Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:The last 25% (Score 1) 368

are you going to provide oil to run the fishermen's boats for the next 40 years?

are you going to provide oil to run the hotels for the next 20 years?

does the free market guarantee continued employment, or is the very basis of capitalism the inherent necessity of the value of ADAPTING.

Tell me where you live, and I will shoot your family. You must adapt to any change I think is right for you (read: me).
But wait, you might ask, where is my right to freedom from interference?
You, however, have less money, and therefore your suffering is irrelevant. Congratulations, you live in the State of Nature, also called the USA.

I know you won't admit to it, but I, at least, find this line of reasoning troubling, and just a little bit undemocratic. Why do you pride yourself on living under a rule of law, when you have The Market?

Medicine

Submission + - Pharma-Funded Study Shows that pirated drugs Save (cepr.net)

boombaard writes: "Pharmaceutical Industry Funded Study Shows that Unauthorized Drug Copies Save Tens of Millions
This is the clear implication of a new industry funded study, even if USA Today essentially ran an ad for the pharmaceutical industry by headlining its piece: "growing problem of fake drugs endangers consumers' health." The article highlighted the fact that unauthorized copies of drugs sometimes do not meet the same standards as the official version, but also notes that: "counterfeiters are now able to fake drugs so well that even experts find it hard to distinguish the copies from the real deal." This implies that often the unauthorized versions will be every bit as good as the brand drugs.
According to the article, the study finds that the unauthorized drug market is between $75 billion and $200 billion a year, but adds: "the market is likely much bigger because many cases are hard to detect." If we assume an average prescription price of $2 (many of these drugs are sold in the developing world), then this implies that the unauthorized market involves sales of 37 billion to 100 billion prescriptions year. If 1 in 1000 of these prescriptions save a life (because the patient could not afford the authorized version), then unauthorized drugs save between 37 million and 100 million people a year.
In an act of unbelievable sloppiness this article fails to distinguish between unauthorized copies, where the buyer knows that they are not getting the brand drug and genuine counterfeits, where the buyer is deceived about the drug they are buying.
"

Politics

Submission + - Ban on photographing oil-polluted areas & Wild

boombaard writes: "The day before yesterday CNN's Anderson Cooper reported that, from now on, there is a new rule in effect to 'protect' reporters from themselves, which de facto bans/bars any photographer from coming within 65 feet of any deployed boom. (Official announcement here) The rule, announced by the US Coast Guard, forbids "photographers and reporters and anyone else from coming within 65 feet of any response vessel or booms out on the water or on beaches. In order to get closer, you have to get direct permission from the Coast Guard captain of the Port of New Orleans," while "violators could face a fine of $40,000 and Class D felony charges. What's even more extraordinary is that the Coast Guard tried to make the exclusion zone 300 feet, before scaling it back to 65 feet."
A HuffPo blogger adds: "If the Coast Guard has its way, all media, not just independent writers and photographers like myself and Jerry Moran, will be fined $40,000 and receive Class D felony convictions for providing the truth about oiled birds and dolphins, in addition to broken, filthy, unmanned boom material that is trapping oil in the marshlands and estuaries."
Meanwhile, the USCG defends its 'rule' by stating:

The Coast Guard Captain of the Port of New Orleans has delegated authority to the Coast Guard Incident Commander in Houma to allow access to the safety zones placed around all Deepwater Horizon booming operations in Southeast Louisiana. The Coast Guard Incident Commander will ensure the safety of the members and equipment of the response before access is granted. The safety zone has been put in place to prevent vandalism to boom and to protect the members and equipment of the response effort by limiting access to, and through, deployed protective boom.

First amendment trampling, anyone?"

Comment Re:The Economist's opinion (Score 1) 691

See The Economist Off the Deep End on BP and “Vladimir Obama” and On the Curious and Misguided Defenses of BP for a nice rebuttal of the Economist's idiotic arguments:

The Economist has a pathetic leader this week criticizing Obama for hammering BP and raising the ridiculous idea that his corporate-friendly administration is anti-business.
It actually (really!) calls the president “Vladimir Obama” and writes:
The collapse in BP’s share price suggests that he has convinced the markets that he is an American version of Vladimir Putin, willing to harry firms into doing his bidding.
The normally sober Economist has gone off the wagon here.
First, it knows better than to “suggest” what “the markets” think. Second, that blew up in its face rather quickly. Instaputz points out that BP shares soared 10 percent on news of the $20 billion fund the Economist’s spin here is obnoxious. If anything ends up ruining BP, it will have been its own actions. Go read this The Wall Street Journal piece for a look at the company’s negligence.
And BP should have to pay for all the associated costs of its actions, not just the actual bill for cleaning up the oil.they will be very, very costly.
Moreover, a company’s market capitalization is based on expectations for future earnings. This disaster will surely make it harder for BP to get drilling rights that investors expected it to have just two months ago. The political climate for offshore drilling has just undergone a seismic change.
Another big factor in BP’s share decline is pure uncertainty. Investors don’t like it. Right now, the only thing certain is that BP’s hole is going to be spewing toxic oil into the Gulf of Mexico for at least another two months

Comment Re:Awesome (Score 1) 327

Yes, and it would be an acceptable solution, if there wasn't a much better one.

Bobby Jindal doesn't know what he's doing here, guys. He's fighting an oil spill like a war or a flood. You block this pass off with these dirtbags and mounds of dirt, you're gonna kill this marsh. The life here evolved with the current that moves through this pass. Nutrients, oxygen... you're creating a slackwater zone in a marsh that is used to tides and current. There's little critters that keep the algae off the grass stems and reeds. They need oxygen and a specific salt-freshwater mix. They eat the algae and keep the grass healthy. You kill them and the marsh becomes a big flat of rotting vegitation. But... where did you get that dirt? 300 yards inland? That dirt's poison for this marsh. Couldn't be worse than if you brought it from Nebraska. It's alien fucking dirt in this environment. It's worse than the fucking oil. And Jindal will leave it here forever if we let him. Lets get that shit out of here and we'll all get together and lay some fucking proper fucking boom.

. See here for relevant background:

you get the idea. It's fucking obvious. Boom is not meant to contain or catch oil. Boom is meant to divert oil. Boom must always be at an angle to the prevailing wind-wave action or surface current. Boom, at this angle, must always be layered in a fucking overlapped sort-of way with another string of boom. Boom must always divert oil to a catch basin or other container, from where it can be REMOVED FROM THE FUCKING AREA. Looks kinda involved, doesn't it? It is. But if fucking proper fucking booming is done properly, you can remove most, by far most of the oil from a shoreline and you can do it day after day, week after week, month after month. You can prevent most, by far most of the shoreline from ever being touched by more than a few transient molecules of oil. Done fucking properly, a week after the oil stops coming ashore, no one, man nor beast, can ever tell there has been oil anywhere near that shoreline.

News

Submission + - Why the boom laid by BP is a useless PR stunt 1

boombaard writes: "Remember seeing all those nice pictures of coastline "protected" by boom laid by BP? Started wondering why it seems to have so little effect yet? Sadly, the reason is that the boom, as it is being laid out by BP, is being laid out in a way that makes the entire effort pointless. As this booming expert describes it in the video (skip ahead to 1:48 if you want the content), BP has been willfully negligent in preparing for this type of disaster, by not having enough boom ready for any type of accident, and, more importantly, because its own drilling — as opposed to production — employees aren't forced to attend booming school, which they think is for pussies, is allowing all the boom to be laid in ways that are known to be useless by everyone who knows how to properly lay booms. As she describes it, boom laid in single, straight lines, without catch basins anywhere, is little more than a PR trick meant to make the media and congresscritters believe that they are doing "their jobs".
Quoting her (I've removed some of the flourishes): "Boom is not meant to contain oil; boom is meant to divert oil. Boom must always be at an angle to the prevailing wind, wave action, or surface current. Boom, at this angle, must always be layered, in an overlapped sort of way, with another string of boom. Boom must always divert oil to a catch basin or another kind of container from where it can be removed from the fucking area. Looks kinda involved, doesn't it? But if done properly, you can prevent most to almost all of the oil from ever touching the shoreline, and you can do it day after day, week after week, month after month. A week after it stops coming, nobody will be able to tell that there ever was an oil spill."

