Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:"...diets heavily based on venison and fish..." (Score 1) 231

I'm not Greek, Orthodox, or Christian, but I agree with you 100%. Our bodies are designed to digest mainly vegetable based food.

Designed by whom?

Before you answer that, note that vegetables that can provide enough calories that you can actually survive off of are a fairly recent invention, and most of them can't even grow without human intervention.

If you disagree, then go to camp out in the woods and tell me how many plants you can find that you could survive off of for a whole year (spoiler: There aren't any. Sure, you might find some berries or leaves to munch on, but the amount of calories you'd need to forage for them would never be met by the calories that they provide. In short, you'd starve to death very quickly.)

There's a whole bunch of crappy side-effects from eating too much meat, even if many people have lost weight on higher protein diets.

But this isn't true. There are many well known indigenous populations that survive quite well on almost nothing but meat, and the ones that survive mostly on meat tend to live much longer than those who survive mostly on plants. Not only that, but there are plenty of examples of people who ate nothing but meat for a year or longer and had no apparent adverse health effects:


Comment Re: My job... (Score 1) 364

Well, let's think this over for at least one second:

If nobody has any money to buy anything, then who is going to buy this stuff that we're creating automatically? Obviously you can't have both, so a correction has to happen somewhere. And yes, free markets tend to be very self correcting.

In fact, we just had a minor market correction last year that primarily impacted the tech sector, and we'll probably have another big one either this year or next that will lead to the next recession.

Comment Re:Do the cars tell Uber drivers to go fuck themse (Score 1) 122

Really? Their "self driving" cars apparently need two engineers in them in case anything goes wrong.

Google seems to do the same thing with no non-employee passengers at all. I live in Phoenix (specifically, a region called Ahwatukee, which borders Tempe) and I see Google's self-driving cars periodically around here with not less than two but sometimes three people in them.

I don't think it's an "in case anything goes wrong" (they only need one for that) so much as it is a "let's have more than one set of eyes to make notes of what goes wrong so we can update the software later," with the person in the driver's seat more focused on the road like a normal driver would be, while the person in the passenger seat is looking beyond that. I don't know what the third person would be for, but it would make sense if they were watching the spots that are less visible to the people in the front seats.

Comment Re:Unix-like directories? (Score 1) 58

Drive letters are by and large a hangover from CP/M and DOS, and could have been eliminated, or at least deprecated as early as Windows NT 3.5. Frankly, driver letter are completely ludicrous, to the point of being outright annoying. I've had local storage devices knock out drive shares, as an example of how utterly stupid the system is. We're literally dealing with a 40+ year old file device paradigm that only exists because MS seems completely unwilling to accept that Unix does it better.

I suspect it would break a lot of shit built in to Windows, including Microsoft's failed mobile version. The problem is, a ton of developers (including Microsoft) doesn't use relative paths in many cases, so I suspect these things would never change just like how Microsoft skipped version 9 of Windows for compatibility reasons. That, and path separators should be a front slash instead of a back slash (though Powershell seems to interpret either one just fine) and CRLF should go away, both of which are CP/M holdovers as well and no longer serve a practical purpose, but again, compatibility.

Every other OS in existence (including Android and iOS) no longer use drive letters, and that both makes it less confusing for ma and pa type users while being more powerful for power users.

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 1) 514

A quick Google for "car price 1955" pops a quick box saying average of $1,900, which is around $17,000 in today's money. Which is about right for a moderately-featured sedan, give or take.

A house on the other hand averaged about $11,000 in 1955 (from that same quick box.) Which is around $90,000 today. So a somewhat under half of 2016's average US price $213,000.

Both of these figures are somewhat meaningless.

House prices have a very mellow demand in most regions and don't really do much in terms of appreciation or depreciation. The price basically stays the same in these areas. However in certain cities (especially high demand places like San Francisco) the prices are subject to speculation, and speculation only happens when an investor thinks they can flip a house. Taking an average, even within a particular region, tells you almost nothing at all. A median price would be better, but even then that's still not terribly useful.

