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:Nestle didn't discover anything. (Score 1) 289

Sea salt vs. table salt isn't just a difference in crystal size (sea salt can be milled down to a finer size easily). Sea salt has a different chemical makeup than table salt: that's why it tastes so different. Table salt is almost pure sodium chloride, plus some anti-caking agents and iodine, and has all the impurities refined out. Sea salt has much higher concentrations of trace minerals, namely calcium, magnesium, potassium, and iron. These things are still small in concentration in sea salt (hence the term "trace amounts"), but it's enough to make the salt taste noticeably different.

Comment This is going to get worse with USB-C (Score 1) 17

With USB-C, this is going to get much, much worse. Apple, Google and HP now have laptops that can get juice from every charger.

However, the protocol for that (USB-PD, Power Delivery) is a digital protocol. So companies that used to build purely electronic chargers will now have to build or more likely buy firmware for their chargers. There's bound to be bugs in there, but we're talking about chargers that can supply up to a 100W of direct current.

I dare not guess how much houses are going to burn down because of crazy power supplies.

Personally, I'm only buying cables and chargers that have been tested thoroughly. You can't trust Amazon reviews, you can't trust big brands, you can only trust guys like Benson Leung and Nathan K., who whip out the protocol analyzer and the benchtop electronic loads.

This is a real good source:

And this is the Google Plus page, where they post an analysis every so often:

Comment Re:A real "breakthrough" (Score 1) 289

There's some inaccuracies in your post.

First, the higher-priced chocolate bars really aren't that hard to find. You really should be able to find the higher-priced US-made chocolate bars at any Walmart or Target, even in "the heartland". Target carries Lindt, for instance. It's not going to be in the checkout aisle, though.

Another good place to get chocolate (both US and especially European) is "Cost Plus World Market". These stores are pretty common in suburban areas, and have a lot of specialty foreign foods plus some fancy American-made stuff that's hard to find in supermarkets.

Finally, Whole Foods' alternate name is "Whole Paycheck".

And how is white chocolate "criminal fraud"? If you get really high-quality white chocolate, it's fantastic.

Comment Re:How do we know this is true? (Score 1) 289

"Post-factual world"? WTF are you smoking?

Most politicians are guilty of being big liars. Trump just made it more comical and used their tricks against them. It should be no surprise that politicians are good at lying: almost all of them are lawyers. The entire law profession is nothing but professional lying.

Finally, "applying the same technique to marketing"? WTF do think marketing is??? Marketing is just a euphemism for lying! It's always been that way!

How old are you anyway? You're acting like Trump invented lying!

Comment Re:MODS, GET A GRIP!!! (Score 1) 333

"All of parent's figures reflect the very bad last year of Bush Jr's term." The numbers I erroneously cited from 2008 were 30% better than the 2009 numbers. The 2009 numbers are worse. Unemployment is higher in 2009 at the start of Obama's term than it was in 2008--a lot higher.

You're attacking my analysis and conclusions--which favor Obama--and correcting my analysis and conclusions only favors Obama more-strongly. It would appear every point I made was correct, although the numbers backing those points were off to some degree.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 333

Which is false in practice. The high abundance societies all and I do mean all have negative population growth once you exclude first and second generation immigrants (who have higher fertility).

Societies experiencing famine and economic recessions grow their population more-slowly than their population grows before and after those recessions.

Societies experiencing economic booms grow their population rapidly.

Take a look at the era surrounding the great depression here. Now take a look at 1950-1980. What happened after 1970? What happened between 1950 and 1980?

Why does population seem to always surge when food and jobs are plentiful, and then stop growing so damned much when further growth starts to make food and jobs scarce? Why does that happen?

Incorrectly described. If his theory had been correct, we would have seen massive die-offs in the 19th and 20th Century.

Why? What became scarce in the 19th and 20th century such that there was no way to provide for the people we had? Are you telling me that, some time in the 19th century, we had 2 billion people and only enough food to feed 1.5 billion people? If so, how did population not die off?

If population grows until it hits a wall, restricting its growth, then the point at which it stops is the point at which it's stable. Something must become inaccessible for population to constrict--even wars and disease only cut the population back temporarily.

Comment Re:I appreciate using the correct Unemployment met (Score 1) 333

I dispute those numbers.

There has been a very real growth in nominal median household income, while people claim that real household income is flat even as far back as pre-1970.

Meanwhile, we see in the long term reductions in the percent of that income spent on food and clothing, as well as a 31% increase in spending on shelter while the median size of shelter increases by 56% and the household size (persons) decreased by 15%. That means spending 84% as much on shelter (and 71% per area per person, but that's irrelevant except to say that we're not cramming lots of people into cramped little spaces).

Even since 2005, the food expenditure was 13% and it's now under 12% (personally, it's 3.9% for me, and I eat out a lot--frequently spending $15 for one meal, but not nearly on every meal). Across the past decades, people have been enabled to put more money into savings, buy more and better healthcare, and spend much of their money on entertainment and other discretionary spending.

That doesn't even get into what accounts for "equivalent goods and services" these days.

Dual-core desktops hit the market in 2005. That's quite a shock compared to 66MHz 486DX or 200MHz Pentium Pro chips that cost $200. Never mind the constantly-falling price of RAM, hard disk, and SSD. PCs, costing thousands of dollars in the early 90s, were $350 commodity items in the mid-2000s.