That is, without catch basins, booms provide a 3-minute respite before all the oil flows either under or over the boom, at which point all the hard work laying it was for nothing. But nobody has, apparently, picked up on this yet, and nowhere along the entire coastline are we seeing footage of oil properly being contained. Yet while the coast guard knows this, all you hear from Thad Allen is that 'BP is doing the best it can'. How can this be?"

Comment Re:Suggestion (Score 3, Informative) 180

See here

Wow, we are sinking to new levels of idiocy now.
The MSM would have you believe that the tremendous sell-off in the markets was just a trading error. If it was a trading error, then these markets SUCK! Are you telling me we put TRILLIONS of dollars, including our retirement savings, into a system that can be completely thrown into chaos because a single guy hits the wrong button on a single transaction? It’s a good thing Faisal Shahzad isn’t still working on Wall Street anymore, or he could have just pushed a button and caused a lot more damage that way than he did with a faulty car bomb
This is financial terrorism, folks, retail traders were stopped out and margined out while the pros made Billions picking up the pieces. Don’t worry though, if you are rich enough and connected enough, the Nasdaq will reverse your losses but if they really wanted to make amends, they would cancel the day’s trading for ALL traders.
This market didn’t just sell off because of a trading mistake. Whatever really happened, it happened because there were no real buyers when the selling came - something I have been warning would happen during the last 3 months of low-volume run-ups. I keep using the house of cards/Jenga metaphor and that’s exactly what we have so be very careful when the same idiots who have been telling you BUYBUYBUY are now telling you to "come back in - the water’s fine."

and here:

Having seen the capitulation unfold second by second and then listen to CNBC come up with every excuse under the sun just got under my skin. I've decided to chart some of our one second analytics charts of the capitulation unfolding on our screens. The chart below (more to follow) captures the moment of the final capitulation, before the reversal today. The idea that it was a 'fat finger' error is ludicrous; unless the fat finger hit every market in the world virtually simultaneously. Liquidity simply left the world financial markets for about four minutes this afternoon. The bids just vanished. And what else vanished? Remember the vaunted supplemental liquidity providers, led by Goldman Sachs. Remember that they are paid to "provide liquidity" through their predatory high-frequency algos, they are not required to do so. So when the S@#$T hit the fan they just disappeared. In one second more or less someone (and yes, under these circumstances, human beings take control of the machines) made the decision to pull the bids on every equity in the S&P, every financial futures contract, every FX contract in every market in the world. This kind of thing just doesn't happen in a pure auction environment; there just isn't a tight enough communication link between the parties to allow the decisions to propagate within the same second -- even with HFT algorithms. No. Some human made the decision to pull the bids; all of them, all at once. If that is not a condemnation of the concentration of financial power and the systematic risk it engenders I don't know what is.

Comment Re:What about the cops? (Score 1) 299

So, when you say "society has changed", what you actually mean is that "cops are now far more paranoid, trigger-happy fuckers than before"?
The point that multiple people have made here, and which you so strongly seem to be ignoring/denying, is that society has hardly become more violent than it was 40 years ago. The only difference is that we have more news sources today who cover similar shit.
But by all means, be accepting about the fact that LEOs perceive so many threats that they will likely soon start hitting children who "escape" vehicles during the "search process".
User Journal

Journal Journal: Book Review: David Barash & Charles Webel, Peace and Conflict Studies (2nd e

The book's blurb states the authors "present an unbiased look at issues related to peace and conflict studies to assist readers in forming personal and social opinions 'based on fact'". While I'm quite aware of the fact that blurb writers tend towards hyperbole, the authors certainly seem to care little for, at least, verifiable facts, as the book is entirely devoid of references, apart from those required for strict quotations; I've found less than a dozen mentions of researchers' nam

Comment Re:Well in that case (Score 1, Informative) 276

And the US government condoned not giving blacks treatment for syphilis even though it was readily available and known to work, as well as testing vaccines and seeing how Hepatitis-C infections progressed in on mentally retarded children, sterilized them, locked up its Japanese citizens in concentration camps during and after WWII, allowed state-sponsored racism at least until 1964, and is currently feeding Illinois state prisoners a diet that is known to cause organ failure
Isn't this a href= thing fun? I can go on all day. I am, however, saddened, that you call this "some mistakes".