When GGP talks about houses being unaffordable, he's most likely talking about high demand areas, and to be honest that is just simple supply and demand, with demand being increased by more affordable loans.

As for cars, the regional concept applies as well, though the economics are different because the supply is less finite. And, car manufacturers keep tacking on more and more features to jack up the price, mainly because people will just take out loans. (This is similar, by the way, to how colleges keep adding more amenities and jacking up the tuition.)

Comment Re: Rose tinted glasses (Score 1) 514

Except as a result of this disruption, people became less equal. The same is also true of the Cuban revolution. Sure, Batista was a corrupt mafioso, but at least people were wealthy enough to have nice things. Once Castro took over, he had all of the power to himself, and the only way people survived was by constantly repairing everything they owned at the time. This is why Cuban roads and cars still look the same as they did in 1960.

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 1, Insightful) 514

for other peoples' homes because poor people have trouble affording real estate anymore

Actually, renting has very little to do with whether or not one is poor. In fact, people with higher incomes often prefer to rent. Why? Because then they can easily move to another job that makes a higher bid for their services.

Neat how that works, isn't it?

it was still relatively expected that you'd own a home by your early-to-mid 30s and back in the 50s during the post-war boom

Sure, back when having a job was more coveted, and fewer people would bother to switch jobs. Though, something that does play a bigger role in making housing prices go up is loans. Without loans, houses would surely cost less because then people would be less able to outbid one another, thus putting downward pressure on house prices. However getting rid of them probably wouldn't be a good idea either, because without loans it would be very hard for most people to have a house at all, and/or secure capital for things that you can turn into a profit later, though there *may* (emphasis here) be some wisdom in putting restrictions on it. In practice, few people actually understand how to budget, and if you can't budget, you can't save big sums of money to buy big things.

Another example of where loans drive up prices is college tuition and cars.

However, while things like houses, cars, and tuition have gone up, virtually everything that we don't need capital loans for has gone down. That includes things like food, travel expenses, luxury goods (phones and TVs for example,) etc. The only exception are things that have for one reason or another become scarce due to causes outside of economics, like cannabis for example, which has seen dramatic reduction in prices lately now that its artificial scarcity has been gradually peeled back.

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 2) 514

Whilst you're correct about these countries not being socialist, you're wrong about what socialism is.

No, actually you've got this backwards. I'll explain in detail below.

What you have described is fascism, the merger of corporate and state power.

No, it's not. Fascism (a term coined by Benito Mussolini) specifically references a bundle making a stronger whole. It's not an economic system so much as it is a governing system, so it's pretty much irrelevant to this discussion. Also, a tangentially fun fact, (because a lot of people, including yourself, misunderstand these terms) racism employed by the Nazi party is not central to fascism. Mussolini thought of racism as a distraction, though a strong national identity, regardless of race, is central to fascism. Mussolini's wife, who put a lot of effort into establishing fascism, was in fact a practicing Jew.

If you want a good idea what fascism would look like in modern times, watch that show Man in the High Castle. Note how Obergruppenfuhrer Smith's kid is supposed to do well in school for the fatherland, not for himself, and the bad kids were the ones that do it for themselves. That's classic fascism. In terms of economics (which fascism isn't strictly about,) fascism is what I previously described as "mostly socialism", because private businesses could exist, just like they can in Venezuela, but they are discouraged and subject to being nationalized. And in practice, fascism has only superficial differences from stalinism.

Fascism = You have two cows, the government takes both and sells you some milk.
Communism = You have two cows, the government takes both and gives you some milk.
Socialism = You have two cows, you own them and milk them yourself. You share the unused milk with a your neighbour.
Capitalism = You have two cows, your neighbour owns them and all the other cows, you have to milk them and buy the milk from your neighbour.

