Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Any bets on how long before the plug is pulled? (Score 1) 142

Nobody is perfect, nobody will have their eyes on the road 100% of the time while driving... but they should be trying to! . That is how you do your best at something, you try to do it correctly, to minimize your mistakes.

Utter bullshit.

Plan for drivers to be distracted, because they will be. Never, ever, ever expect anyone to be trying to look at the road 100% of the time, because we absolutely know this will never be the case.

Your position is equivalent to making an abstinence argument against birth control - and you're trying to push that on others. It is absurd and harmful.

Comment: Re:Any bets on how long before the plug is pulled? (Score 1) 142

Did I leave you with the impression that my post was anything other than rhetorical?

Also, you left out sneezing. Where's your advocacy for a ban on sneezing?

Point is simple, but I'll spell it out for you - no one (and no I don't believe your claims) is capable of never taking their eyes off the road.

But even if that were a possibility, and it absolutely is not, it is already totally and completely fine that we take our eyes off the road. The government posts billboards themselves, do they not?

Again, rhetorical. You're clearly full of crap, so no need to bother responding.

Comment: Re:Any bets on how long before the plug is pulled? (Score 1) 142

You keep posting this link. Have you actually read it?

I just checked every state on the site and exactly three things are normally illegal:

1) Minors using it (as if minors can afford it in the first place...)
2) Watching TV on it (not a feature)
3) Using it with your hands, specifically typing on it (the opposite of what it does)

Of the 51 places on your link, ONLY FIFTEEN deviate from this, and typically only because their laws don't go down to the 'type on it' level. If we had the full statutes, instead of the summaries we'd know even more.

Here's the breakdown by state, in terms of 'is this a risk in my state':

Alabama, no
Alaska, no
Arizona, no
Arkansas, no
California, yes/probably
Colorado, no
Connecticut, no
Delaware, no
District of Columbia, no
Florida, no
Georgia, yes/probably
Hawaii, no
Idaho, no
Illinois, yes/probably
Indiana, yes/probably
Iowa, yes/probably
Kansas, yes/probably
Kentucky, yes/probably
Louisiana, yes/probably
Maine, yes/probably
Maryland, yes/probably
Massachusetts, no
Michigan, no
Minnesota, no
Mississippi, no
Missouri, no
Montana, no
Nebraska, no
Nevada, no
New Hampshire, no
New Jersey, no
New Mexico, no
New York, no
North Carolina, yes/probably
North Dakota, yes/probably
Ohio, no
Oklahoma, no
Oregon, no
Pennsylvania, no
Rhode Island, yes/probably
South Carolina, no
South Dakota, no
Tennessee, no
Texas, no
Utah, no
Vermont, no
Virginia, no
Washington, no
West Virginia, no
Wisconsin, yes/probably
Wyoming, yes/probably

Comment: Re:Case closed (Score 1) 127

by BobMcD (#47608963) Attached to: Senior RIKEN Scientist Involved In Stem Cell Scandal Commits Suicide

When you have billions of dollars on the line, I don't see why anyone would be surprised that there might be people willing to do some very nasty things, up to and including murder. People will kill over a pair of sneakers, I'm pretty sure they'd kill over billions.

I assume the people who deny this fall into three groups:

1) The naive/stupid/hopelessly optimistic
2) Those too afraid to imagine a world where this is a possibility
3) Those who'd rather not awaken groups 1 and 2

Again, in this particular case I have no information to add. Only vague questions. But there probably should be questions due, if not for the general loss of human life, to the billions at stake.

Comment: Re:Case closed (Score 1) 127

by BobMcD (#47608479) Attached to: Senior RIKEN Scientist Involved In Stem Cell Scandal Commits Suicide

Did the disgrace shut him up?

Not rhetorical, I genuinely don't know.

But it stands to reason, in a truth stranger than fiction way, that first you'd discredit, then you'd eliminate. Sort of like how you don't mix bleach and ammonia, but you clean, rinse, clean, rinse until you get it all gone.

Comment: Re:Case closed (Score 4, Insightful) 127

by BobMcD (#47608445) Attached to: Senior RIKEN Scientist Involved In Stem Cell Scandal Commits Suicide

0) Labs around the world are researching patentable stem-cell cures at their own expense.
1) Group finds (comparatively) trivial way to produce them and releases said on the internet, encouraging others to try.
2) [Insert unknown]
3) Research is discredited, careers ruined, and dude is dead.

Is '2' something like "research is totally false and harms science itself by its very existence so the villains must be crushed" or more like "research is close enough to scare the shit out of some heavily-invested peers"?

Whichever one it winds up being, the response to 'crappy scientific paper' is NOT typically burning at the stake, so some unknown must be at work here.

"No job too big; no fee too big!" -- Dr. Peter Venkman, "Ghost-busters"

Working...