Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Plausible Deniability (Score 1) 115

Uhh I thought the retiring head of Mossad bragged about being the one who made Stuxnet? Don't get me wrong, NSA I'm sure has their fingers in a lot of dirty pies but if the head of a major nation state spy agency takes credit for attacking an enemy of the state using spy techniques? Unless evidence goes to the contrary I'd probably believe 'em.

+ - Cancer researcher vanishes with tens of millions of dollars->

Submitted by jd
jd (1658) writes "Steven Curley, MD, who ran the Akesogenx corporation (and may indeed have been the sole employee after the dismissal of Robert Zavala) had been working on a radio-frequency cure for cancer with an engineer by the name of John Kanzius.

Kanzius died, Steven Curley set up the aforementioned parallel company that bought all the rights and patents to the technology before shuttering the John Kanzius Foundation. So far, so very uncool.

Last year, just as the company started aproaching the FDA about clinical trials, Dr Curley got blasted with lawsuits accusing him of loading his shortly-to-be ex-wife's computer with spyware.

Two weeks ago, there was to be a major announcement "within two weeks". Shortly after, the company dropped off the Internet and Dr Curley dropped off the face of the planet.

Robert Zavala is the only name mentioned that could be a fit for the company's DNS record owner. The company does not appear to have any employees other than Dr Curley, making it very unlikely he could have ever run a complex engineering project well enough to get to trial stage. His wife doubtless has a few scores to settle. Donors, some providing several millions, were getting frustrated — and as we know from McAfee, not all in IT are terribly sane. There are many people who might want the money and have no confidence any results were forthcoming.

So, what precisely was the device? Simple enough. Every molecule has an absorption line. It can absorb energy on any other frequency. A technique widely exploited in physics, chemistry and astronomy. People have looked into various ways of using it in medicine for a long time.

The idea was to inject patients with nanoparticles on an absorption line well clear of anything the human body cares about. These particles would be preferentially picked up by cancer cells because they're greedy. Once that's done, you blast the body at the specified frequency. The cancer cells are charbroiled and healthy cells remain intact.

It's an idea that's so obvious I was posting about it here and elsewhere in 1998. The difference is, they had a prototype that seemed to work.

But now there is nothing but the sound of Silence, a suspect list of thousands and a list of things they could be suspected of stretching off to infinity. Most likely, there's a doctor sipping champaign on some island with no extradition treaty. Or a future next-door neighbour to Hans Reiser. Regardless, this will set back cancer research. Money is limited and so is trust. It was, in effect, crowdsource funded and that, too, will feel a blow if theft was involved.

Or it could just be the usual absent-minded scientist discovering he hasn't the skills or awesomeness needed, but has got too much pride to admit it, as has happened in so many science fraud cases."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Meh (Score 1) 99

by hairyfeet (#49373681) Attached to: How Malvertising Abuses Real-Time Bidding On Ad Networks

That is why I said the guy who came up with "Don't be evil" should have been given a new car and a million in cash, because no matter how much Google fucks over consumers, no matter how nasty they get, hell they can do shit that would make Gates in the 90s cringe and they will ALWAYS get a legion willing to defend them because of one stupid advertising slogan.

Think the most effective ad campaign was "have a coke and a smile" or "where's the beef?", not a chance in hell as "Don't be evil" has worked like a magic cloak for fricking years. Gotta give the man credit, its the most brilliant piece of marketing since Jobs sold the world that Apple was a bunch of t-shirt wearing rebels.

Comment: Re:Anonymous advertisers (Score 1) 99

by gstoddart (#49373291) Attached to: How Malvertising Abuses Real-Time Bidding On Ad Networks

What makes an ad agency reliable to you?

One in which all of the employees are encased in carbonite, and whose computers and records have all been nuked from orbit.

Anything less and you have to assume they're still unreliable.

And what solutions do you recommend for individual blog authors to implement "host your own ads"?

Not Our Fucking Problem.

Sorry, but I will continue assuming all ads are crap I don't wish to see, served by companies who don't give a crap about my privacy or security and whom I therefore do not trust.

The revenue of web sites interests me not even a little.

Go to a subscription model and see if you can stay in business. Or accept that some fraction of users do not wish to see your advertising, and don't trust the companies serving them.

Comment: Um, Yeah... (Score 3, Interesting) 279

by Greyfox (#49372755) Attached to: Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead
Crashing through a gate where there's a guy armed with a machine gun is a really good way to get shot, a lot. It annoys the guy with the machine gun, and he has a tendency to shoot things that annoy him. And he's not using the cheap Wal*Mart bullets, either. The last thing to go through your head, I mean, before bullets, would probably be "Wow, those are really some high quality bullets that guy is shooting me with!" I seem to recall that this sort of thing was fairly common back in the 70's and 80's with the hippies trying to disrupt the SAC air force bases. We seem to be having a spike in the crazy/stupid lately, where people seem to think that if you go crashing through a gate with a guy with a machine gun, they'll be nice to you or something. Nope. Not the case at all.

Comment: Re:Not terrorism ? (Score 3, Insightful) 279

by gstoddart (#49372483) Attached to: Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead

No kidding ... attempting to force your way into something guarded by armed military personnel and then discovering they're not afraid of you isn't terrorism.

It's a frickin' Darwin award.

I consider that only one of them is dead to be either extraordinary luck, or surprising restraint on behalf of the soldiers.

Comment: Re:stupid (Score 4, Insightful) 279

by gstoddart (#49372321) Attached to: Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead

You know, I'm a pretty heavy user of tinfoil with an inherent distrust of government.

