Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Why are larger humans a good thing? (Score 1) 188

Larger humans is a good thing

Please, elaborate — how is it a "good thing"? I'll admit, that it is nicer to be relatively tall — taller (Napoleon once said: longer) than others. But why is it desirable for humanity to raise the average height?

it indicates greater development

Are giraffes "greater developed" than humans or even gazelles?

will likely be key to our self-direct evolution as masters of both Earth and the galaxy

The key to both will be intelligence and technology. A larger personal body-size is more likely do be an impediment than advantage — you'll need bigger spaceships carrying more supplies. And to what end? To be able to take on some alien savage in hand-to-hand combat — instead of using a weapon?

The flea-bitten bastards of Pizarro conquered the Inca not because they were bigger — he was, but his crew weren't. Cortes was, apparently, shorter than Montesuma as well. But the invaders had firearms...

Submission + - Trump chooses Scott Pruitt, climate change denier, to head the EPA (

Victor_0x53h writes: Scott Pruitt, attorney general of Oklahoma and a sceptic of climate science, has been chosen by Donald Trump as the next administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. He is part of legal action waged by 28 states against the EPA to halt the Clean Power Plan, an effort by Barack Obama’s administration to curb greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants and has sided with Exxon Mobil in investigations by the attorneys general in Massachusetts and New York over claims that it misled investors by covering up its knowledge of climate change.

Comment So what?.. (Score 1) 188

Researchers estimate cases where the baby cannot fit down the birth canal have increased from 30 in 1,000 in the 1960s to 36 in 1,000 births today

It may be a fascinating field of study, but there are no practical conclusions to make.

What are you going to do — ban the C-sections and have these additional 6+ per mille of children die during birth (possibly taking moms with them)?

For better or worse, humans can't be treated like poodles, where those deviating from the set standards are neutered...

Submission + - Shed a tear for the dying gasp of the First Amendment. ( 2

flopwich writes: Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and probably others have met in agreement to bar any content they deem "extremist". Of course, only the "wrong" content will be banned, and they wouldn't use Politically Correct standards to evaluate "extremism". We can probably use the founding fathers of the US as generators at this point, given their rapid spinning in their graves.

Comment Re:Inflation is tax on savings (Score 1) 237

It's the old-school definition

Which you would not cite despite an explicit request...

the definition one uses to become or remain wealthy.

Citing definitions rarely makes one wealthy. Given your cavalier attitude towards the meanings of the very words you are using, I'm beginning to doubt the value of continuing the conversation...

Which means, that whoever earned those dollars lost some of their value. Where did it go ...?

They had value only by convention and that convention changed.

That means, the money is failing in one of its primary purposes — being means of storing value.

When inflation rises, the interest rate for the best savings accounts will rise as well (ditto new CDs).

Whether you can still beat inflation or not, the point is, you are losing some of the wealth you had. The government, which spent the freshly-printed money before it loses value, gains gained what you lose — thus making it indistinguishable from tax. Whether that's good or bad, it is a form of taxation.

Your arguments make a case for it being a "good" form of taxation — you should stick to that and stop denying, that it is a tax...

Comment Re:Inflation or Rally? (Score 1) 237

Small amounts of inflation are NOT a "tax on wealth." I suppose you might consider it a "tax on money you hide under your mattress."

Wherever I keep it — under mattress, in a sock, or in a savings account — inflation (small or large) taxes it away.

But in the real world, mild inflation encourages people with wealth to get that money out from under their mattress

And even then I am not gaining as much from my investment, as I should've. But, yeah, taxes are often used to discourage some behaviors while encouraging others — a regrettable practice, which itself is a government overreach, I might add.

Unless you have a giant money bin full of enough to keep you going for the rest of your life already, you likely would do much WORSE in a deflationary economy than having mild 1-2% inflation with its supposed "tax."

All of this is irrelevant to my point. Which was, and remains: inflation eats away at savings.

The $100 earned today would buy me 25 cartons of milk. I can not consume so much, so I buy only one carton and save the money. Well, a week later, when I go to buy another carton, it costs slightly more — through no fault of my own, I've lost some of the honestly earned $100.

Deflation may be bad, but that only reinforces, what I said: the two reasons offered by TFA for BitCoin's future rise contradict each other.

