Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:What does this mean...? (Score 1, Insightful) 56

by Dcnjoe60 (#48633369) Attached to: Scientists Discover That Exercise Changes Your DNA

No. The genes are already present. They only get activated when you exercise. Therefore, you should leave your basement and walk or run around your block for 45 minutes a day or alternatively walk or cycle to the pizza or Chinese place instead of delivery any you have the same improvement. However, if you do not desire a healthy and long life, and a more optimistic view on the world then please don't do it.

The study shows that the genes activate. It does not show that the activation results in a healthy and long life.

Comment: What's good for the goose... (Score 1) 137

by Dcnjoe60 (#48612449) Attached to: Microsoft Gets Industry Support Against US Search Of Data In Ireland

If the US can't enforce it's laws against content stored off shore, even if owned by an on-shore company, then what about the reverse? How can the DMCA be enforced against those in foreign countries? If Microsoft says that Irish law prevails because that is where the data is stored, then wouldn't the same be true for DMCA violations?

You can't have it both ways. Pirate Bay had it's data on foreign soil, but American companies had no problem with using American laws there. Of course, many countries have treatise with the US, but not all. If Microsoft wins this, do they create a big loophole?

Comment: Re:Charter school for the unvaccinated (Score 1) 1050

by Dcnjoe60 (#48586719) Attached to: Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

the kid who can not take the vaccine would be protected by herd immunity. Those who voluntarily choose to not vaccinate then increase the risk of herd immunity being broken and then not protecting those that can not have it, or who do not have a response to the antigen.

Since it is a CHOICE to not vaccinate, there is nothing wrong ethically with requiring that they go to a different school. And with it being a charter school, they can then have their say on how it runs. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

What IS wrong, is when another person forces their child to have the ability to harm others. Those who can not take it or who do not have a good response, are the ones that must be protected via the herd immunity.

The kid whose parents won't vaccinate them will also be protected by herd immunity. Herd immunity breaks done when there are a large number of unvaccinated individuals in close geographic proximity, in other words, exactly what you are proposing. It would seem a better solution would be to ensure these kids, who by the way are not refusing to be vaccinated (there parents are in control), to be spread throughout the school system instead of consolidated in one place. That is if the purpose is to protect everybody versus punish people.

Comment: Re:Slippery sloap? (Score 1) 1050

by Dcnjoe60 (#48585965) Attached to: Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

"Should everybody with HIV or hepatitis or TB be rounded up and quarantined?"

HIV cannot be spread by coughing, kissing, or handshaking, so I am fine with HIV positive folks walking around freely.

Same with Hep C.

TB is a very communicable disease, and we do quarantine people with TB who can easily transmit the disease, along with some other dangerous communicable diseases. Heck, our recent experience with Ebola caused some whack job governors to try and quarantine folks who were not communicable.

Granted HIV and Hep C can't be spread by casual contact, but they can be spread by contact with bodily fluids. I shouldn't included TB, although it is interesting that there is a vaccine for it, but it is not required in the US for students. The over-reaction on Ebola is kind of what I am getting at. Yes, kids without vaccines are more likely to come down with measles, mumps, etc., but their ability to spread it is limited unless they are in contact with somebody with a compromised immune system such as the very young and very old or with somebody whose vaccine didn't take hold. For the former, it is unlikely that a school child would be in contact with such an individual at school. Their own family, yes, but that is the risk they take. For the latter, ineffective vaccine, they are at no greater risk than they are even if all of the people have had the shot.

Personally, I think the notion of these vaccines be dangerous is crazy. Is there some risk, yes, there is with everything. There's even risk that not having the vaccine and getting the disease will lead to complications. However, I don't think it is up to the government to quarantine people unless they are known to be infectious. People still have rights to seek medical treatment or not.

ps. thank you for not pointing out the misspelling of slope! I wish /. allowed edits.

Comment: Re:Charter school for the unvaccinated (Score 1) 1050

by Dcnjoe60 (#48585903) Attached to: Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

You are still creating a "separate but equal" system, which the SCOTUS has said is a form of segregation. In this case, instead of segregating by color, it would be by religious belief, at least for those whose belief system didn't allow vaccinations. In addition, since the government would be doing this, you would still be putting the children without vaccinations at greater risk for contracting a disease, than if they were in a mixed class. The people at risk from the unvaccinated are the elderly and the very young. Neither of those two are likely to be in a school (k through 12).

Comment: Re:Charter school for the unvaccinated (Score 1) 1050

by Dcnjoe60 (#48584147) Attached to: Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

Seriously, they need to create a single school in each district and simply have all those that are not vaccinated because of religious or philosophical reasons to attend it. Those that can not physically take the vaccine would be able to attend the regular schools.

This would limit the exposure and issues.

So, you are wanting the government to treat a person with a religious belief you don't agree with differently than other people? Separate but equal didn't apply to segregated schools, why would they in this case? In addition, if it is not safe to have a non-vaccnated child in school for religious or philosophical reasons, then why would it be safe to have them in school because they physically can't take the vaccine?

It would seem that if a separate school were created it would be for all non-vaccinated students. Of course, then if this school is a hazard, do the teachers there get paid more for the additional risk they must endure? Also, if the government puts all non-vaccinated together in one school, aren't they increasing the likelihood that others will get sick, because if one does, it will spread (whereas in the general population, this might not occur)?

Don't get me wrong, I think vaccinations are important to have, even if they weren't totally safe (nothing in medicine is, btw). However, forcing them on people or segregating people is not the answer. Education is.

Comment: Slippery sloap? (Score 1) 1050

by Dcnjoe60 (#48584063) Attached to: Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

But they should not be free to endanger the lives of everyone else with their views."

That is a dangerous road to take. If people who don't want vaccinations, for whatever reason are forced to have them because they endanger everyone else, what about those communicable diseases? Should everybody with HIV or hepatitis or TB be rounded up and quarantined? After all, they, too, endanger everyone else. Yes, there are vulnerable populations, the elderly and very young to many of the diseases there are vaccinations for, but what is the likelihood they would actually be exposed by a non-vaccinated kindergartner that they were not known to?

Does the government have the right to mandate medical treatment for the public? Vaccinations seem to be a minor thing, but if the government has the right to mandate that, then what about other more invasive things?

It seems a more sensible approach would be for the government to start promoting vaccinations through PSA and other means to educate the public for the need and then trust the public to do the right thing.

The problem with slippery slopes is that they are very easy to go down and next to impossible to climb back out.

Comment: Re:RAW sockets without escalation? (Score 1) 129

by Dcnjoe60 (#48564123) Attached to: Stealthy Linux Trojan May Have Infected Victims For Years

Err so that just describes SUID. Nothing magical or unintended, it still can't operate on a system without root.

And it being on a single computer for years just means it has been found on one single computer, with an admin who didn't look.

I don't disagree. Plus, from the article, it hasn't been found in the wild on any linux installations. It speculates that it could be a problem, but, without either root access or direct access to the box, I don't see how.

Comment: Re:Arrow of Time (Score 1) 107

by Dcnjoe60 (#48555647) Attached to: 2 Futures Can Explain Time's Mysterious Past

(Apologies for the simplification, but really you know what the particle was at t-1, t-2, t-3, so you know how it behaves when running time backwards, so you have proof that particle physics in broken, not proof of the arrow of time! FFS logic 101!).

At any moment t, the particle behaves in manner a, so while t-1,t-2,t-3, may appear to show the particle behaving in a manner b, when those prior times were the actual times the particle would have still acted in manner a. If somehow, our observation of past t is different then current t, then something else must have occurred that we are not aware of, possibly entangled particles or even the act of observation.

Comment: Re:Arrow of Time (Score 1) 107

by Dcnjoe60 (#48555589) Attached to: 2 Futures Can Explain Time's Mysterious Past

The article is wrong when it says that the laws of physics work the same going forwards or backwards in time. They do not and there is data to prove it. So the 'arrow of time' does not need any entropy to define it - it is baked into fundamental particle physics.

While I don't doubt what you say, I am curious how would there be data to show physics working backward in time? How would you even test for something like that?

Comment: Re:RAW sockets without escalation? (Score 1) 129

by Dcnjoe60 (#48555525) Attached to: Stealthy Linux Trojan May Have Infected Victims For Years

Something does not compute here. The SecureList blog post says that the port knocking works by getting a raw socket from pcap and looking at the ack. On any Linux system I've ever used, this DOES require root privileges. And yet, they also claims it does not need any special privileges?

From what I gather from the linked articles from the summary link, you need root and command line access to install it, but after it is installed, it doesn't take root to activate it. That said, if somebody has access to root or the command line, you need a new security administrator.

Comment: Freeriders? (Score 1) 205

by Dcnjoe60 (#48552617) Attached to: The Failed Economics of Our Software Commons

It would seem that if your business has an interest in the direction that something like OpesnSSL is going, then said business will provide developers to work on it. While there are always going to be freeriders, they don't cost you any more to the develop the software than if there were not. On the other hand, if you owned the software instead of relying on the community to do the brunt of the development work for you, then you would be in a position to sell it to the supposed freeloaders. Of course, your costs would go up to develop it totally in house and there is no guarantee they would pay versus going elsewhere. It seems like everybody wins with the current system.

Comment: Re: Who cares... (Score 1) 346

Other than FOX on TV, which national media outlets are there that aren't left wing liberal biased? In Canada all of our media was left biased and so a new newspaper had to be created to give balance for the other 50% who aren't lefties. We now have The National Post. Conservatives also now have The SUN and Sun News Network TV channel.

It's ironic that if news networks simply reported the news instead of editorializing it, they wouldn't be liberal or conservative, they would just be news.

Be careful when a loop exits to the same place from side and bottom.