Cell phones of 1983 cost $4,000 for the phone and $55/month for the service, plus 42 cents per minute voice. Two hours per week would net you $250/month service. That's a $9,000 phone and $550/month service today. Somewhere along the line, we got consumer cell phones with $100/month service; then we had $250 flip phones, $40/month service, and text and video messaging; and now we have heterogeneous hex-core smartphones with 2GB RAM for $350, backed by $60/month service with high-speed data (although I pay $35/month to Ting instead).

An ISDN 128K line in 1998 cost $35/month and required a $250 modem. Today I get 200Mbps Comcast service over an $80 modem--it's $54,687 worth of ISDN lines all tied together for $83. Do you remember DSL talking about their wicked-fast "three megs" in 2005? I have 70 of those.

Even cars only standardized transistor radio and air conditioning in the 1950s. Now we have antilock brakes, traction control, EFI, complex suspension systems, air bags, vehicle dynamics that prevent rolling and skidding, sensors and cameras to assist in lane control and parking, and all other manner of highly-complex systems with many moving parts. Somehow, we don't pay a bigger chunk of our income for these things: cars cost about the same proportion of our income, but come loaded. This will remain true when we all have self-driving vehicles.

Your argument is essentially that somebody else has told you that we're producing more, we're not earning more, and our buying power is not increasing. My argument is that the percentage of the median income being spent on goods like food, clothing, and shelter square-footage has gone down; people have spent more on luxury, leisure, savings, and medical care; and that the common goods and services we consume have rolled in more stuff we couldn't have afforded years and decades ago, essentially taking the same portion of our money and giving us more stuff in exchange.

Reality suggests buying power has increased. A lot. People like me--at $75,000 income--are pocketing all the extra money. I bought a house and paid off the mortgage in 3 years. I'm getting ready to buy a car, but I have a couple debts I want to clear out first (adding payments on top of other payments is stupid). I bought myself a $7,000 piano for the house. I put $18,000 into my 401(k) and $3,385 into my HSA this year (which puts me at $57,000 when you exclude my 401(k), compared to the $52,000 median income of the US). I'm 31.

I'm living like a friggin' king here, dude, and I've been diverting a lot of my money to debt elimination and to my 401(k). My 401(k) is largely there to act as a loan source, rather than a retirement fund. What I've accomplished in five years is ludicrous. I'm going to buy a $25,000 car, add cameras and Nest smoke detectors to my house, and put in hardwood floor and new insulation--and pay it all off in the next 2-3 years, while dumping the maximum into my 401(k). I take home around $50,000 after taxes, counting my HSA as money I get to keep because I can spend it on healthcare. You're whining because you spend all your money and wish you had more--a state you'll be in forever, even when you're buying twice as much crap and complaining that you're still not the slightest bit richer while surrounding yourself with hot tubs and hookers.

Comment Re:Nothing to do with weapons or Trump (Score 1) 175

The thing is, server farms and bonnets can be rented by the hour these days and are much larger than what any government agency feasibly can have under their control. Mirai is an example of this, they can take out 100Gbps+, it's still not a weapon, it doesn't do any permanent structural damage to the Internet or kill anyone.

Sure there are state sponsored hackers but there are corporate (both criminal and regular types) hackers that are much bigger and better than what I've seen any government agency wield.

Comment Re:LOL (Score 1) 75

Yeah, because that is exactly what I said.

Let me ask you a simple question, does any regulation state its goals, and if it doesn't (or no longer) reach those goals, is it repealed?

I don't know of ANY regulation that has a repeal clause in it if it doesn't meet its goals.

I don't know of ANY regulation that has a cost benefit analysis requirement before being employed.

I don't know ANY regulation that self monitors for effectiveness.

I don't know ANY regulation that was revoked when it was found to be ... ineffectual. Just more regulations to fix the broken bits of the previous (and bad) regulation.

So, yeah, "No" regulation is an option. AND not all regulations need to apply everywhere in a "one size fits all" over the top method.

I'll give a really good example of bad regulations that can be completely avoided by changing the term of the problem, CableTV (and Internet) franchise agreements. The whole "Net Neutrality" is a top down draconian implementation of regulations that is completely avoidable if you change where the problem exists; the last mile. Fix the last mile problem (monopolistic franchise agreements) AND you don't need a whole bunch of Government red tape on how Internet traffic is handled.

Freedom is expensive, and tyranny comes with a costly price tag. So, yes, I err on the side of Liberty.

Comment Re:or how about less sugar anyways? (Score 1) 289

It's probably like Germany. There (as I understand it), the government takes tithes out of your paycheck to give to the church. To do this, you have to declare a church affiliation. So if you're dumb enough to declare to the government that you're a Lutheran or whatever, they'll take 10% of your pay and give it to that denomination. If you say that you're unaffiliated/non-religious, you keep all your money (minus the other taxes of course).

It wouldn't work in the US because there's a strong aversion here to mixing the government with religion that way. (The religious want their churches to have power over the government, and religious people in power in the government, not the other way around which is how it appears with the government having control over church finances by forcibly taking tithes.)

Comment Re:MODS, GET A GRIP!!! (Score 1) 333

And then I went and redid the numbers, and found that the correct numbers don't show that Obama did not-bad-to-slightly-good; instead, it turns out Obama's first year was much worse than Bush's last year, and so Obama actually dropped U-6 by about 4.1% instead of raising it by 0.1%, and dropped adjusted unemployment by 0.18% instead of by 0.02%.

You seem to be arguing that I used the wrong data point, thus trying to conclude Obama did much worse; except that using the correct data point shows that Obama did actually phenomenally-better. Are you, perhaps, engaging in deception to further a political viewpoint by inducing the reader to incorrect conclusions in opposition of bare facts?

Slashdot Top Deals

The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.