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


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:What part of "Consent" Don't You Understand? (Score 1) 292

by 91degrees (#49135251) Attached to: Reddit Imposes Ban On Sexual Content Posted Without Permission
Good question. But I think that this is about rights other than freedom of speech that also need to be considered. I have the right to freedom of speech, privacy and to not be harassed. Is your freedom of speech more iportant than my privacy or freedom from harassment?

It's not an easy question to answer, and shouldn't be because there are so many factors, and it differens on a case by case basis.

Comment: Re:What part of "Consent" Don't You Understand? (Score 1, Informative) 292

by 91degrees (#49135065) Attached to: Reddit Imposes Ban On Sexual Content Posted Without Permission

I take my stand on the proposition that the publication of nude and/or sexually explicit photographs without the consent of the subject is a form of rape.

And I take my stand that this is a vile statement that devalues actual rape.

This not art. This is not speech.

Who is to define what is and isn't art and speech? You? Me?

This is humiliation. This is malice. This is revenge. This is greed. This is crime. Revenge porn

Then call it these things. Stop trying to make it something it isn't, and admit you consider stopping these to be much more important than freedom of speech.

Free speech cannot survive in an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Free speech has to mean something more than the adolescent's desire for instant sexual self-gratification.

No it can't. It also can't survive in a world of arbitrary rules about what is and isn't "fee speech". However, the adolescent's desire for instant self gratification is perfectly legitimate.

I am sick and tired of the geek playing the censorship card when anyone asks him to behave like an adult.

But people are advocating censorship, and narrowing what freedom of speech is in order to rationalise it as something other than censorship!

Comment: Re:if you think it's a free speech issue--- (Score 1) 292

by 91degrees (#49135023) Attached to: Reddit Imposes Ban On Sexual Content Posted Without Permission
It is a free speech issue!

Free speech is not limited to the first amendment. Reddit offers a degree of freedom of speech. For a discussion forum, this is seen as a good thing. Now they are offering less freedom of speech. Whether this is a good thing or not is (from a users perspective) a question of the importance of freedom of speech in a forum balanced against the importance of privacy, and from a business perspective a question of balance of the expectation of the users for freedom fo speech against the public perception.

Freedom of speech is not limited to government.

+ - Argonne National Laboratory shuts down Online Ask a Scientist Program->

Submitted by itamblyn
itamblyn (867415) writes "In a surprising decision, Argonne National Laboratory has decided to pull the plug on its long-standing NEWTON Ask A Scientist Program. NEWTON is (soon to be was) an on online repository of science questions submitted by school children from around the world. A volunteer group of scientists contributed grade-level appropriate answers to these questions.

For the past 25 years, a wide range of topics ranging have been covered, including the classic “why is the sky blue” to “is there way to break down the components of plastics completely into their original form”. Over the years, over 20,000 questions have been answered.

According to ANL, the website will be shut down permanently on 1 March. There is no plan to make the content available in an alternate form or to hand over stewardship to another organization.

When contacted about transferring the repository to another institution or moving to a donation model, the response from ANL was simply: "Thank you again for all your support for Newton. Unfortunately, moving Newton to another organization is not a possibility at this time. Thank you again for your energy and support.”

Given the current state of scientific literacy in the general public, it is difficult to understand how removing 20,000 scientific FAQ from the internet makes any sense. If you’re interested in starting a letter writing campaign, the Director of ANL, Peter Littlewood, can be reached at pblittlewood@anl.gov. I’m sure he would love to hear from all of us.

Full disclosure: I am one of those scientific volunteers and I’ve already run wget on the site. It’s about 300 mb in total. I do not have the ability to host the material at scale (apparently NEWTON receives millions of hits / month)."

Link to Original Source

+ - The Peculiar Economics of Developing New Antibiotics

Submitted by HughPickens.com
HughPickens.com (3830033) writes "Every year at least two million people are infected with bacteria that can’t be wiped out with antibiotics but the number of F.D.A.-approved antibiotics has decreased steadily in the past two decades. Now.Ezekiel J. Emanuel writes at the NYT that the problem with the development of new antibiotics is profitability. “There’s no profit in it, and therefore the research has dried up, but meanwhile bacterial resistance has increased inexorably and there’s still a lot of inappropriate use of antibiotics out there," says Ken Harvey. Unlike drugs for cholesterol or high blood pressure, or insulin for diabetes, which are taken every day for life, antibiotics tend to be given for a short time so profits have to be made on brief usage. "Even though antibiotics are lifesaving, they do not command a premium price in the marketplace," says Emanuel. "As a society we seem willing to pay $100,000 or more for cancer drugs that cure no one and at best add weeks or a few months to life. We are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for knee surgery that, at best, improves function but is not lifesaving. So why won’t we pay $10,000 for a lifesaving antibiotic?"

Emanuel says that we need to use prize money as an incentive. "What if the United States government — maybe in cooperation with the European Union and Japan — offered a $2 billion prize to the first five companies or academic centers that develop and get regulatory approval for a new class of antibiotics?" Because it costs at least $1 billion to develop a new drug, the prize money could provide a 100 percent return — even before sales. "From the government perspective, such a prize would be highly efficient: no payment for research that fizzles. Researchers win only with an approved product. Even if they generated just one new antibiotic class per year, the $2-billion-per-year payment would be a reasonable investment for a problem that costs the health care system $20 billion per year." Unless payers and governments are willing to provide favorable pricing for such a drug, the big companies are going to focus their R&D investments in areas like cancer, depression, and heart disease where the return-on-investments are much higher."

+ - Should a carebot bring an alcoholic a drink? It depends on who own the robot-> 1

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "In a care scenario, a robot may have been purchased by the patient, by the doctor or hospital (which sent it home with the patient to monitor their health), or by a concerned family member who wants to monitor their relative. The latest poll research by the Open Roboethics Initiative (ORi) looked at people’s attitudes about whether a care robot should prioritize its owner’s wishes over those of the patient."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Reversable Veto? (Score 1) 429

by SuiteSisterMary (#49127021) Attached to: Obama Vetoes Keystone XL Pipeline Bill

Something like this:

Keystone says 'we want to put a great big pipe from Here to There.'

The various Departments of Whatever say 'no.'

Keystone says 'Hey, congress guy, here's some money.' Aka, lobbying.

Congress says 'Here's a law saying 'Departments of whatever shall issue the following permits.'

President says 'Nope.'

Eventually, President says 'Ok, departments of whatever, issue the permits with the following requirements/conditions/standards built in.'

Keystone then says either 'Hmm, it's no longer profitable to build, with all these requirements' or 'great!' and goes ahead.

+ - Moxie Marlinspike: GPG Has Run Its Course->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Security researcher Moxie Marlinspike has an interesting post about the state of GPG-encrypted communications. After using GPG for much of its lifetime, he says he now dreads getting a GPG-encrypted email in his inbox. "Instead of developing opinionated software with a simple interface, GPG was written to be as powerful and flexible as possible. It’s up to the user whether the underlying cipher is SERPENT or IDEA or TwoFish. The GnuPG man page is over sixteen thousand words long; for comparison, the novel Fahrenheit 451 is only 40k words. Worse, it turns out that nobody else found all this stuff to be fascinating. Even though GPG has been around for almost 20 years, there are only ~50,000 keys in the “strong set,” and less than 4 million keys have ever been published to the SKS keyserver pool ever. By today’s standards, that’s a shockingly small user base for a month of activity, much less 20 years." Marlinspike concludes, "I think of GPG as a glorious experiment that has run its course. ... GPG isn't the thing that’s going to take us to ubiquitous end to end encryption, and if it were, it’d be kind of a shame to finally get there with 1990’s cryptography.""
Link to Original Source

+ - House Passes Bill That Prevents Scientists From Advising EPA->

Submitted by Roger Wilcox
Roger Wilcox (776904) writes "While everyone’s attention was focused on the Senate and the Keystone XL decision on Tuesday, some pretty shocking stuff was quietly going on in the House of Representatives. The GOP-dominated House passed a bill that effectively prevents scientists who are peer-reviewed experts in their field from providing advice — directly or indirectly — to the EPA, while at the same time allowing industry representatives with financial interests in fossil fuels to have their say. Perversely, all this is being done in the name of “transparency.”"
Link to Original Source

Any program which runs right is obsolete.