Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Unfair comparison (Score 1) 447

by execthis (#49246513) Attached to: Homeopathy Turns Out To Be Useless For Treating Medical Conditions

I think the standard should be whether or not a particular remedy is engaging in actual deception. Its one thing to say something like "this remedy provides relief _____" vs. saying something like "this remedy cures _____". Perhaps there should be a requirement of a more clear disclaimer such as "not intended for long-term treatment of ______" or "while providing relief, this remedy has not been shown to address certain underlying physiological aspects of ______"

Comment: Re:Unfair comparison (Score 1) 447

by execthis (#49246453) Attached to: Homeopathy Turns Out To Be Useless For Treating Medical Conditions

I think the fact that people keep having this discussion with reference to "placebos" instead of perhaps a much more accurate, and scientific term such as "the role of the mind" is a form of bigotry.

The more I hear these discussions about "placebos" the more it makes the commenters sound like irrational bigots who have some major issue with accept the fact that there is in fact a vastly important, and quite scientific role which the mind plays in the processes of health and healing.

Comment: Re:Unfair comparison (Score 1) 447

by execthis (#49246425) Attached to: Homeopathy Turns Out To Be Useless For Treating Medical Conditions

What I really don't get is why people reject the idea that the mind can heal. In fact, isn't it a wiser approach to health in general to consider that the mind plays a very important, if not the most important role?

Why is it then that the role of the mind in healing is always denigrated as "placebo" (must be bad) instead of acknowledged as perfectly valid and important?

In other words, the rejection of the role of the mind in the process of health and its automatic denigration is itself unscientific.

That is not to say that claims which are in fact misleading or false are ok, but I would think that when people criticize such claims should be careful themselves with how they criticize false claims or attributions. A better approach would be to understand why certain aspects of a particular remedy might benefit some instead of taking a thrash-and-burn approach which itself is unscientific.

Comment: Re:This ex-Swatch guy doesn't have a clue (Score 1) 389

Great comment. Only correction I would suggest is that it only takes maybe a year or two at most for the better Chinese models to hit the market.

I seriously can't understand what appeal the tiny interface of a watch would have for any type of application a person might have/want/need beyond telling time.

For example, regarding the medical diagnostic applications, if I were going to acquire a device that had such a capability, why on Earth would I want it in a form factor with such a ridiculously small and limited interface?

One thing about small gadgets - the smaller they are, that means even a small increase in the interface size is dramatically significant. For example, if you have a 5" display and go to a 6", it will be a nice increase, but not overly significant.

Now if you have a 1" display and suddenly go to 2", that is a vast increase. Suddenly all these new capabilities open up with such a dramatic change.

So what is the appeal of going really tiny, especially for something like a medical monitoring application that you are going to want to have a decent device to provide the function, when having something even a little larger - like the size of a credit card even - is so much better/convenient/useful?

Comment: Re:Soo soo tired..... (Score 5, Informative) 144

I was setting up a PC for a friend yesterday and needed to install a popular shareware archival app that has been recognized as the best in its category and has never been bundled with any crap.

I opened up Firefox and typed the name in the search bar which had Yahoo set as the default search provider - as Firefox have notably done recently. I clicked on the first link that appeared, which for all intents and purposes appeared to be the link from the actual creator of said application.

But in fact it was not. It was some sleazebag site which basically bundles a load of crapware into the installer. Even when I carefully unselected all the crapware it was trying to profer, it still installed a PUP IE addon that Malwarebytes picked up. In short, Yahoo has descended to the level of pushing shading companies which install malware on people's computers and hijack the installers of legitimate shareware products. And Firefox have descended to making this company (Yahoo) their default search provider.

This is total shit. The model of the Internet as some kind of enhanced TV experience which tracks everything people do and targets and infiltrates them has got to stop.

You are totally right in seeing that there is no qualitative difference between what corporations are doing, what governments are doing, and what scammers are doing. We have moved from an age of true innovation to one of scamming. Hence why banking and investment are so big.

Comment: Re:Why not websites? (Score 1) 140

by execthis (#49003987) Attached to: Why It's Important That the New Ubuntu Phone Won't Rely On Apps

LMAO what do you think the entire free software thing is about? OMG tens of thousands of apps which are free. And, wait, much if not most of the core infrastructure enabling this page to be read and many of the essential functions that you perform via the Internet are... free. Not everything has to adhere to the bent, distorted model that Google and other proffer.

Comment: Re:The spin is strong in TFA. (Score 1) 140

by execthis (#49003959) Attached to: Why It's Important That the New Ubuntu Phone Won't Rely On Apps

Thanks to Google there are now apps as spam. What Google have enabled is appalling. They parasitized off the repository model of Open Source OS's and turned it into complete shit. Yes they could have enabled filters for truly free apps, but they never did because they are disgusting and sick.

Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb