Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Joao wrote a book about this over a decade ago (Score -1) 244

I read Joao's book "Faster than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation" on this topic over a decade ago. The first half of the book was not really that groundbreaking as it rehashed some relativity and talked about Joao himself. But the 2nd half was interesting. I started thinking that having a speed of light that was much higher than today would explain why it looks like the earth is so old despite not actually being that old due to discrediting current carbon dating results. The entire carbon dating concept is based on an assumption that light speed is a constant without ever having a way to prove that our 'measuring stick' is properly 'calibrated' despite having so many theories depend on that 'fact'.

Comment Lessig is grasping at straws (Score -1) 1430

Complaining that the electoral college weights the votes in Wyoming roughly four times as heavily as the votes in Michigan, Lessig argues that the popular vote should be respected, and that the authors of the U.S. Constitution "left the electors free to choose. They should exercise that choice by leaving the election as the people decided it: in Clinton's favor."

The only problem with this logic (but it's a big problem) is that it sounds like he wants all electors to choose Clinton just because she won the national popular vote. But what would be the point of having states-specific electors if he advocates voting based on the national popular vote results? As someone explained recently on facebook (I forget what the guy's name was), he used a baseball analogy to state why we shouldn't be changing the rules of the game. Back in the 20th century the Pirates beat a team in the world series 4 games to 3, but the other team had more overall runs throughout the series. The rules of the game ignore who has the most overall runs and instead bases who wins on the number of games they won. Should we change the rules of the game just because a particular team didn't win one year? For every person who wants their team to win there is another who wants a different team to win. But rules exist for a reason: to make processes consistent, and therefore fair. They are still fair even if you don't get the result you wanted because next time you may very well get the result you wanted as the rules are consistently applied.

If anyone should support the electoral college it should be Lessig, given that he is a lawyer. We are a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. Therefore we don't vote purely on the majority wins mentality. If you prefer that then move to another country. Conservatives didn't ask for a recount nor did they riot in the streets or do their damnedest to figure out how to make electors change their minds either of the last 2 elections when Obama won. I guess they are just more honorable losers.

The electors will indeed be exercising the choice of the voters *in their individual states* rather than the national vote since our electors are at the state level, not national.

Comment Are we now writing headlines in yoda speak? (Score -1) 29

IDG, Owner of PCWorld and Research Firm IDC, in Advanced Talks To Sell Itself To Chinese Buyout Group: Reuters - This makes it sound like the Chinese buyout group is named Reuters rather than the report coming from Reuters

Here is the correct way to write a headline: Reuters: IDG, Owner of PCWorld and Research Firm IDC, in Advanced Talks To Sell Itself To Chinese Buyout Group

Comment Re:Genesis 6:3 NIV (Score -1) 290

Also... the bible is not a trusted reference source. It was written by people who weren't there, repeatedly re-written by people with poor translation skills (not to mention political agendas to achieve). Each new interpretation of "The word of God" heralded as an unchanging, perfect holy text. Codswallop!

The part about not being there is also like every history book currently being printed for use in schools right now. Are you going to start lobbying for those to be removed from schools because they can't be trusted? With that said, you do realize that the parts about Jesus in the gospels were written by people who actually KNEW Jesus, right? There is no issue with being trustworthy for those parts.

And for the other parts, if you have problems with verbal or written history being handed down over the generations then how can you personally trust anything in history that happened more than about 117 years ago (the age of oldest still living person)? What has to happen for you to trust the information? Must you see it for yourself? What personal issues do you have with the people who wrote/translated the Bible versus those who wrote/translated other historical texts, especially those used in schools today? Do you have evidence for this opinion of poor translation skills? Since *you* weren't there either how well do you know the people who were writing and translating the Bible? What *political* agenda was there for documenting someone's life 2000 years ago while they were living? And finally, would you care to point out the parts that you can't trust because you know they are wrong? It would be difficult wouldn't it? Then how do you know *any* of it is wrong?

Comment Evolution (Score 0) 288

Sounds like evolution isn't science based on this criteria. Evolution doesn't make predictions for new species. Note that small mutations (micro evolution, if you must call it that) do not make new species.

