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

 



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

Comment Re:They only show gorgeous women (Score 1) 54

Please ignore the correlation between "looks" and genetic indicators of reproductive health

That would be a nice argument if there was some universal agreement on what is attractive. In some cultures, thin is attractive. In others, fat. Some places like women who stretch their necks out. Others like their feet bound to the point that they can hardly walk. In Meiji era Japan, it was seen as attractive for women to paint their teeth black. Do you find that hot? There is no single standard of beauty. You cannot just declare yours to be universally applicable.

The majority of "beauty" traits have nothing to do with genetic indicators of reproductive health. That said, there are some. For example, for both sexes, "clear skin" is usually desirable, as that is an indicator of immune system fitness. And of course standard secondary sex characteristics, including having typical voice ranges appropriate to their sex, muscle mass in men, in women breasts and wide hips, etc. But the majority of the specific details that make up the "look" of an attractive man or woman versus other men and women in their society are simply cultural.

Comment Re:Curing Greed. (Score 1) 408

You've probably heard that it takes money to make money. It's true.The more money you have the more you can make. Loop forever.

More concretely. Lets say you and I both start businesses making widgets. People like widgets. But I have more money than you, so I can get a 10% discount on widget parts by ordering in larger quantities. So I can sell my widgets for less than you can. So I sell my widgets and make money and you get stuck with a stock of widgets.

It could be a number of factors. Perhaps I can afford to sell at a loss long enough to drive your business under (AKA dumping). Perhaps I own my factory building outright and you have to pay rent for yours. Every month, I see ROI on my property and you flush rent down the toilet. Your landlord might make more money on your business than you do.

This will always be true (as Marx suggests) unless government specifically intervenes and makes it a regulated market.

Submission + - Virginia spent over half a million on cell surveillance that mostly doesn't work (muckrock.com)

v3rgEz writes: In 2014, the Virginia State Police spent $585,265 on a specially modified Suburban outfitted with the latest and greatest in cell phone surveillance: The DRT 1183C, affectionately known as the DRTbox. But according to logs uncovered by public records website MuckRock, the pricey ride was only used 12 times — and only worked 7 of those times. Read the full DRTbox documents at MuckRock.

Comment Re:Curing Greed. (Score 1) 408

Perhaps we should heed Smith's admonition to hand out corporate charters extremely sparingly. He understood that markets need hundreds of competitors selling to buyers who were more or less on an equal economic footing. Also the part where he said that markets require regulation to remain functional.

That doesn't sound much like the thing we pass off as Capitalism today.

Comment Re:Curing Greed. (Score 1) 408

No. No good has ever come from greed. Enlightened self interest can do great things, but it is greed that removes the enlightened part.

It is technology that raised the peasants of old to a modern standard of living and it is greed that is trying to horde all of the advances for the enjoyment of the rich alone.

Enlightened self interest leads a CEO to build a company that provides decent employment to thousands. Greed leads the corporate raider to make unsustainable cuts, cash in on the stock options, and deploy the golden parachute before his cuts take the company down in flames.

Comment Re:Those who something, something (Score -1) 372

. . . Twitter making a claim that they can not possibly back up. If congress passes a law to make it a legal requirement, Twitter will do it.

All that they've done here is made a political move that people like you have believed, yet it has exactly 0 substance behind it.

We already KNOW they sell data feeds to surveillance companies, and we already KNOW that even when they cut them off ... they sell the exact same data to a 'new' company, that just happens to have all the same employees as the old one last month ...

Twitter didn't do anything but lie and you bought it. The biggest failure in this discussion is you, for believing a word they said. Shame on you.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've finally learned what `upward compatible' means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes." -- Dennie van Tassel

Working...