Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Last Chance - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Why do you insist on misquoting me? (Score 1) 120

To be even more blunt, you just tried to claim that the Chinese are somehow "socialists" (based on no facts whatsoever) yet you get your undies up in a bunch when anyone calls any president in history "conservative" as a result of actually evaluating the facts of their administrative actions.

Is there a distinction to be made that the Chinese call themselves "socialist", whereas #OccupyResoluteDesk has (to my knowledge) never confused himself with a "conservative" in any way, shape, form, or context?
None of which precludes your capacity to make stuff up, of course.

Comment Re:Sorry guys, Israel doesn't care what you think. (Score 1) 165

I read the freaking summary and it mentioned Israeli soldiers executing people, so I'm not sure how that's not the topic of the OP. Maybe you are asserting that the summary is inaccurate and doesn't match the article? If that's your argument it would make more sense if you would assert that explicitly so we can follow.

Comment Re:Not Contractors (Score 1) 63

The IRS defines who is and is not a contractor

That might be because the taxpayers do not have the collective-bargaining powers, when talking to the IRS.

The distinction between employees and contractors is artificial and should not exist.

For example, a Uber driver, injured in a wreck can not get Workman's comp

His injuries — and the "pain and suffering" are covered by the auto-insurance. The "workman's compensation" was a solution in search of a problem, became a breeding ground for fraud, and should be abolished ASAP — along with all other involuntary insurance schemes.

Comment ok (Score 5, Insightful) 156

"... some observers worry that students pursuing profitable degrees in engineering or business would get better repayment terms than those studying to become nurses or teachers..."

And that sounds completely REASONABLE.

TAANSTAFL, people.
I know you really want a giant grant so you can get that PhD in Russian Literature but you know what? To live, you need money. To have money, you need to have a job. Life is work, and work is (usually) shit. If you're staggeringly lucky, you get to do something you love for pay. More often, you rationalize whatever enjoyment you can out of what gig you can get.

But you're simply not entitled to do what you want, and have someone else pay for it. I'm sorry if your parents never taught you that. We can talk all day long about the bullshit costs of colleges, and I'll entirely agree with you. My dad? Full ride as a football player in 1955 to the U of MN, this was noted in the paper as worth $300/year.
I went to the same school in 1986-1990, and my college education cost about $3600-$4500 annually as I recall.
My son going to the same school this year, it's about $25k/year.

Using RoI calculators on the web, my dad's tuition this year would be $2600.
Mine would be $9800.
That's absolute horse shit, and personally I suspect at least part of it has to do with ample grants and easy loans since the mid 1980s. Clearly, it's not going to teachers.

Submission + - Is it time for government to get out of the business of giving dietary advice? (

schwit1 writes: But that would mean giving up on so many opportunities for graft and self-importance and control over others.

With the release of the eighth edition of the U.S. government’s Dietary Guidelines expected by year’s end, it seems reasonable to consider—with the “obesity plague” upon us and Americans arguably less healthy than ever before—whether the guidelines are to be trusted and even whether they have done more harm than good.

Many Americans have lost trust in the science behind the guidelines since they seem to change dramatically every five years. In February, for example, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee declared that certain fats and eggs are no longer the enemy and that cholesterol is “not considered a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.” This, after decades of advising Americans to “watch their cholesterol.”

Such controversy is nothing new. U.S. Dietary Guidelines were first released by the Agriculture Department and the Department of Health and Human Services in 1980. One nutrition expert at the time, Edward “Pete” Ahrens, a groundbreaking researcher on fat and cholesterol metabolism, called the guidelines “a nutritional experiment with the American public as subjects . . . treating them like a homogeneous group of Sprague-Dawley rats.”

The original goals were to: 1) increase Americans’ carbohydrate consumption to 55%-60% of caloric intake; 2) reduce fat consumption to less than 30% from 40% of caloric intake; 3) reduce saturated fat to 10% of calories and increase poly- and monounsaturated fats each to 10% of calories; 4) reduce cholesterol intake to less than 300 milligrams a day; 5) reduce sugar intake by 40%; and 6) reduce salt consumption by 50%-80%.

These six goals, viewed in the context of what we know today, could hardly be more misdirected.

If only we could hold them liable the way we would if they were pharmaceutical companies that produced similarly defective and harmful products.

Comment Re:Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence (Score 1) 183

What you seem to be missing is that War is a macro-aggressive, acute failure of society. Microaggression is a stealthy, sinister, chronic failure of society that is far more widespread and far more damaging to the long-term health of humanity than is an acute War that has a beginning and an end.

Others have addressed the first major flaw in this argument, which is that killing people is worse than being mean to them.

But there's another flaw, which is your apparent belief that microaggression is something new. It is definitely not. People have always been nasty to each other, and we're significantly less nasty to each other today than ever before. The notion of microaggression is perhaps the best proof: previous generations didn't even bother thinking about microaggression, because it was just normal. Today, we recognize this subtle form of personal attack and work to expose it and thereby reduce it.

You should read the first few chapters of Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature", in which he documents historical evidence of the ways in which people were nasty to each other. He focuses mostly on physical nastiness, violence, but lots of other sorts of nastiness are covered in passing, or obviously implied. Society is much, much better than it used to be. Empathy for strangers is normal today. It wasn't always.

Building translators is good clean fun. -- T. Cheatham