Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Why this again? (Score 1) 247

If you want to cook for the public for free or for a massively reduced, (But still reasonable) rate, you are more then welcome to, just don't poison or harm them.

No, you can't do that! You're still missing the point! If you want to cook for the public - you still need to follow regulations! You need to follow health codes and have sanitary conditions. You are certainly most NOT "more than welcome to" start cooking for the public without following the regulations. If I started a restaurant that didn't follow health codes, then other restaurant owners would certainly be upset about that (as I'd likely be able to undercut the competition by skimping out on sanitation costs, or serving somewhat rotten food).

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 247

There's no GLOBAL race to the bottom for uber's business. There's no way to outsource the jobs for 1/10 of the price elsewhere. Every region will have its own pricing scheme, where customers and drivers generally agree on the worthiness of a fare to be worthwhile

Yeah, there's problems with uber in other areas that need to be addressed with their slimy business practices. Claiming not to be employers, so they don't have to pay benefits. Claiming they're "ride sharing" so their drivers don't have to be insured, or follow other regulations. But this is certainly isn't some race to the bottom like you're describing. If they're a better alternative to cabs, that goes to show their prices / fares were artificially high (i.e. to make up for medallions, which is basically because of an artificial scarcity for drivers)

Comment Re:Rubbish (Score 1) 159

There was no such claim in anything that I said. There were three points being made here:

1) The fact that you're pooh-poohing what appears to be a legitimate study (what you called "rubbish research") shows you're already biased and not going to take any study legitimately. Given that scientific research is really the only way to move anything in the realm of "alternative medicine" to actual medicine, that's a rather incredulous attitude.
2) The "sham acupuncture" scenario appears to have been considered in the experiment, as there was a group of rats that received the sham acupuncture, which I indicated with the quote & bolding. This was the only factor of the study that you used to support the idea that this study is BS; yet it was actually considered in the study
3) The concept of acupuncture isn't that far fetched; at least not in the same realm of homeopathy or astrology; which contradicts our current understanding of physics and biology.

None of what I said has anything to do with EA vs A. In fact, it really doesn't matter since you seem to discount both versions. If the study was done with just needles and no electricity, would you have thought the study was any more legitimate or believed acupuncture works any more or less than you did before reading this? Of course not, this is just some weird strawman you're injecting here. The whole point of a scientific study is to move us closer to the truth, so studies on homeopathy or astrology or acupuncture aren't worthless in that sense, even if you know or feel the practice is bogus. The results of these studies help to greater understanding of the area (whether they show a correlation or not), and help sway public opinion. Your original comment is neither insightful nor informative.

Comment Re:Mystery (Score 1) 159

The study, reported in the journal Endocrinology, compared stressed rats given electroacupuncture, [with?] a sham therapy in which needles were not inserted in a meridian point, or no treatment. A fourth group of rats were not exposed to stress and did not receive acupuncture.

Except that this study seems to have accounted for that. There's a specific mention of one group having sham therapy where needles were inserted into the rats, but NOT into the meridian points described. At least that's what I understand from the quoted statement there (there seems to be a minor grammatical error there and the word [with] or [to] may be missing, hence the paraphrasing).

Comment Re:Rubbish (Score 1) 159

"There's no scientific proof that acupuncture actually works, the whole idea is rubbish!"
*Study is done, finds correlation between acupuncture and hormones / stress*
"What is this shit study? We all know acupuncture doesn't work, why waste time studying this rubbish"?

That's a nice no-win situation there for anyone trying to discover validity in acupuncture.

"The real test, if these woo believers wanted to test the magic scientific meridian whacko superpoint stomach meridian point 36 (St36) [help me stop laughing], is to do the magic at various points on the poor bloody rats and see what happens (including the little itty bitty points close to the magic St36)."

If you real the actual article (I know, crazy request for a slashdotter!) you'll see that "The study, reported in the journal Endocrinology, compared stressed rats given electroacupuncture,[to] a sham therapy in which needles were not inserted in a meridian point, or no treatment. A fourth group of rats were not exposed to stress and did not receive acupuncture. ". Hey look, they actually did that thing you said they would have to to be considered *real* science. And they still found a correlation. The whole purpose of the sham acupuncture was to eliminate the possibility of the placebo effect (which apparently can be seen in animals too) or to eliminate the possibility that random needling produces the same results

Acupuncture isn't homeopathy or healing crystals (concepts that contradict our entire understanding of physics and biology). I'm no medical expert, but the basic concepts are at least believable. You stick some needles in you, get relief from physical pain in the area. What's so "mystical" or "voodoo-like" about that? Nothing. Maybe the neurons from the specific area of pain can't transmit that information properly to the brain if there's pain from a meridian point (or elsewhere) that jams that connection. Or the scraping ("Gua-sha" or something) practice doesn't seem so far fetched either, and quite medically plausible. You move waste material from deep inside your body towards the skin, and you end up sweating it out faster. Nothing quacky about that, at least from an initial perspective. Now if your acupuncturist can claim to cure cancer or other nonsense like that, then I might have a hard time believing that crap. But some of these specific techniques don't seem so far fetched, and may be plausible.

Comment Re:Google doesn't target ads (Score 1) 233

This assumes that the people posting the ad are fully in control of the demographics they want to target. We don't know if the people that posted or created the ad specifically dictates in the terms something like "out of the 100000 times this ad pops up, make sure that 80000 are specifically targeted to men". That's the (incorrect?) assumption being made here I think. While this might seem understandable for certain types of targeted ads (don't display feminine hygiene products to men) - i seriously doubt this is the case here. It could be that the ad is targeted to people with "IT" in their work experience, and men are more likely to see the ads because more men are in IT.

Now, you do mention that the profiles used were identical in all cases - which is a good point. However, that doesn't account for all the data that's been collected on the same advertisement for all the people outside of this study. Maybe when this ad was originally posted, it was randomly displayed to people for the first hour or day (not accounting for any demographics). But the purpose of ads is to get clicks, so the algorithm for these ads are going to look at the demographics of the people that clicked these ads (all demographics, not just gender) and then favor people matching those demographics. These is the whole concept behind trends and targeted advertising. People in the 25-40 age range might be more likely to see these ads too, simply because more of them are clicking the ads and the algorithm adjusts the information. It doesn't mean they're age discriminating against those 13-18 or 65 and older.

Comment Re:Time for incest NOW!! (Score 0) 1083

Look Cletus, we get it. Your sister is hot. You want to take her pants off and do the hanky-panky. We understand ya. We totally do. That's part of the reason why I married yer ma. Best part was, we didn't have to go to the DMV to change her last name after the weddin'.

But the fact is, you and Brandine are as dumb as mules and thrice as ugly. If you two are gunn' have kids, they can't be any dumber or uglier than the two of ya are already. You be needing some of that generic adversity that the therapist mentioned back in those sessions. And besides, we can't afford a wedding without some other family chipping in. Go out there and find a nice purty, rich girl out there and make poppa proud instead, hmmkay?

Comment Re:outrageous (Score 0) 363

Analogy fail. You should have used the pirate bay for a better example.

Try making some bomb threats or death threats, or perhaps make some offers to buy or sell drugs using one of those service providers and see how well that turns out for you. Silk Road was designed specifically for black market / illegal transactions. Ulbricht even called himself "Dread Pirate Roberts". If you can't tell the difference between eBay and Silk Road - well then I suppose these words are lost on you.

Comment Re:outrageous (Score 5, Insightful) 363

Yeah, what's wrong with transactions among consenting adults!?!

- I mean, if some corrupt African dictator wants to buy some weapons to wipe out the rioters, that's not my fault - all I did was facilitate the chemical weapons transaction.
- If someone wanted to buy some slaves, and all I did was facilitate the transaction; not my fault.
- CP getting bought and sold on my trading network? Whoa, not my fault, all i did was provide a medium for two consenting adults to make a transaction (involving non-consenting children).
- Someone hired a hitman to kill a journalist that exposed your corruption using my transaction network? Look pal, it's not like I pulled the trigger. All I did was provide a medium/platform that made it much easier for you to complete your transaction. I'm sure that even without my transaction network around, the hitman would have been hired in the black market yellow pages.

Ah, the old 'turn a blind eye' argument. Libertarianism at it's finest. Now it might be nice to be able to buy some drugs that the government says I shouldn't have. But I'd also like to not get murdered by posting dissenting opinions or becoming a whistleblower. And since you can't really have one without the other (don't get to choose what goes on your black market if you turn a blind eye), then I think I'll stick with not having this transaction platform exist at all for the betterment of humanity.

Comment Re:What is normal and how many were born? (Score 1) 220

Of course that tells us something. GP posted that the normal lifespan of a bee colony is measured in decades or in rare cases even centuries. That's a vague timespan of course, but that's maybe roughly on par with a human lifespan (30 to >100). Even if we assume the low end of that is 30 years, if 40% of them died within a 12 month period that's a massive indicator of some of sort of problem. A 30 year lifespan (again, LOW end guesstimate based on GP comments) means that on average, 3% of colonies should die off each year (12 month span). A 40% mortality rate would only be normal if colonies lived an average of 2.5 years.

Cmon man, at least try and math a little before posting a response

Comment Re: 23 down, 77 to go (Score 1) 866

I would generally disagree with that sentiment as well (from GP), though generally agreeing with the rest of the comments. If your religion will reward you for killing infidels and grant you passage to eternal paradise for doing so (Islam), then their followers are more likely to be murderers than if they weren't religious. If your religion is all forgiving (Christianity), well you can do just about whatever you want during your time on earth (rape, kill, steal) but you've got your get-into-heaven free card! In general, people tend to do whatever benefits them and pick and select whatever lines of text from their holy books that suit their agenda (i.e. gay bashing) and ignore the rest.

I think the concept of an invisible santa claus watching out on you might apply for some select religions and their beliefs (i.e. Karma), but I think the sheer number of people in the Abrahamic religious outweighs those that aren't in there.

Comment Learning girls don't have cooties (Score 1) 599

Assuming that segregation actually works out to favor an overall academic improvement for the students, isn't this creating an even bigger problem by removing social interaction between kids of the opposite gender? School isn't just purely for academic purposes, kids actually learn other life skills there like how to make friends, or how to interact with people of the opposite sex. Maybe there's a perceived benefit that teen pregnancy goes down (or some other nonsense), but now we've got a bunch of kids more likely to be misandrists or misogynists, because they're only used to interacting with their own gender.

Perhaps we can have some insight from a gender-segregated boarding school or something, and how that's affected your life (or how some of your classmates behave now when compared to others in society)

Comment Re:Yeah, right. (Score 1) 892

Why is that considered a sexist statement? "Men negotiate harder than women do". Men are generally more aggressive and take greater risks than women do in everything, including salary negotiation. That's a basic biological difference; most males in any species have to take a much greater risk than the females if they want to pass on their genes. If men truly do negotiate harder than women do, how is stating that fact a sexist statement? Seem no more sexist than stating that men are physically larger than women, or they drink more beer, or they play more video games.

Now, if Ellen instead made a point that women are socially punished for being more aggressive during salary negotiation (or in general in the office), that may have garnered more sympathy. It's the suggestion to remove salary negotiation completely that's the problem here; this would be like removing physical tests for firefighters or police officers because women aren't physically built like men are. But we know this is probably a combination of a) bitter retaliation for losing the gender discrimination lawsuit and b) an excuse to try and pay less overall.

Comment Re:Woah Jessie Jackson gone Nativist (Score 2) 442

I find it a little funny that he thinks H-1B workers lead to less diversity. Wouldn't bringing in foreign workers bring in more diversity? Isn't that the definition, when your company has a wider variety of employees from across the globe? Maybe he's referring to the old wooden ship used in the civil war era.

Yes Yes, I know they're taking our jerbs so companies can save a few bucks and that's bad. But "diversity"?

Comment Re: Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score 1) 653

My question then to you would be, why shouldn't the equal protections act apply to gay people as well then, if it applies to race, color, religion or national origin? If any of those don't belong there it's religion (as it's the only choice), and being gay wasn't a choice the last I checked. That's the whole unfair part of this whole debacle.

Sure, it's fair enough that restaurants or grocers can refuse service for any reason (you're not wearing a shirt, for example). But your statement earlier up says Yet, the intention here is that the business not have the same rights-- to refuse service because of their customer's beliefs . It's the word "beliefs" that doesn't belong there, you're implying that being gay is a choice. If I'm a baker and I can't refuse to make a wedding cake for a black or Jewish couple - then why should I be legally able to refuse service to a gay couple? That's the real issue here; that homosexuals aren't covered under the equal protections acts.

And in the event I'm wrong and they are a protected class, and I'm still legally allowed to refuse service as a business to gay couple because of my religious beliefs, then what's stopping businesses from claiming their "religious beliefs" don't allow them to serve black people?

The reward for working hard is more hard work.

Working...