, fuck you") is that neo-cons are NOT all that good for the upper class. They are only good for the super-wealthy, the finance companies/banks etc.

Fiscally conservatism isn't about "I've got mine, fuck you", it's about growth and employment. Furthermore, fiscal conservatism is precisely about helping the middle and upper middle class, because they end up paying the most income tax. The super wealthy don't care about any of this stuff.

4 days ago



climate change found responsible for technological innovation

stenvar stenvar writes  |  about 10 months ago

stenvar (2789879) writes "By looking at climate reconstruction and correlating it with archaeological evidence, researchers have found that climate change appears to have driven innovation in Homo sapiens: "Sophisticated stone tool-making, artistic symbolism and trade networks were all innovated during times in the Stone Age when the South African climate abruptly became warmer and wetter, according to a new study.""
Link to Original Source


stenvar 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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account