Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:now they can choose (Score 1) 167

You do realize you're talking about a sliver of the horses in the nation, right? I'm not saying I like the race horse industry. I'm simply saying that you're essentially falsely judging millions of very responsible and loving horse owners based on a vast minority of them associated with a very specific industry. It's like comparing every person who gardens to massive farming operations clear-cutting rainforests.

Comment Re:now they can choose (Score 1) 167

As a human example, pretty much everyone knows that diets relatively low in fat and sugar will benefit their health, but that doesn't mean they like them.

And yet we have a government increasingly interested in telling us we're damn well going to do what they think is best for us whether we like it or not. No salt on restaurant tables, no 32.oz soda drinks, regulation on alcohol, tobacco, drugs, etc.

So I guess what you're saying is that the government treats us like we treat horses.

Comment Re:Cart before the horse? (Score 1) 167

The point is that the horse was able to identify the RIGHT symbol for it's own preferred outcome. That's the interesting outcome to the study : The horses differentiated between symbols.

Yes, this is essentially training the horses to perform an action. But the test could not have been considered a success if the horses didn't demonstrate the cognitive ability to identify symbols and choose appropriately between symbols for a predictable outcome. It is a step further than "ring the bell, get a treat".

The condition of the horse (sweaty) wasn't a factor brought by the anticipation of the tests. It was a manufactured state to determine if the horse would demonstrate a desire to have its blanket removed, AND be able to communicate that desire.

Comment Re:Its repugnantly nihilistic (Score 1) 168

And its a gross overstatement to expect that it is incumbent upon every person that uses a computer to be educated to the level you're suggesting. While there are certainly computer and security experts who do have that level of knowledge, skill and experience, they are in the vast minority of users. And this applies equally to your grandma and to low level clerical types that work in all forms of public service. While I would certainly hope that the computers in use by individuals handling classified data are being routinely examined and secured by the aforementioned experts, the user himself cannot be expected to hold to the same skill set. Their time is meant to be spent on matters of a much different nature, and it would be self-defeating for them to take that burden upon themselves. The machines should be controlled by the experts in such a way that the user cannot inadvertently present undue risk, and the user should be educated on basic user-level best practices and procedures. But what you're suggesting is akin to saying that every nurse and guard in your hospital must be capable of brain surgery. Even when speaking about the home computer of the head of the FBI (a computer that shouldn't contain anything work-related at all), it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that you do the little things that most anyone can grasp if told, while not being deluded enough to expect them to perform brain surgery.

Comment Re:Watergate in four paragraphs (Score 1) 387

I agree that the Saturday Night Massacre was what did him in. But it was a factor because it was put into context with the leaks from Felt via W&B. The other reporters got teeth into the story because it was being validated by W&B source Felt. Nixon's strategic errors would have been explained away far more easily had the validation not existed.

The underlying issue was undoubtedly the use of the Plumbers. It was unethical at best and proved later to be flat-out illegal on a number of fronts. But we'd have likely never known had the leaks not existed.

Comment Re:Not going to happen (Score 1) 387

What about the mention in all of those articles about the striking number of people who want jobs, but have given up? That contradicts a very low unemployment rate, doesnt it? If you argue that this is a factor of more jobs requiring a college degree, I'd argue that's a social construct that is largely a product of falling high school standards (which I mentioned).

Regardless, that's one line of many in my original post suggesting that "we're in a better place" is not accurate in the big picture.

Comment Re:Watergate in four paragraphs (Score 1) 387

You specifically mentioned that Nixon's popularity went into the tank. Which was in large part due to the coverage of the scandal by Woodward and Bernstein. Without that popularity, as we all know, its more politically expedient for other actors in government to pursue a legal case.

We see the reverse evidenced regularly today. The popularity levels insulate individuals a great deal from what should be legitimate concerns that are pursued to their best conclusions.

Comment Re:Not going to happen (Score 1) 387

We have fewer Americans in the workforce that we did a decade ago and that continues to decline.

This one is due in huge part to the baby boom and all of them retiring. Between that and a decline in birth rates, you're going to have a smaller workforce.

Not true according to Bloomberg :

The decrease in the labor force last month also probably didn’t reflect the retirement of more baby boomers. The participation rate among those 65 years old and older rose to 18.9 percent in April from 18.5 percent the prior month.

Not entirely true, according to US News :

In a nutshell, the baby boomers have aged and are now finally retiring en masse. After bulging into the workplace in the 1970s, women are no longer the force in the labor market they once were. Younger people are opting to educate themselves rather than work. And a less-than-friendly tone toward immigrants is shrinking the supply for some high-skilled jobs.

Not according to MSNBC :

In other words, a remarkable number of Americans are not only unemployed, but are also declining to seek new employment. That includes a striking number of 18-24 year olds, according to a new report from Demos called “Stuck: Young America’s Persistent Jobs Crisis.” According to the report, Americans in that age group had lower participation rates than 25-34 year olds or 35-64 year olds across the educational spectrum.

Thats just the first few articles on a google search of "fewer americans in the workforce", and no one would claim that those sources are slanted Republican or Conservative. They are from 2012, 2013 and 2015, and the trend continues thru today. But just to make sure, here's that same search limited to the last year.

According to the Chicago Tribune :

The problem is particularly pronounced among men between the ages of 25 and 54, traditionally considered the prime working years. Their participation rate has been declining for decades, but the drop-off accelerated during the recession. The high mark was 98 percent in 1954, and it now stands at 88 percent. A new analysis from the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, slated for release Monday, found that the United States now has the third-lowest participation rate for "prime-age men" among the world's developed countries.

And from CNN Money :

1. Fewer adults are working
Only 62.7% of adult Americans are working. The so-called Labor Force Participation rate hasn't been this low since the late 1970s. The rate measures how many people over age 16 are working or actively seeking work. Back in the '70s, it was low because fewer women worked outside the home. That's not the story today. Now, three factors are driving the decrease in workers. The first is that a huge part of the adult population, Baby Boomers, are retiring. That's expected and healthy. It explains about half of the decline in the workforce.

The second is more young people are going to college and graduate school. They are studying more, which should be a positive for the nation. But the third one is alarming: some people have just given up on finding work. It's hard to quantify how many people fall into this dropout category, but it's large enough to matter. Politicians like Trump talk about it in stump speeches.

The Wall Street Journal estimates that about 2.6 million of the roughly 92 million American adults who don't work want a job but aren't looking for one.

So, yes, Baby Boomers are a factor. But economists and labor specialists recognize that there's absolutely something else going on, and they describe it as "vexing", "disturbing", and "alarming".

You are being lied to when you're told not do your own research and you're own thinking, and that the economy is doing fantastic. It's a largely held belief on the left and the right that the unemployment rate alone is a flat out lie, and constructed by the "adjustments" that the Obama administration has made on how they report the figures.

Slashdot Top Deals

Machines that have broken down will work perfectly when the repairman arrives.