While this is cute, it doesn't reflect reality. Victor Dhupay, who coined the term communism, would tell you that communism is what you described as socialism. You can use whatever communist philosopher you'd like, such as Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, etc, (Marx would disagree with you as well, by the way) but I'm going by the people who first defined these terms, not whatever revision somebody else made later, because honestly they often conflict in very confusing ways while using the exact same terms.

And that said, there are many variations on each of these. Your definition of capitalism sounds more like feudalism because it says you have the cows but your neighbor (i.e. the local lord) owns them. That said, it's kind of a crap definition because it implies that you could never own any cows. The US variation of capitalism is (IMO, I wrote it myself) this:

You have no cows, you might inherit two and your parents will teach you how to run a milk business, or if you inherit nothing you could go to college and get a degree in agriculture and then buy two of your neighbors cows and start a business selling milk. But not everybody drinks milk so you'll need to pay a marketer to find more customers, and that marketer will need to pay other people to do his job, ad infinitum.

Socialism is not government ownership, but democratic ownership, where people get more of a say in what a service does.

This is where you're confused, and it's really glaringly obvious if you just pay attention to your own words. In a democracy, what are we voting for? A system of governance. Basically, any kind of rule or regulation, including the manner with which something is distributed, is your de-facto government.

And a variation of a democracy, of course, is a republic, where you elect people to represent your interests and vote on your behalf, which is what basically all "democracies" really are, with limited democracy (for example, referendums are direct democracy, and they exist within basically all republics. For example, the legalization of cannabis in all US states where it happened was the result of a referendum.) Nonetheless, it's ultimately the government that runs everything. So even if we did things exactly as you describe them, it's still government ownership. Though basically every truly socialist economy (i.e. ones where businesses are subject to being taken over by the government, or "democratic ownership" as you prefer to say in your own little doublespeak) is just a dictatorship that calls itself a republic, and while the official party line might be that these things are owned by the people, they're really just controlled by some asshole (or a collection of assholes) who knows what's best for you.

Interesting, isn't it? Dictatorships call themselves republics, and republics call themselves democracies.

And on a fun tangent, true democracy typically doesn't work because then every person has to vote on every single issue, and while that sounds nice, in practice very few people pay attention to every little law and regulation that gets passed. If you disagree, then go watch c-span for every minute that congress is in session, because it's quite literally a full-time job that wouldn't allow anybody any time to milk their two cows, so the people would starve.

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 1) 514

Like in the military, schools, medicine, roads, rail, fire brigade, garbage collection, national parks etc you mean?
Pretty much all western nations (incl the US) are socialist to some extent. This may not gel with your ideology, but all of these things are socialist.

Military yes, medicine no, roads maybe, rail (mostly) no, and I specifically mentioned garbage.

Honestly if you would have just read past the first sentence you quoted you would have saved yourself some embarrassment.

Comment Re:Leave it to the scientists.... (Score 1) 93

If your liver is not working right, and an app advises you to eat certain amounts of certain foods, you won't know you were not capable of eating those foods until your doctor is telling you you have only 4 days to live unless you luck into a liver transplant.

You'd KNOW you were sick LOOOONG before you had 4 days left. In most cases, your liver would be enlarged due to inflammation (aka hepatitis) at the very least, which would be quite painful and you'd notice, but you'd still be a ways off from liver failure (and indeed your liver is resilient enough to recover from this point so long as you eliminate whatever is causing it harm.) Even if not that (i.e. you developed cirrhosis without painful hepatitis,) you'd have developed jaundice quite a bit before then and would definitely notice that your color doesn't look right.

Comment Re:Rose tinted glasses (Score 1) 514

Please read the article before your next post. The very first sentence makes it clear it is referring to income inequality, not equality in general.

My very first post was specifically discussing quality of life, especially arguing that making everybody equally poor doesn't make for a better society. And that is in fact what GP was arguing against, though admittedly my second post did go on a tangent, but that was because of the few points the article makes about civil equality (i.e. mention of voting rights.)

Slashdot Top Deals

"Aww, if you make me cry anymore, you'll fog up my helmet." -- "Visionaries" cartoon