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:Indiscriminate antibiotic use in farm animals.. (Score 1) 296

The wise use of antibiotics is not a substitute for, but a complement to, good sanitation and husbandry practices.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216502/

If you don't like it then go ahead and buy your "organic" meat or go vegan. I know what farmers do to get animals to market and if these animals weren't treated for infections then meat gets real expensive due to losses. Quality would go down too because healthy animals make tasty meat.

1. Meat needs to become more expensive in my opinion. If you care about the environment and human health.
2. Quality does not go down. The opposite. I'd put up any of the free-range organic beef I buy against any feedlot beef any day of the year. 100% guarantee that the expensive beef I buy is much better quality than any of the corn-fed feedlot beef.

Comment Re:Indiscriminate antibiotic use in farm animals.. (Score 1) 296

Was your farm a large scale cattle/pig feedlot? Because those are typically run a lot differently than smaller family farms. For instance, cattle in feedlots are often given feed with antibiotics in it, as a disease prevention measure.

For example:
http://www.hubbardfeeds.com/product/chlorotetracycline-ctc-crumbles

I grew up on a farm as well, and have been around agriculture through relatives most my life. I know from experience that not many farmers follow labels very closely. Not finishing a full course of antibiotics, etc.. Just like some dumb parents do to their kids, giving them a single antibiotic pill from the cupboard from time to time when they get a cold.

Comment Re:oops (Score 1) 296

Probably no one. With a few notable exceptions (bacterial meningitis, TB) most bacterial infections aren't very contagious. You mainly pick them up if you're exposed to a large source of them in the environment (drinking or swimming in contaminated water, poorly cleaned kitchens, cuts, that kind of thing) or if you have an already weakened immune system.

Person to person, yeah, not much risk.
But patient to nurse/doctor's hands/gloves/clothes, to the next patient, is a problem.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/16/cre-superbug/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/superbug-appears-spreading-stealthily-u-s-hospitals-study-finds/

I was trying to find a documentary I watched about this, but couldn't. It was a big, very prominent cutting edge hospital. Like a Mayo clinic or something. And they had a superbug spreading around the hospital, and it took them a surprisingly long time to figure out how to contain. And in the end, I don't think they every really knew why it stopped or started spreading. Many people died.

Comment Re:So? (Score 1) 409

Almost everything can be automated, the crucial question is whether it is cost-effective to do so.

The cost of automation is going down. Eventually, it will reach near zero. That is the entire point about universal basic income discussions. Some day, maybe 20 years, 50 years, 1000 years from now, the cost of energy and automation will approach zero.

Comment Re:Sure.. my job can be automated (Score 1) 409

True, certain jobs that require a lot of interpretation, re-negotiating, etc.. won't be fully automated until strong AI exists.

But surprisingly, a lot of white collar jobs could be automated to a large degree, very soon. For example, Lawyers and Doctors often just follow a flow chart to arrive at an answer. That flow chart might be embedded in their brain due to 7-8 years of experience, but it could be written out in code very easily.

Comment Re:Threshold (Score 1) 409

Or, maybe we could all just work fewer hours per week. Which would leave more time for, you know, living.

Or get paid more for the gains in efficiency. If it took 20 workers 100 years ago to make a car, and it takes 1 worker today, that worker should be making 20x pay adjusted for inflation, right? :) Of course not, all the money has gone to the top, hence why the US has huge wealth inequality.

But working less is nice. The problem, is what happens when you are working so few hours, that you don't earn enough to afford to eat? It would be nice if you made the same salary as your hours decreased, but that will never happen unless the Government mandates it through some sort of a salary floor. Which is why some European countries are already experimenting with universal basic income.

Comment Re:Surprised (Score 1) 533

"The idea that all those people are just stay at home moms and kids and grandmas is just pure fantasy doled out by the corporate media."

So if you don't believe the "corporate media" go look up what sorts of populations are defined in all the "U" employment numbers. It isn't a secret. We have been measuring employment for the same way for a very long time.

Or, if you don't want to parse the Bureau of Labor Stats website, search for any site referring to things like U3, U5, U6 and has references to BLS. LIke http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate .

Comment Re:Michael Flynn Jr believes it (Score 1) 789

No, you have to be very intelligent. You spend a good chunk of your life learning about nothing but brain surgery.

Learning facts and what to do with them does not make your more intelligent. More importantly, being told what is true by professors of medicine for 8 years, concerning medicine, in no way gives you the skills necessary to evaluate new non-medical facts and data on your own years later after you get out of school.

Why would you? What ever made you think you could trust a doctor with a computer?

What makes you think we can trust a doctor to read and understand archaeological journals (or even just a scientific american article) so they can comment intelligently on the history of the pyramids? Hint: you can't.

You would be better off having a history, english/lit, or philosophy major, reading about the pyramids and then commenting on their history. At least those disciplines contain a lot of source evaluation practice.

Comment Re:What about cutting down full time to 32 hours a (Score 1) 541

Conservative minded people who think welfare is detrimental should research who is on it, how long they stay on it, what the conditions to get it are, etc.. Familiarize yourself with the facts from the actual stats published by reporting agencies, and I think you'll be surprised how "not detrimental" welfare is to society.

I only say that because I know a lot of conservatives who seem to be stuck in the Reagan era mindset that there are "welfare queens" milking the system with 20 kids for 50 years and never working once in their lives, and that this abuse is rampant and costing us a ton of money. That isn't true today and was likely never true.

Comment Re:Better be ready to be beat up when layed off wo (Score 1) 541

You and I may be happy with this. But a lot of people will not. People need a sense of purpose; a desire to be needed; to be valuable. Some may find value in free time to pursue artistic endeavors; many will not.

I think you are seeing this backwards. From birth to probably a little bit after college, the majority of people are perfectly happy to amuse themselves with "hobbies", regardless of the wealth generation (or lack thereof) of those hobbies. And yeah, a hobby could be productive, but it doesn't need to be.

Only after working 9-5 for a few years (and likely becoming more and more responsible for themselves), do people start to forget how to naturally find curiosity or amusement in the moment. I know many adults that literally can't sit still for a 2 hour movie, they have to get up and fix something, or clean something. But those adults didn't used to be like that, they used to be able to immerse themselves in something creative or otherwise pleasurable for hours at a time.

So a universal income would allow many people to (likely gradually) return to that mindset they had when they were younger. Letting their mind go where it wants to, instead of having a constant stressful feeling that they need to "get something done".

Comment Re:Surprised (Score 1) 533

I don't know if you care (few people seem to this election cycle) , but that "not working" number is a "lie" of sorts designed to support the narrative that the economy is in bad shape.

So by lie, I mean, it doesn't mean what people think it means. That large number includes children, stay at home moms, etc.. people that are not looking for work. And yes, that number has gotten larger in recent years, mainly because more baby boomers retired.

The standard unemployment rate is what we have used to gauge work force health for a long long time. Bringing in the "not working people" number was new to the Obama presidency, and hyped again during the election cycle.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If John Madden steps outside on February 2, looks down, and doesn't see his feet, we'll have 6 more weeks of Pro football." -- Chuck Newcombe

Working...