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


Forgot your password?

+ - Americans Support Mandatory Labeling of Food That Contains DNA

Submitted by HughPickens.com
HughPickens.com (3830033) writes "Jennifer Abel writes at the LA times that according to a recent survey over 80% of Americans says they support “mandatory labels on foods containing DNA,” roughly the same number that support the mandatory labeling of GMO foods “produced with genetic engineering.” Ilya Somin, writing about the survey at the Washington Post, suggested that a mandatory label for foods containing DNA might sound like this: "WARNING: This product contains deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The Surgeon General has determined that DNA is linked to a variety of diseases in both animals and humans. In some configurations, it is a risk factor for cancer and heart disease. Pregnant women are at very high risk of passing on DNA to their children."

The report echoes a well-known joke/prank wherein people discuss the dangers of the chemical “dihydrogen monoxide" also known as hydrogen oxide and hydrogen hydroxide. Search online for information about dihydrogen monoxide, and you'll find a long list of scary-sounding and absolutely true warnings about it: the nuclear power industry uses enormous quantities of it every year. Dihydrogen monoxide is used in the production of many highly toxic pesticides, and chemical weapons banned by the Geneva Conventions. Dihydrogen monoxide is found in all tumors removed from cancer patients, and is guaranteed fatal to humans in large quantities and even small quantities can kill you, if it enters your respiratory system. In 2006, in Louisville, Kentucky, David Karem, executive director of the Waterfront Development Corporation, a public body that operates Waterfront Park, wished to deter bathers from using a large public fountain. "Counting on a lack of understanding about water's chemical makeup," he arranged for signs reading: "DANGER! – WATER CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS OF HYDROGEN – KEEP OUT" to be posted on the fountain at public expense"

Comment: Why only in Tech? (Score 4, Interesting) 341

by fey000 (#48754125) Attached to: Intel Pledges $300 Million To Improve Diversity In Tech

I'm curious why this type of "diversity" drive only pops up in tech-related office jobs? Where is the drive in getting more men into child care jobs or social services? Why not more women in construction work? Why not more women in the army? Why not more women in sanitation, mining, welding, or fishing?

As it stands, it doesn't seem like diversity is the goal at all.

Comment: Re:why the hate (Score 2, Interesting) 341

by fey000 (#48754057) Attached to: Intel Pledges $300 Million To Improve Diversity In Tech

What is it about wanting to introduce more people into IT that gets people into a blind spitting rage? It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game guys.
Maybe its the gross unwelcoming attitude that puts people off.

Because a lot of people have worked damn hard to get somewhere and to build something. And all of that effort is being diminished to no small extent by this preferred treatment program.

If you work your ass of for 10 years, making sure to be the best, only to get passed by for a rookie on a "diversity" quota, wouldn't you get a little grumpy? That is why so many here are asking for the 'best candidate' treatment rather than the 'look how minority I am' treatment. That is why yet another of these "diversity" programs is viewed with no small amount of suspicion and apprehension.

Intel being Intel *might* be able to do something smart, but given the organizations that they have partnered with for the drive, it is very very unlikely that anything other than feminazi rabies will come out of it. And that sucks for everyone on the planet.

Comment: Re:Progressive "diversity", or *real* diversity? (Score 1) 341

by fey000 (#48753961) Attached to: Intel Pledges $300 Million To Improve Diversity In Tech

Does he want bog-standard, shallow, progressive "diversity" - everyone looks different on the outside but diversity of thought or opinion is not tolerated while every member is assigned rigid roles based on mere appearance, or real diversity where no one cares about how to categorize group members into various victim classes?

The former is the standard, and the money is going to organizations that deal only in the former.

Comment: Re:Hire the best person (Score 3, Insightful) 341

by fey000 (#48753931) Attached to: Intel Pledges $300 Million To Improve Diversity In Tech

How about hiring the best person for the job, and fits well with the rest of the team regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual preference, etc? If it happens to be someone who is white, hispanic, or black who cares?

Because then you'll be approached by a frothing at the mouth "journalist", asking questions like "Why isn't your workforce 50% white, 50% asian, 50% black, , 50% hispanic, 50% homosexual, and 50% female?".

Hiring the best suited candidate is so 1990. Now it's all about the progressive stack and checking your privilege.

Comment: Summary needs to bring up the interesting parts. (Score 4, Informative) 56

by fey000 (#48632873) Attached to: Scientists Discover That Exercise Changes Your DNA

Meh, the summary doesn't bring up any of the new stuff.