Comment Re:Kindle Dx vs iRex Iliad (Score 1) 684

What were you using it for? All the DX can do is display PDFs. It can't search, bookmark, annotate, and probably not zoom.
The iliad can do all of these things, and has a folder structure view in the filelist as well. For any kind of reading other than passive reading, the DX (with its larger screen) is about as useful as a Dinky Toy.

Comment Re:Incase we needed *yet another* wakeup call (Score 1) 90

The reason is simple: We need to stop letting the government make life difficult for American business.

I love simple reasons. Really. They're almost always accurate.
Because fuck knows it wasn't the companies who asked for money to prop up their failing business models with, it was the government's fault for being captured and giving in.
All that's happened in the past 20 years is people lobbying to get more freedoms for a select few companies, the government granting that because of no adequate oversight and a severe lack of foresight in legislators (perhaps partly due to regulatory capture, but that's pretty hard to reconstruct), and businesses capitalizing on that to fleece everyone they could out of their money.
And yet, somehow, this is all the fault of government rather than of the egotistical fuckers who feel it is their "duty" to maximize corporate profit (and get "healthy" bonuses out of it in the process). The credit market was destroyed because the banks can currently borrow from the government at no cost, and use that money any way they like, which is far less risky than loaning to businesses. Which is why they don't feel the need to try to restart small loans etc. anymore. And there were no strings attached to those loans because of filthy little fuckers like Geithner and Summers who conveniently forgot, or claimed that "regulation at this point would keep the banks from using and applying their expertise".

No aspect of this "crash" has anything to do with the crippling effects of regulation, if anything, regulations prevented it, until they were abolished (Glass-Steagal, leverage rules for the big 5 being suspended in a backroom without oversight, you name it they've done it) through lobbying by rich people who wanted to become richer and didn't care what the effects would be for everyone else. And all of this largely made possible because senators are so dependent on campaign contributions (much more so now in the age of TV than ever before) that they will suck anyone's cock just so they can stay in power a bit longer. Why US citizens accept this to be the case I haven't the faintest, but it's probably because nobody in the MSM is really pointing people towards the fact that only on token issues (abortion) where the public "speaks up" they have any input in the process any more.
"We do the opposite of what would help" because the things that are done then do help a group of perhaps 10.000-100.000 people who have the most say. Only their interests don't really always mesh very well with the interests of the other 300 million.
bureaucratic rules that small companies have to adhere to explain perhaps 0.001% of the variance, but considering how much money they make compared to the big ones, your problems really don't matter.

Comment Re:Oh, look! (Score 5, Insightful) 888

More people have died from deciding to take a car more often (instead of an airplane) than there died in 9/11. And most of those deaths weren't even on the planes, but in the buildings. (Never even mind the economic damage caused by the car crashes, insurance payouts, and travel time lost that could've been spent on business matters directly; and, more indirectly, the 3-trillion dollar Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the iraqi lives lost due to Blackwater having fun, etc.)
Terrorist attacks in Europe or Israel have taken far many more lives than they have in the US.. The planes flying into buildings happened, sure.. but "9/11" was created in the mind of the world by the US response to it.

Comment Re:So let me get this straight (Score 3, Insightful) 274

Awesome. And I bet all these claims can be made by different people with you still feeling "they" are "all" making exaggerated claims, too.
  • All the experts don't agree. (Nor did they in the Iraq war. the difference there was that Cheney et al had executive power, whereas scientists don't. Scientists also have to compete in the media with hacks and politicians. See this yt video)
  • Do you believe/care about everything you're being told in the media? Who cares what those partisan quacks call you.
  • Al Gore != climate scientist. Al Gore is a politician/media figure making money.
  • You feel it is an argument against "climate science" that every (shit) disaster movie after 2000 has been using that as a theme? Astonishing.
  • As said before, the experts don't agree on everything. Also, "citizen-researchers" (blame WSJ for thinking up this imbecilic word/notion.) are being denied access to data != breakdown of the peer review process.

"I could smell the BS a mile a way" does not actually prove you're intelligent or insightful. It might just as well prove that you distrust people who tell you you're doing something that is causing something bad. Or something else entirely. But feel free to interpret the CRU "Scandal" as you like to reinforce your own opinions.. just remember it doesn't really prove anything.

Slashdot Top Deals

Trap full -- please empty.

Working...