But even I don't need to look at this as an abuse of power by the government.

The rights of US military personnel to shoot your stupid self for trying to ram through a gated checkpoint with big giant signs saying "we can and will stop you, by force if necessary" has been established for an incredibly long time.

Most of the last century, I should think. Probably MUCH longer.

Sorry, but this falls entirely in the domain of "if you didn't see this one coming you're an idiot".

Comment: Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... (Score 4, Insightful) 279

by gstoddart (#49372029) Attached to: Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead

yes but they shouldn't be, protecting secrets shouldn't be more important than protecting citizens.

There comes a point where what you are doing is telegraphing that you are no ordinary citizen doing ordinary things.

Approaching that gate with the big barricade, armed guards, and the huge sign which says "this isn't your usual place, and it isn't under the usual rules ... keep the hell out", and then deciding you're ramming it anyway? Well, as I said, that's a special kind of stupid.

It isn't like these guys went trigger happy and went after someone who was doing nothing at all. Trying to drive through a military check point on a military base sends a specific enough signal that I think to expect to NOT get shot in that context makes you an idiot.

Ramming gates on a military base isn't something you can reasonably expect to fall under the domain of things you can do without Really Fucking Bad Consequences.

I'm among the first to complain about government over-reach. But fucking with armed military personnel under strict orders to keep everybody out? Definitely not that.

Comment: Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... (Score 5, Insightful) 279

by gstoddart (#49371641) Attached to: Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead

Seems like further evidence that the NSA believes it can do *whatever* it wants to any peasant that puts a toe out of line. I question whether lethal force was necessary in this case.

While true that apparently the gate crashers didn't shoot anybody

1) This wasn't the NSA, directly. It was the US Army guards from what I can tell.
2) If you try to crash a gate guarded by any Army, I think you should reasonably conclude you might get shot

I dislike the NSA as much as any nerd, but by the time you're talking about the people who guard military bases and other secure compounds you kind of need to understand these guys are deployed under a set of orders which says "we'll be polite as long as that is possible, and then we'll be significantly less so".

Maybe you think the armed guards on a military base should say please and thank you and be friendly, but there's usually big giant signs that say "do not taunt the lions, they will bite".

It's hard not to see getting shot as a completely logical outcome of what happened.

Comment: Re:Paranoia Strikes Deep (Score 1) 108

And welcome to the appeal to emotion fanboy rant, thx for proving my point. BTW noticed how you completely avoided what Lennart wrote on his blog, lets see what this "simple replacement for init" is morphing into, shall we? Lennart's own words...

"The tasks mentioned that systemd already covers include, "init system, journal logging, login management, device management, temporary and volatile file management, binary format registration, backlight save/restore, rfkill save/restore, bootchart, readahead, encrypted storage setup, EFI/GPT partition discovery, virtual machine/container registration, minimal container management, hostname management, locale management, time management, random seed management, sysctl variable management, and console managment."

"Tasks being worked on are support for a local DNS cache, mDNS responder, LLMNR responder, DNSSEC verification, IPC support in the kernel (KDBUS), time synchronization with NTP, better integration with containers, and many other services. "

Think he can shoehorn anything else in there? And FYI every other replacement for init that was credible is dead or dying, the devs are running like squeeing fangirls to systemd...which is why every large Linux server admin I've talked to is already talking exit strategies and trying various *BSDs looking for the one to replace their current setup.

Oh and you just gotta love that the Phoronix article I got his quote from felt the need to bring up as I did the comment fixing and even some of the kernel devs are getting fucking sick of showstoppers in systemd....yet its still getting rammed through....huh. Has the check cleared from RH and the NSA or is this just a freebie?

Comment: This is why laws are the wrong solution (Score 1) 858

I think this issue illustrates perfectly why laws are the wrong solution to the problem of prejudice. You cannot legislate people's morals and, where the law deviates from their moral beliefs, they will find a way around it. The way to tackle these sorts of issues is through education: you cannot just tell someone that discriminating against person X because they do, or are, Y is wrong you have to give them the full picture and let them come to that conclusion on their own - or sadly not as the case may be.

Obviously this takes time but ultimately it leads to a long lasting, more fundamental change in society and is far more effective than trying to force someone to behave in a particular way through threats of imprisonment or fines. All the latter does is makes (figurative) martyrs to the cause and further strengthens the resolve of those who disagree with the law making the problem worse, not better. If you disagree think of a law closer to Slashdot's field: copyright. Many see nothing morally wrong with format shifting material which is legally purchased and yet many a nation's law say otherwise. Has that affected your moral beliefs and/or your behaviour when it comes to format shifting?

Comment: Freedom to discriminate == no protection ... (Score 4, Insightful) 858

If you and your religion wish to be able to discriminate against someone on the basis of your religion, then you and your religion should correspondingly lose the legal protection of being discriminated against.

If you are such a whiny idiot that you think it should be OK to say "we don't serve your kind here", then you should have no legal or moral basis to claim that someone shouldn't be able to do the same to you.

This is giving religion an extra special place in law ... protected from being discriminated against, while getting a special exemption to discriminate against someone else.

So either shut up, and accept that you have no other ways you're legally allowed to discriminate against someone ... or accept that it should also be someone else's right to refuse you because of your religion.

There is no in between, and any claims your religion is so precious as to require you receive rights nobody else has is complete crap.

Sorry, but the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIL want to have a society based on religious exceptionalism.

Which makes people who want to have religion be a special thing in law are full of shit, self entitled people, and are actually the enemies of a free and open society.

Real Users find the one combination of bizarre input values that shuts down the system for days.