Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Unintended Consequences? (Score 1) 135

Ah, it took me a while to find it. Under Filter preferences... there's a checkbox for "Allow some non-intrusive advertising." It was already checked when I first found it -- the documentation says it's enabled by default. It doesn't seem to allow much advertising through, yet. Maybe if more advertisers read about the feature and sign the Acceptible Ads Manifesto that will change.

Comment Re:Unintended Consequences? (Score 3, Interesting) 135

I never thought of that as the reason that Firefox became popular (and why Mozilla was quickly becoming popular before that). Back then, Mozilla's built-in popup blocker blocked nearly all popups. IE didn't have any corresponding feature? That sure would be a compelling reason to switch browsers!

When I read the article, the thought I had was that I installed AdBlock Plus only to disable the popups that Firefox didn't block with its built-in blocker when popups evolved to get around it. Is there still not an ad blocker that blocks only the most annoying ads such as popups?

Comment Re:The only good thing (Score 4, Insightful) 511

I was taught that using marijuana leads to heroin use. When you see many people around you that do not adhere to that model, you start disregarding the information as BS. After realizing how ridiculous some of the information presented about drugs was, I disregarded it all, so it actually backfired. The purpose of drug programs should be to inform students of the real consequences of drug use, not to make up horror stories to scare students.

Comment Re:Ban caffeine! (Score 4, Insightful) 511

The whole notion of a "gateway drug" is the misconception that correlation implies causation. Just because someone used caffiene, nicotine, alcohol, or marijuana before moving on to more powerful drugs does not mean that they caused the use of more powerful drugs. You could ban all of those drugs, and some other drug would become the first one users try.

Submission + - Why are the world's scientists continuing to take chances with smallpox? (thebulletin.org)

Lasrick writes: MIT's Jeanne Guillemin looks at the recent blunders with smallpox and H5N1 at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health to chronicle the fascinating history of smallpox eradication efforts and the attempts (thwarted by Western scientists) to destroy lab collections of the virus in order to make it truly extinct. 'In 1986, with no new smallpox cases reported, the World Health Assembly, the decision-making body of the WHO, resolved to destroy the strain collections and make the virus extinct. But there was resistance to this; American scientists in particular wanted to continue their research.' Within a few years, secret biological warfare programs were discovered in Moscow and in Iraq, and a new flurry of defensive research was funded. Nevertheless, Guillemin and others believe that changes in research methods, which no longer require the use of live viruses, mean that stocks of the live smallpox virus can and should finally be destroyed.

Comment Re:Gentlemen, start your engines. (Score 1) 701

I went on to watch a debate between Denning and Roy Spencer. I found Spencer's talk to be intriguing, but too optimistic:
1) He says that by his calculations, climate sensitivity is about 1.3 degrees Celsius, and could be lower. But he doesn't mention is could be higher, also.
2) He says that there has been no warming in the past decade or so, but doesn't address recent sea level rise and ice melt that does indicate warming.
3) He says he believes carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will not triple and may not even double, but offers no reasoning to support his beliefs.
The truth is that no one knows exactly what will happen, and Dr. Spencer could turn out to be right. But he gives no reason to be so optimistic. He just is. What if he's wrong? I remain skeptical of his beliefs.

Submission + - Researchers fully 'delete' HIV from human cells for the first time

mrspoonsi writes: So far, HIV has eluded a cure because it installs its genome into human DNA so insidiously that it's impossible for our immune system to clear it out. While current treatments are effective, a lifetime of toxic drugs are required to prevent its recurrence. But researchers from Temple University may have figured out a way to permanently excise it using a highly-engineered HIV "editor." Here's how it works: the team analyzed a part of our immune system that fights infection and built a "guide RNA" strand consisting of 20 nucleotides (RNA building blocks). Those strands were then injected into cells typically infected with HIV, like T-cells. There, they targeted the end parts of the virus's gene and snipped out all 9,709 nucleotides that made up its genome. Since the guide RNA strand contained no human DNA sequences, it left the host cell intact — but free from HIV.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry

Working...