Comment Re: Climatology (Score -1, Troll) 288

You say they are stupid because they don't blindly believe in fudged data that is fudged in a way that make certain types of people and companies a lot of money? Whose is the stupid group again? If the conservatives were the ones receiving this money you would claim the data is fudged. As it is, you and any other democrat view it as a humanitarian crisis so you can convince yourselves (ie rationalize) you are doing the right thing despite fleecing citizens through idiotic taxes, regulations, etc. whose costs get passed down to them despite being levied on evil oil companies.

Comment Re: Theory (Score -1) 591

"But you pretend to know that a God created everything. You probably pretend to know the exact nature of that God. But "evolutionist" are the know it all jerks." He doesn't have to pretend to know. It's quite clearly written in the Bible, you know, the thing you don't want to read because you might learn something. For someone accusing someone else of pretending to know a lot you sure are making a lot of assumptions about someone you don't know. If you would read the Bible you would know that it isn't possible to ever know everything about God. One can still pretend but those who read the Bible know that it would never be possible to achieve that. Evolutionists need more faith that their idea is true than the people whose faith they are trying to prove wrong. Evolutionists and their followers are full of hubris. They believe Man can find all the answers and that any answer given to us by God is fake information given to us by other humans who wrote the Bible. Man's answers, such as evolution, are backed by conjectures that can't be proven because no one was alive to know if they are true. Evolutionists only exist to give atheists some peace of mind.

Comment Re:This is good (Score 1) 1094

Redistribution of wealth rewards laziness and punishes success by using the gov't as the sole arbiter for who should be rewarded, regardless of what one did to earn the dollar. The only entity in charge of how much one earns is oneself, not the gov't, not one's parents, not one's employer. If one wants to earn more money it is one's own responsibility to make that happen. It isn't the gov't's job to settle the fairness score among citizens because what the gov't considers fair is not always fair due to bias. One should be able to decide for oneself whether his current wage is fair and if it isn't then to do something about it rather than whine to the gov't that society is against him. The US has been raising a bunch of lazy ass people for the last generation or two. If someone wants lifted out of poverty then they should do more to earn it like everyone else did. Society doesn't pick and choose certain people to hate or to make poor. Being poor is a personal choice due to lack of motivation regarding work, education, responsibility, etc. The only people who deserve assistance are the disabled who can't actually work but any able bodied person should be working and if they want to earn a certain wage then they need a minimum set of skills, knowledge, experience, education and willingness to accept responsibility to earn that desired wage. Giving people money for no reason devalues them and it demotivates them causing less work to be done at great cost to society as a whole.

Comment Re:Hmm... (Score 1) 1094

Except that there's other factors in play as well. A minimum wage increase will give the bottom 60+% of workers more spending power, this increased spending will boost the income of local shops which will help to improve the local economy.

This is economics 101, for an economy to work people have to spend money, the more money that people spend the better the economy works. Increasing the spending power of the vast majority of local residents is a very good thing for the local economy.

Those workers will be spending all their wage increase by having to pay more at, for example, fast food restaurants when prices go up to accommodate higher wages. Or the worker will get laid off completely in an effort by their employer to reduce ever growing costs and to avoid raising prices. In your utopian view of economics you forget that businesses have costs associated with running their businesses. It isn't all profit. So when their labor expenses go up they won't magically see an increase in sales because new sales and labor charges are NOT linked. Someone who makes an extra $1/hr or $8/day won't suddenly decide to buy something new just because of that new found money. If anything they will put the money towards repairs for their 10 year old car or their rent for the month that they are behind on because their child needed new clothes for school.

So all you do is raise the cost of those goods and services and make it harder for minimum wage workers to afford those things. You can't increase the spending power of residents if you just forced them to pay MORE for the same thing they paid $2 less for a week before the new minimum wage kicked in. If you think you can increase spending power that way then you don't know real world economics. You only think you do. What you really know is utopian economics.

Spending more comes from how much one can buy with $1. Giving someone $2 does not increase their spending power. Making goods and services cost less so that more can be purchased with the SAME $1 is what increases spending power. Maybe that simple description is what democrats and socialists really need to figure out just how economics really works rather than how they think it works.

