Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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:Quality of metal? (Score 1) 56

by Rick in China (#49152379) Attached to: Researchers Create World's First 3D-Printed Jet Engines

That's not the problem. The problem it it has been done before for rocket engines that have actually been fired up - the metals used were superalloys, in SpaceX case Inconel specifically. Those rocket engines have been in use for some time - and the problem with this story is that it lacks credibility in the "we're first' market for several reasons.

Comment: The costs the costs.. (Score 1) 243

by Rick in China (#49133941) Attached to: The Peculiar Economics of Developing New Antibiotics

Drug approval requires so much heavy lifting in the US that costs to develop new drugs skyrocket, and the only drugs that get developed are those that are taken routinely for high profit. Boner pills flourish, antibiotics stagnate. The solution here isn't to jack the price of antibiotics to an astronomical level that a very small percent of the population could possibly afford - drugs and surgeries in the US are already way overpriced with major corporations snorting all of that profit up - the solution is to reduce the cost of R&D and approvals.

My last chest x-ray in China took about 25 minutes -- walk in, no appointment, cost $12 USD, includes assessment (albeit I don't know how great the assessment is), and it's not kept in some locked away book.. I take that xray home with me.

Comment: Re:Leave Oliver Alone! (Score 1) 277

by Rick in China (#49027521) Attached to: Jon Stewart Leaving 'The Daily Show'

When the writing is as good as it is - and Oliver is really allowed the freedom to shine in his delivery, that's all that is needed. I've really liked ALL of the key focus segments of his shows, and they're always up on Youtube if you don't have HBO and want to watch it "legitimately". He also makes web-exclusive bits on his channel...strongly suggest subscribing to his channel if you're a fan.

Comment: Re:Privacy..respect... (Score 1) 400

by Rick in China (#49015483) Attached to: An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos

Partisan word count?

Fox is the organisation who decided to post this video.

Fox made the decision, other news agencies refuse to post that shit, social media picks it up of course because anyone can grab everything and throw it online. Fox buys video rights, fox posts on their page, counts the clicks based on the obvious controversy, reaps reward. Yay, partisan criticism? Right.

Comment: Re:Why do people want them down? (Score 1) 400

by Rick in China (#49015069) Attached to: An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos

I think that showing videos with the gruesome truth is perfectly fine - with the appropriate warnings.

What I don't think is fine is violating people's privacy just because they're not Americans and subject to the same privacy 'rights' under US law, and being allowed to identify such people in such a terrible and horrific way on the news is sensational voyeurism at BEST, just sensationalism for the most viewers tuning in. I'm of course guessing that these 'news' agencies didn't contact the victim's family and get permission, of course. You can guess what would happen if this was an American and their family wasn't contacted for permission, yes?

Yay for families that get to relive their loved ones' death repeatedly in full HD. Yay for the public who thinks this is 'free speech' - afterall, since the victims involved aren't Americans, they aren't really people, are they?

Comment: Re:Privacy..respect... (Score 1) 400

by Rick in China (#49014913) Attached to: An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos

re: "isn't practically possible"

That may be the case - and social media/the internet at large may need to be part of a broader solution to help provide privacy for those individuals who are subject to this type of horror, but for an American news agency or even social media site to 'allow' these types of things, I'm saying, they should be forced to, by law, censor the individuals just as they would an American. Sure, there will still be lots of people who get ahold of an uncensored version or whatever -- but they'll likely have to seek it out, not be exposed to it just by watching primetime media or seeing it on a 'top watched' youtube summary or whatever.

Organisations like that, out of 'journalistic integrity', should do their best to facilitate individual's privacy and rights, not stomp on them just because it's the current landscape of media and they want to get the most viewers first.

Comment: Privacy..respect... (Score 4, Insightful) 400

by Rick in China (#49014381) Attached to: An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos

I'm not entirely against showing these type of images or media, but I am absolutely of the mind that the publisher must censor the individual's identification - such as not presenting their name, blurring face or other identifying features, in any sort of media. Media would most definitely (in accordance with the law..) censor it's own citizens being murdered without approval from the deceased's family or next of kin, why should that common sense respect not apply to foreigners?

That being said, Fox didn't publish this video for any "journalistic integrity" or whatever nonsense reason they claimed - but for clickbait/viewer trash to bump their numbers. I, for one, haven't seen the video - and don't plan on seeing it, and Fuck Fox News for using journalistic integrity as a means of justifying something like this.

Comment: Re:Sex tourist's dream... (Score 1) 84

by Rick in China (#48995899) Attached to: Smartphone Attachment Can Test For HIV In 15 Minutes

I was being facetious.. there are some great potential applications, but the 'immediate' one - of being able to test someone you're *not* in a LTR with, seems impossible for many reasons. First of all it may give a very false level of confidence in that they may have contracted HIV and it hasn't yet gestated, and can you imagine if you meet some girl - take her home - say "Hey, mind if I prick your finger and we wait like, 20 min to continue?"...

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!