Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:This won't be popular... (Score 1) 409

Really? Most americans voted for fascism?

Shall we count the ways you were wrong in a one line post?
1. Trump isn't a fascist. He's a rightist populist with _major_ issues but just because some people use the wrong definitions to label something/one doesn't make their use correct.
2. A majority of Americans happily voted for trump. He lost the popular vote.
3. Not everyone voted so that makes even fewer who voted for him.
4. An analysis printed shortly after the election in the NYT showed that while those who said that they knew who they were going to vote for 90 days before the election did indeed vote for that candidate (following party lines), that the election was decided by a third of the electorate who disliked both candidates and who ended up voting 75/25% Trump/Clinton. So even those who voted for him weren't voting "for fascism".
5. The dislike/hate of Clinton by even many Democrats and the desire for a break with 8 years of an Obama presidency do not equate with a love of fascism.

Get over your sour grapes, the way to fight Trump is not with slander, lying about him just feeds into his line that "the popular media cannot be trusted". It's not like the truth isn't enough - Use the Truth Luke...

Comment Re:too late (Score 4, Insightful) 472

after 8 years of Obama we have more racial tension than ever before

No, we don't. All of that racial tension you're seeing was already there. What happened was that having a black president encouraged black Americans to speak up about the ways in which they're systematically oppressed, which means that you are now more aware of the existing racial tension.

Comment Re:Just another mindless attack (Score 1) 472

Hillary did exactly that, but the left doesn't seem concerned that they are constantly hypocrites. She had an unsecured device that they told her not to use, and she did anyways. Likely was hacked while she was in Russia.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/clinton-emailed-from-unsecure-phone-because-nsa-denied-her-request-for-a-better-one/

Yes. That's a terrible breach of security when a Secretary of State does it.

It's about a hundred times worse when a President does it.

Comment Re:Lucky few? (Score 1) 102

I realize that the point of this is to generate buzz, but what's the point of buzz if you're going to follow it up with, "Ha ha, just kidding. We're not actually going to sell you the thing we're advertising."

The thing they're advertising is the shake, and they'll absolutely sell it to you. Now, you may not be interested in buying it if you don't get to try the funky straw, but advertisers know that a lot of people who see their ads won't be interested in buying the product. But some will.

And... would you ever have heard of this shake if it weren't for the straw? I wouldn't have. And neither, I'm sure, would many people who actually might be interested in a chocolate mint shake.

This is pretty much the definition of a successful advertising campaign, at least in nerd circles. We're voluntarily discussing a novelty shake from McDonalds! I can't comment on how it will play to the wider audience, but it worked on you. And me.

Comment Re:The work is more important than the idea (Score 3, Informative) 356

Parallel computing, virtualization, all these things were either developed on paper or implemented in some form long before many of us were born.

And yet none of them were available to me for the majority of my life. Why is that? It's because nobody had gotten around to the hard work of turning into something actually useful.

Available to you. Mainframes have made extensive use of both since the early 80s, at least. The hard work was done, it was just done in an environment that relatively few people interacted with directly.

Comment Re:RICH AMERICANS (Score 1) 130

While there are some Stockholm syndrome poor and middle class people who might balk, the majority of us WOULD like the health and safety regulations in place worldwide, mostly because it would be a barrier to the cost effectiveness of domestic firms outsourcing to foreign locations.

It's really those other countries who would object strenuously. In most of the developing world, the only competitive asset they have is low-cost labor. If you could legislate that away from them, they'd have nothing, no way to lift themselves economically. All of the education resources, all of the intellectual capital, all of the big markets... they're all in the rich world, especially the US and EU. We have every possible competitive advantage, including much higher per-hour productivity, the only thing they have is being cheap because their standard of living is so low.

Comment Re:Not going to happen (Score 1) 400

of course the consequence of that is that 'the young and reproductive' of other countries are entering and replacing the indigenous population that has stopped reproducing. Darwin would claim that the more productive shall win. I guess we will see.

You missed the point. The global birthrate has peaked and is declining. That includes those young and reproductive. They're still reproducing at more than replacement rate, but they're trending downward, too. And much of the developed world is already well below replacement rate. Some northern European countries have actually started public service advertising campaigns encouraging couples to make babies, because the declining population numbers are playing havoc with their labor market and their economic structure (especially pension systems).

It turns out that birthrate is positively correlated with infant and child mortality and negatively correlated with wealth and female education. Better access to medical care reduces infant and child mortality, which appears to reduce the motivation of parents to make lots of 'em, just in case. Wealth and female education both enable family planning, and while women generally like babies, they also don't want to have more than they can really manage or care for. And given the very low baseline much of the world is at, wealth and education levels are exploding. People are still living in what you and I would consider unbearable poverty, but it's dramatically better than what the last generation had.

These facts also point out exactly how we can take action to reduce population even faster: Work harder to empower and educate more people in the third world. Actually, great progress is being made in the poor areas of Asia. The big opportunities are in Africa. Teach African men to farm more effectively, make education more available to men and women, make medical supplies and facilities more accessible, and provide international oversight to reduce the damage done by their kleptocratic (and in some cases, genocidal) governments, and you'll make peak population happen sooner, and at a lower level.

Comment Re:Rex Tillerson (Score 1) 95

The way I see it, there's only 2 benefits to a startup

There's a third, and an even more important one: Having it be yours. Even given the significant freedom that Googlers have (and we do have a lot... and as you move up the ladder it increases), there's no substitute for seeing if you can really build something from scratch, with absolutely no one to question you, and being able to look at it at the end of the day and say "I did that"... which includes all of the business stuff. It's about playing the grand game and winning, and you can't really play it while drawing a paycheck.

Also, Google's founder's award didn't really compete with the open-ended possibilities of a startup payout. I mean, you could end up with Larry Page money. You won't, but you could, and you could never get that at Google. Unless Larry Page gave you all his money, which he won't.

Comment Re:Not going to happen (Score 1) 400

Climate is only one of the big threats we face, and we can to some extent simply adjust to it, but unless we learn to curb overconsumption in a serious way, it won't matter all that much.

What are the others? Keep in mind that we're already on track to have a smaller population by the end of this century than we did at the beginning, and it's also quite clear that we'll have no trouble feeding and housing the expected peak population of just under 10B. In terms of energy generation, we're moving pretty quickly away from fossil fuels, within a few decades renewables will be cheaper. That won't happen quickly enough to head off serious climate change, but we aren't going to have population-driven energy shortages.

So unless there are some other serious problems related to overconsumption (whatever that is), it seems to me that it just might be easier to engineer the climate than it is to engineer human behavior. Not that the former is easy, but the latter is damned near impossible.

Slashdot Top Deals

User hostile.

Working...