Comment Inflation is tax on savings (Score 1) 237

Wealth is the ownership of the means of production

That's an interesting definition, could you cite, where you got it from? It seems wrong — as it totally ignores non-productive wealth, such as precious metals, Bitcoins, intellectual property, and currency. By your definition, an owner of, say, a shoe-repair shop is richer than a guy with a $10 mln bank-account...

If dollars have less value, the number of dollars needed to buy the means of production increases

Which means, that whoever earned those dollars lost some of their value. Where did it go — dollars aren't apples, they don't spoil? In a fiat-money situation, the government prints paper money — it gets to spend it first, before inflation diminishes it. When people lose wealth and government gains it — even if not all of it — how is it not tax?

Now, it is not tax on all forms of wealth, merely on savings held in dollars. You may think, you are earning by holding your monies in a saving account, but in reality you barely keep up with inflation — whatever profit you should be getting is taxed away from you. By inflation.

Comment Re:Inflation or Rally? (Score 1) 237

One way or the other, only one of the two reasons proposed for BitCoin surge can be valid — it is an equivalent of a Climate Scientist "predicting", it may become hotter or colder in 10 years.

TFA and/or the submission are a blatant attempt to make money on BitCoint speculation, while blaming Trump for whatever he ends up causing: a drop or a rise in dollar's value.

Comment Re:Honest answers (Score 1) 9

"Scientist Victor Venema provides answers" is the link

If you saw fit to put Scott Adams' name in the title of your submission, your link should've pointed at his text, rather than at some unknown responding to it. You could've included the latter in the write-up as well, but Scott's post should've been there as prominently as his name is.

see based on your posting history

Seriously? Ad hominem? Your dishonesty has nothing to do with my posting history...

Comment Inflation or Rally? (Score 4, Informative) 237

Driven by Trump's 'Spending Binge' and Dollar Rally

The two offered reasons seem to be mutually exclusive... Either we see inflation — as Trump's government prints money to finance the feared "binge" (which is oh so different from the wise Government Spending of the Obama era). Such printing may cause an inflation with dollar falling against other currencies — including BitCoin. In this case, BitCoin may, indeed, rise in value.

Or we see dollar "rally" — rise in value against other currencies, including BitCoin.

So, which is it?

When inflation rises the Federal Reserve may raise interest rates to bring it under control. This causes the dollar to appreciate because it would be seen as an attractive currency for foreign investors.

I don't think, a raising of rates ever reversed inflation in the history of Federal Reserve — it can only slow it down. They would not even seek to stop it, considering the value of 1-2% per year "normal" (that's a tax on wealth, BTW).

Comment Bogus link (Score 1) 9

Though the submission claims to link to a piece by Scott Adams, it points to someone responding to Scott instead.

That is borderline dishonest. Down-modding the submission as "notthebest". The actual blog-entry by the Dilbert-creator is here.

Submission + - Transport employees were secretly paid by the DEA to search travelers bags (

schwit1 writes: THERE are many reasons why you might have been stopped at an American transport hub and your bag searched by officials. You might have be chosen at random. Perhaps you matched a profile. Or you could have been flagged by an airline, railroad or security employee who was being secretly paid by the government as a confidential informant to uncover evidence of drug smuggling.

A committee of Congress heard remarkable testimony last week about a long-running programme by the Drug Enforcement Administration. For years, officials from the Department of Justice testified, the DEA has paid millions of dollars to a variety of confidential sources to provide tips on travellers who may be transporting drugs or large sums of money. Those sources include staff at airlines, Amtrak, parcel services and even the Transportation Safety Administration.

The testimony follows a report by the Justice Department that uncovered the DEA programme and detailed its many potential violations. According to that report, airline employees and other informers had an incentive to search more travellers' bags, since they received payment whenever their actions resulted in DEA seizures of cash or contraband. The best-compensated of these appears to have been a parcel company employee who received more than $1m from the DEA over five years. One airline worker, meanwhile, received $617,676 from 2012 to 2015 for tips that led to confiscations. But the DEA itself profited much more from the programme. That well-paid informant got only about 12% of the amount the agency seized as a result of the his tips.

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn