Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Politics

Submission + - Pirate Party Invited To, And Banned From Gaming Ex (torrentfreak.com)

esocid writes: Despite having booked and paid for their booth at Gamex, Sweden'½Â(TM)s largest gaming exhibition, the Pirate Party have been excluded from the action this week. The party, who say they were nagged for 2 to 3 months to book for the event, were this week informed they were too controversial and no longer welcome. All the big names in interactive entertainment are there showing off their wares, including giants such as Activision, Electronic Arts, Microsoft and Nintendo. Pirate Party leader Anna Troberg says that after the sales people from the exhibition pursued the party for months to participate, they decided to book and pay for a booth. “I thought it was a bit strange, but in the afternoon, the pieces fell into place when the fair manager, Bear Wengse, phoned me and kindly, but firmly, announced that the Pirate Party was no longer welcome at the fair.”

Wengse informed Troberg that the exhibition is a meeting place and not a venue for political conflict and the party’s presence could cause problems, particularly since some of their work “could be perceived as criminal.” Despite the Swedish Social Democratic Youth League (SSU) being allowed to appear – even though they too support the decriminalization of non-commercial file sharing.

Comment Re:What? (Score 1) 247

Exactly, thank you. I didn't write that, but I do agree with Ben Goldacre. He's saying if she feels that she has such strong evidence, why doesn't she publish it and put it to peer-review. He, and I, suspect that she has no evidence and resorts to name-calling for her critics.

The summary was more unclear than what I wrote. I replaced the first "I" with [Ben Goldacre of The Guardian] so you could at least tell who the "I" was.
Medicine

Submission + - Oxford Prof. Questioned About Linking Internet Use (badscience.net)

esocid writes: Baroness Susan Greenfield, Professor of pharmacology at Oxford, apparently announced that computer games are causing dementia in children. Two months ago the same professor linked internet use with the rise in autism diagnoses (not for the first time), then pulled back when autism charities and an Oxford professor of psychology raised concerns. When [Ben Goldacre of The Guardian] raised concerns, she said I was like the epidemiologists who denied that smoking caused cancer. Other critics find themselves derided as sexist in the media.
If a scientist sidesteps their scientific peers, and chooses to take an apparently changeable, frightening, and technical scientific case directly to the public, then that is a deliberate decision, and one that can’t realistically go unnoticed. The lay public might find your case superficially appealing, but they may not be fully able to judge the merits of all your technical evidence. I think these serious scientific concerns belong, at least once, in a clear scientific paper. I don’t see how this suggestion is inappropriate, or impudent, and in all seriousness, I can’t see an argument against it.

Comment Re:Just the First Confession (Score 1) 318

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/drilling-down-documents-7.html#document/p1/a27935
A 1987 EPA study in WV. "the residual fracturing fluid migrated into (the resident's) water well."
"A spokesperson for the EPA would not directly address the apparent contradiction but said in an email that the agency is now reviewing the 1987 report and that 'the agency has identified several circumstances where contamination of wells is alleged to have occurred and is reviewing those cases in depth.'"

That 2004 EPA "study" was done with negotiations with gas companies. " fluids migrated unpredictably -- through different rock layers, and to greater distances than previously thought -- in as many as half the cases studied in the United States."

I have very little faith in the EPA after Bush/Cheney gutted it to be their personal sockpuppet.

Comment If that doesn't put it in perspective (Score 1) 572

This should:
"In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

So a powerful 1% owns 40% of the global wealth...

Comment Re:Negative reviews are not slander. (Score 1) 328

Have you seen Top Gear? It's not a car review show. They get fast cars, new cars, whatever, and race them around their track, let the Stig race them, then they do some silly challenges, like make tanks out of lorries. I've said this whenever these issues come up, if anyone is basing their car purchases off of watching Top Gear, they need their heads examined. They do present things in an informative manner, but it's an entertainment show. Take it all with a grain of salt, and remember it's entertainment.
Security

Submission + - TSA Doing Random Truck Searches on Tennessee Highw (newschannel5.com) 1

OverTheGeicoE writes: TSA is expanding its presence to the American road system. As part of its Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) program, TSA agents are now working at 5 weigh stations and two bus stations in Tennessee. They are randomly checking trucks with 'drug and bomb sniffing dogs', and encouraging truck drivers to join their First Observer Highway Security Program an report anything suspicious that they see to authorities. VIPR is allegedly not a response to any particular threat.
The Courts

Submission + - High Court Rules In Favor Of Top Gear Over Tesla S (dailytech.com)

esocid writes: In 2008, BBC's "Top Gear" aired an episode featuring the Tesla Roadster. One of the show's car reviewers, Jeremy Clarkson, gave a less-than-flattering analysis of the vehicle, sparking a legal case with the automaker that doesn't seem to be working out in Tesla's favor.
Now, it looks as though Tesla is losing this battle after a full-day hearing yesterday at the high court in London. "In my judgment, the words complained of are wholly incapable of conveying any meaning at all to the effect that the claimant [Tesla] misled anyone," said Tugendhat. "This is because there is a contrast between the style of driving and the nature of the track as compared with the conditions on a public road [...] are so great that no reasonable person could understand that the performance on the [Top Gear] track is capable of a direct comparison with a public road." The hearing now continues on Tesla's claim that "Top Gear" made five other false accusations about the Roadster. Tugendhat has postponed judgment on Tesla's malicious falsehood claim, and is expected to deliver a verdict in the coming weeks.

Slashdot Top Deals

Somebody ought to cross ball point pens with coat hangers so that the pens will multiply instead of disappear.

Working...