Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:huh? (Score 1) 269

which is the point of the disclaimer. Its the same way phone companies get away with things like "this call may be monitored for training reasons" (which is funny on its own... with all the comcast leaked audio you have to wonder why they have to wait for us to release the audio that they already have.... to train)

Comment Re:Missing in the Summary (Score 1) 107

time is practically unable to transmit HIV during sex.

No they are able to, just not likely. When it does happen, the results tend to be pretty bad as the virus that DOES spread tends to be resistant to multiple anti-HIV drugs, which means the recipient will be SOL when it comes to treatment and no amount of therapy will prevent the development of full blown aids.

Comment Re:Missing in the Summary (Score 4, Interesting) 107

IMO he probably still has traces of the virus within his body somewhere, but in such small quantities that it's undetectable. Other viruses are known to do this, such as chickenpox, which can resurface later in the form of shingles if the immune system ever weakens. Except HIV feeds off of the immune system itself, so it's likely he'll never see symptoms of it again.

However it would be unwise for him to do whatever he did to contract it in the first place as he could either spread his to somebody else or contract another variation of the disease that doesn't rely on the same receptor that he is now immune to (and yes, he does fit the "risk category" demographic if you haven't read his history.)

Comment Re: Forest Circus. (Score 2) 299

if its not owned by an individual, I as an american "own" it. and as such, I do have rights to be there. I dont have rights to destroy anything there, or take any plants or wildlife out of said area. But I sure as hell have rights to be there. At least in NY anyway (source - me, Im constantly out in the mountains of NY)

Comment Re:Uhhh (Score 1) 907

Why not? Some people have bad credit because of a divorce or some other one-time event. Why shouldn't they be able to get a car loan? What if they need a presentable car for work -- because they're a real estate agent or a delivery driver?

Despite the whining in the article, these devices give both the car buyer and the lender exactly what each of them wants. The car buyer wants to buy a car that she would otherwise not be able to buy. The lender wants to make a loan that would otherwise be too risky. Add the device, and both problems are solved.

Why did the people in the news story expect their cars to continue working when they weren't making their loan payments? Isn't there somewhere on the continuum of repeatedly making bad choices where we take a short break from endless sympathy and just tell people to grow up and do what an adult might do?

Slashdot Top Deals

Adding features does not necessarily increase functionality -- it just makes the manuals thicker.

Working...