Comment Re:Stupid reasoning. (Score 1) 1094

I love seeing this crap in American articles. "Oh Noes! If we pay people more, it will cost businesses more!"

Lets look at this for a second.... Who are a businesses customers? Hint: It's the people who get paid a wage. These people get more money, more businesses get more customers. More customers mean more sales. More sales means more profits.

Is it really that hard to grasp that concept?

You assume the employees getting a higher wage are going to perform better in order to justify that new wage. If they did then their employer would already be giving them raises and, oh, lo and behold, those special employees aren't considered minimum wage anymore (note: that's how the real world actually works). Only the best employees will do that and by the law of statistics the best employees are a small percentage of the employee base. So you are asking for a business to be able to do more work with the same mediocre employees who now get paid more for being mediocre? Why should the mediocre employees do anything more than they did before if they can get a wage increase w/o working any harder than they did before?

And it now costs that business more money to pay its employees. To maintain profit margins cost either go up or employees are laid off. If costs go up then the employees earning more are now still earning the same amount as before if they are now having to pay more money as customers for goods/services that have had price increases. So the net change is 0 for those employees. If people are laid off then those employees whom you thought would generate more sales are now simply receiving food stamps careof us through the federal gov't. Good job!

Comment Re:Minimum Wage (Score 1) 1094

ganjadude didn't claim that the people earning just above minimum wage will have a reduced wage.But he is claiming that reduced incentive to do good work occurs when people get a raise for no good reason. What's worse is that with a mandated minimum wage increase there is bound to be people who don't deserve it get a raise anyway all the while someone working their ass off who were earning just above that wage don't get a proportional wage increase. Do they not work hard to earn a living? The same excuses for raising minimum wage can apply to those earning just above minimum wage but those people are left out in the cold. Anyone who believes raising minimum wage helps the min. wage workers is a socialist who relies on the gov't to even the playing field. Since when was the job or the job's wage ever the problem? I had a minimum wage job when I was in high school. Pretty much everyone did. Did I like getting that amount of money? It was fine at the time but everyone always wants more. But the mechanism for getting more is to do more work, accept more responsibility, gain to new skills, etc. to *JUSTIFY* the wage increase. It's typical immaturity that motivates people to demand a higher wage w/o providing their employer a requisite tradeoff in more output for that wage increase. The real world doesn't give raises just because you have a child to feed or have a car payment. The real world gives raises when you do something to earn it. And if your skills, experience, etc. outpace what the employer can pay you accordingly then YOU move on to fix the problem because the problem isn't the job in that case, and it never is. If someone wants more money they find the job that pays more but employees have to realize that they have to do a proportional amount of work to earn that money. Too many people nowadays except so much for free and expect it now. To use your logic, do they want to get reimbursed everytime they have another child to raise? Minimum wage is just that. It was never intended to be a livable wage. Livable wages are those above minimum wage that people move up to, at least those people who have the initiative and intelligence to do so.

Comment Re:Minimum Wage (Score 1, Insightful) 1094

Hmm sounds like Hostess. They kept paying the demanding wages of the union workers but never raised prices (God bless them for that) but eventually the workers demanded too much and so Hostess decided to close up shop instead (the assets were eventually purchased). That's one of 2 scenarios that happens when workers demand raises. The other is prices go up. Now, on a single company scale that isn't much of an issue but if businesses across the board raise prices due to hikes like a federal, state or city minimum wage increase then we're talking about adversely affecting a lot more people when those prices go up because now more people have to pay more than they did before for goods and services. How many of those people are minimum wage workers? Probably most of them. So now those people are back in the same boat they were in before.

Comment Re: Take your space (Score 2) 290

Humans are not animals, unless you have chosen to fall for the lie of evolution. If you have fallen for that then by extension you believe that we have no morals to abide by (animals kill out of instinct so that means we can too). But humans know right from wrong and can choose to act accordingly. Animals, not so much. If you still disagree then you shouldn't mind people killing each other out of instinct. So the question is, would you mind that? Being mere animals also means we are no longer responsible for our actions because everything is an instinct rather than being based on a moral code of conduct. I advise you to rethink your statement. It has far reaching consequences.

Slashdot Top Deals

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken