Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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 2) 172

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:Because it's not software (Score 2) 100

I thought Henry Ford was a visionary because of his business model -- an assembly line that could mass produce cars for everyone -- not because he necessarily innovated the automobile concept itself.

Musk's advancement mostly seems in the electric drivetrain, less so in the business model. He wants to do direct sales, but while it runs against the grain of the existing car sales business, existing regulation and low production volume make it appear less than revolutionary, especially when many products are sold directly buy their maker.

Comment Re:You should *NOT* be projecting.... (Score 1) 59

I think there are fair arguments about not distracting other drivers. But one thing nice about this vs. a HUD is that it actually projects imagery onto the surface you're supposedly to be looking at -- you want to focus on the road in front of you generally so seeing directional markings there is completely natural and doesn't require a change in visual focus or the distraction of having to look through a HUD's imagery to the road beyond.

Some potential ideas to make is less distracting for others -- don't display markings when another car is within a distance where they may easily see them, display markings such that they're oriented/displayed in a way meaningful to other drivers or communicate that they should be ignored. I drive through intersections many times a day with turn arrows and lane markings not relevant to me and I don't get confused.

I also wonder if there's some way of projecting them with a light color, pattern or polarization that's made more visible by filters laminated into the originating car's windshield, especially if it managed to do it such that other cars windshields acted as passive filters due to their polarization.

I think it's a great way to put information exactly where it belongs for driver visual focus. Distraction to other motorists *could* be a problem, but overall people are already visually attuned to ignore markings that are backwards or don't apply to them and their direction of travel. Roads have all kinds of markings already and nobody complains about excess street markings. And it may be possible to project them in a way that makes it difficult for other drivers to see them at all.

Comment Re:Better up the Military Budget (Score 1) 295

A wall won't stop them, but it will slow them down enough for people behind the wall to shoot them dead.

Don't be naive, if refugee/migration pressures are this severe do not think of a second that the people with will demand the invading hordes without be stopped by any means necessary.

I'm of the opinion that it's happening already. We argue around the margins about immigration, pretending it's about jobs, racism or some other bullshit but I think at the heart of it people really are nervous about long-term resource access. It's low level and you can easily rationalize away any kind of urgency about it, but I think the level of news coverage about refugees into Europe, the noticeable increase in Hispanic populations in the US over the last 10-20 years, etc is invoking something of a panic mindset.

We laugh about Trump's wall now for all the obvious reasons but it wouldn't surprise me at all if fortifying the border specifically against mass refugee influxes doesn't become something more than a fringe idea.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 502

Try extending your graph back to 2000 - it tells a story opposite to the one you're thinking of.

By the way, most of those manufacturing jobs are never coming back. A lot of them have simply been priced completely out of the US market. Many of them don't even exist anymore, having been taken over by automation.

As for where US job growth has been: the US is increasingly a service economy. Also energy has been growing a lot. Correspondingly, construction too. Healthcare... retail... business & professional services..leisure and hospitality... all strong growth fields.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 502

The Democrats controlled the House in the 80s, so spending budgets came from them.

Right. It's the Democrats who are really into extreme tax cuts for the wealthy! Why didn't I notice this before? I also apparently missed the part where the president signs bills that he doesn't support.

The "Reagan tax cuts" that passed were very close to what Reagan was seeking in each case.

According to this graph

"According to this deliberately deceptive graph..."

Anything that shows financial issues a long period of time, without including inflation, while trying to argue that "the last person in the list did the most of X", is being partisan at best, intentionally misleading at worst. In reality, even inflation alone isn't enough; the best figure you can use is debt as a fraction of GDP. But I digress.

As a second issue, you make it misleading when you focus on debt and not the deficit. Because the deficit makes much clearer what sort of situations the next person inherits, as well as the immediate impact of financial shocks and passed bills.

The reality is, when Obama took office, there was a massive deficit left behind by Bush. During Obama's administration it reduced every year.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 5, Insightful) 502

Talking about debt isn't helping your case any. Here's the deficit (change in debt) from year to year: Link

Why is that Republicans keep blowing the budget? Well, let's look at the case of Bush. Wow, whodathunkit, massive tax breaks to top income earners skyrockets debt, news at 11! And yes, having the government hawk itself into debt is great for the short term strength of the stock market.

Re, debt outlook under Trump: absolutely not if he enacts his "Bush Tax Cuts+++ proposal.

Comment Re:DEA already has rescheduled and overruled itsel (Score 1) 146

I'm on board with most of that, but if economics was a good enough explanation we wouldn't have seen the DEA making opiates much harder to obtain -- more intensive prescription databases to get doctor shoppers, more intensive audits of prescribing physicians, and the rescheduling of hydrocodone from III to II. The irony, of course, is that it has jacked up street prices and moved many low-level pill users accustomed to uniform dosing to street heroin, which despite DEA enforcement has become cheaper than made-in-the-USA pills, and with all the worse addiction and overdose outcome you'd expect.

I'm more inclined to think that the DEA was largely a political creation designed to attack the counterculture of its founding era, using criminalization of LSD and marijuana as an excuse for law enforcement action. This I think goes a long way towards explaining the DEAs aggressive moves against any substance with recreational value.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 4, Informative) 502

Unemployment numbers are a bit worse off today than they were when Obama took office, regardless of which measure you look at.

In what world?

Want to use U-6 unemployment? Nope, not that one either.

Obama inherited the largest economic recession since the Great Depression. And the US is now out of it. Now you can argue over whether someone else could have done it faster or not. But let's not lie about the facts.

Comment Re:Less sugar, more calories (Score 1) 319

1) You're assuming that they replace the sugar with something that is predominantly fat. That's not a given as an assumption.

2) Sugar does not contribute to a feeling of fullness. Fat and protein do. Hence why sugar is bad for weight gain. Fat is worse for weight gain than protein because it's over twice as calorie dense, but at least it contributes to fullness.

Comment Re:What?!?! (Score 1) 319

If you're in the EU / Schengen it's easy; I've talked to a number of people who just came here, got an apartment and started working. But I don't know the details (particularly for your fiancee, whether you could get a permit for her through you working here). You should ask Útlendingastofnun (the immigration office) - the website is utl.is. I know if she was coming alone that she'd have to get full atvinnuleyfi and dvalarleyfi (work and residence permits), which is a long process with a lot of conditions - but there's also a permitting process for family members of people who live here.

Yeah, we (like the rest of the world) have been watching what's going on over there; you have our sympathy. :( Don't get me wrong, our political situation is far from perfect (mainly corruption - also our last election results were inconclusive so they're struggling to find a viable coalition). But (so far at least!) nobody's been firebombing our economy out of anger or turning us into a surveillance state or anything like that. And radical/racist nationalists only ever get a trivial fraction of the vote.

You know what, here... if you're actually seriously considering a move here, you'll probably have a ton of other questions, so if you do, just drop me a line - meQme0Q3@eaQku.neQt (remove Qs to despammify). I'd be glad to help :)

Slashdot Top Deals

1: No code table for op: ++post

Working...