We *know* that exercise has an effect on the body. We *know* that exercising increases concentrations of growth hormones, anti-inflammatory responses, and metabolic rate adjusting factors. We *know* these adjustments are made through methylation patterns over enhancers/promoters.

Furthermore, there is no *change* in the DNA. Any alterations that occur do so on the back-chain of the DNA, which is normal behavior as the backchain is modified by ALOT of different factors. No nucleotides are being mutated or swapped by exercising (unless you imbibe strange and unhealthy body building substances).

Last, the adjustments made to the exercised cells are in *response* to the exercise rather than proactive as the summary suggests. It would after all be really freaky if your body started building up muscles *before* you started working out. That would actually freak me the hell out.

Comment: Re:Ethics? (Score 2) 556

by fey000 (#48632193) Attached to: FBI Confirms Open Investigation Into Gamergate

Excellent summary. What it boils down to is that some people were criticized, and they defended themselves by claiming these were attacks on their gender. The reason is plain and simple: They could not credibly defend themselves against the criticism itself, so they used misdirection and made it a gender-issue. Predictably, a lot of people with no clue whatsoever about what was going on then jumped on those criticizing, as apparently criticizing a person of female gender is an attack on them all...

I think this is the best summary ever of #GamerGate. There are several books worth of stuff happening as a result of this, but this is the point of origin.

Comment: Again with the girls? (Score 2) 208

by fey000 (#48616921) Attached to: New AP Course, "Computer Science Principles," Aims To Make CS More Accessible

Can someone please explain to me what this whole "Let's convince/force/cajole/firehose women into CS" thing is all about?
*Why* is it so frikkin important all of a sudden? Why is there no similar push in any other field (think firefighter/truckdriver/constrution)?

Have I missed something important? Are women no longer considered smart enough to make their own choices regarding careers? Must we big smart men carefully explain to them why they *want* to go into CS?

What happens when this magical girls-only experience ends and suddenly the real world rears its ugly head with (God help us) *men* in the actual workplace? Perhaps we need to have some girls-only workplaces as well? But wait, what about when the workday ends? There might still be some *men* out and about. We need a girls-only city to make sure no disgusting boys hang around with their home-grown CS interests...

And now I'm all out of sarcasm. Thanks internet.

I guess my question boils down to: "Why force this interest? Why force this new brand of 'make-no-sense equality quotas' to *everyone's* detriment?"

+ - Movie Chain Drops 'The Interview' After Threats of Violence

Submitted by HughPickens.com
HughPickens.com (3830033) writes "In the latest episode of the Sony hack, Hollywood Reporter says that Carmike Cinemas, which operates 278 theaters and 2,917 screens in 41 states, will not show the Sony comedy "The Interview" following threats of violence from hackers. Sony Pictures told exhibitors who had booked The Interview that it planned to move forward with the movie's release, but that they were free to decide not to show the film, and that the studio would support them in whatever decision they made. Citing 9/11, the hackers issued a warning and said, "We will clearly show it to you at the very time and places The Interview be shown, including the premiere, how bitter fate those who seek fun in terror should be doomed to." The situation is also raising concerns among studios that the threat of violence could keep some moviegoers away from the multiplex over the lucrative holiday moviegoing period. "This is bad for everyone. This will stop people from going to theaters, and that affects all of us," says one source at a rival studio. "If somebody called a bomb threat for a concert, and it was credible, you'd have to cancel or postpone the concert.""

Comment: Re:Whole list of possibly offensive content? (Score 1) 642

by fey000 (#48402455) Attached to: Sweden Considers Adding "Sexism" Ratings To Video Games

I'm guessing you aren't a gamer.
I can tell you that as a gamer, we have very, *very*, different views on how to rate a game.
When I look at what games to buy, I consider the following:
Quality of controls
Interesting mechanics

And none of those were on your list.
Why not leave the grading of games to those who actually enjoy the games? Or at least those who play them? I sure as hell don't wander into the competitive sailing scene and start demanding they rate their boats on how much they look like penises when squinting. Why do the same to games?

Comment: Re:Whoa whoa whoa (Score 5, Insightful) 642

by fey000 (#48402283) Attached to: Sweden Considers Adding "Sexism" Ratings To Video Games

It would be disingenuous to suggest that sexism does not primarily impact women negatively.

In war? Men get killed in combat, women stay at home.
In crime? Women get lower sentences, in some cases skipping prison time entirely.
In trouble? Heard about support groups for women? I sure have. A man's support from society when in trouble can be summarized as "walk it off and man up".
In court? Women win custody cases by default.

I'm not suggesting that being a woman is all peaches and cream, but get some perspective please. Life isn't black and white, and the gender debate isn't either.

What hath Bob wrought?