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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:not there yet (Score 1) 44 44

I was diagnosed as a Type 1 in 1997. Back then, a 10ml vial (U-100) of Eli Lilly's Humulin R or NPH costs--I'm not making this up-- $17.00. Today, without insurance, the same vial goes for $99. And this is for insulin made from recombinant DNA tech that has been around since the '70's like the article mentions.

The wonders of modern science. Pharmaceutical companies use recombinant DNA tech to make a drug cheaper to make but more expensive for sick people to buy.

Ain't it grand?

Comment Re:Biohacking? (Score 1) 44 44

The food religion says GMO is bad until one of them happens to need insulin and also happens to be allergic to "natural" cow insulin, then GMO produced humulin (secreted by a genetically modified e. coli bacterium to be chemically similar to human insulin) is a miracle.

And because tomatoes are delicious, we should all go eat a whole bunch of Atropa belladonna.

The GMO religion believes that every GMO is a good GMO. That no genetically modified organism can ever possibly hurt you, so you must not be allowed to know which foods are from GMOs. They've never heard about NewLeaf Potatoes or LibertyLink Rice.

You know the difference between GMO produced humulin and GMO produced food? GMO produced medicines are labeled. You know what else is different about them? The drug manufacturers who use GMOs have done a good job of marketing their products and the makers of Agent Orange have done a lousy job of marketing their products. Maybe if they used some of the money they spend lobbying congress to pass industry-friendly laws to market GMO foods to consumers, they might be able to sell people that genetically modified foods have worthwhile benefits.

Comment Re:Well, sure, but... (Score 1) 274 274

Consumers don't care if their bread is made from Calingiri or Ytipi.

But consumers DO care if their food is made from GMOs, so just put a label on it.

Outside of GMOs, what do you normally think of companies that make decisions for consumers? Maybe Samsung doesn't think you need to know what kind of processor is in your cell phone, because well, it's pretty much the same, and you probably won't notice the difference. How about if a company that sells socks doesn't think you need to know if the socks you buy are really 100% cotton or a 60-40 blend of cotton and polyester? What if the company doesn't think you need to know if the socks in the package or green or brown?

Remember, it's consumers who are paying the bills. They're the ones paying for the GMOs, and for all the research and for the marketing and press releases like the one in the article and for the high-paid lobbyists that are working to thwart their preferences. In most things, the person who's paying the bills gets to decide. The fact that you don't think consumers need to know something doesn't mean you get to decide whether they get to know something.

Comment Re:Well, sure, but... (Score 1) 274 274

That's cute. You think that actual benefits of GMOs mean anything to the people listening to all the FUD that gets spread about them.

And you think that hiding the foods' provenance is the way to make people stop believing the FUD? That's very interesting.

Because when someone tells me I'm not allowed to know something about a product I'm buying, it immediately endears me to the company hiding the information.

Comment Re:Not that impresssed (Score -1, Troll) 64 64

So, it's a remote exploit in that you can do it if you're within Wi-Fi range (and the gun has it's Wi-Fi turned on)

"Hello, Mr Zimmerman, I'm Brad from XYZ Firearms Corp and I'd like to walk you through a software update for your Smart SniperTM Rifle today that will make it much safer to use as well as 75% more accurate in hitting targets with black skin. There will be no charge for this update, but I'll need you to temporarily enable WiFi during this procedure."

I bet you'd get very high levels of compliance from owners of "Smart SniperTM Rifles" in many areas of the US.

Comment Kentucky Man (Score 3, Funny) 1128 1128

There has to be a better way to take down drones. Firing a shotgun in your backyard into the air is going to be some kind of misdemeanor, even in Kentucky. Something like "discharge of a firearm inside city limits" or something.

Can someone please start 3D-printing some silent drone-killing weapons? It would be so much more satisfying than clay pigeons and my neighbors cats. (Note to neighbor: I'm kidding. That wasn't me.)

Comment Re:A simple proposition. (Score 1) 370 370

They used to sell a service where you could subscribe to Slashdot [] for some nominal fee per 1,000 page loads. The fact that they quit selling this service is their own problem, the scaffolding is all there. It just needs to be turned back on and made worth the investment.

I subscribed to Slashdot right up until their subscription system broke.

My second official act as the new owner of Slashdot (after tearing out the videos and replacing them with fish tanks) will be making sure that goddamn subscription system works again. It was easy as pie and occasionally I would even pick some insightful commenter and gift him 5000 page loads.

When Slashdot started refusing my subscription requests, I figured it was only a matter of time until they'd get sold. Fortunately, I had sufficient bottle caps, pre-war money and Legion Denarius to purchase the site. Once the sale goes through, things are gonna be different around here, lemme tell you.

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 5, Informative) 583 583

And all three of which went to prison for their technically illegal actions.

Wrong. Martin Luther King, Jr, Rosa Parks and Susan B. Anthony did NOT go to prison. They were arrested, booked and released. MLK spent some time in a local jail, but that's not the same as being sent to prison.

A better example for Snowden would be Daniel Ellsberg, who is now seen as a hero.

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 5, Insightful) 583 583

He should have gone on the Sunday talk shows and say, "the government is doing really sleazy, illegal and unconstitutional shit, and I am violating my oath and the law by telling you exactly what they are."

When your oath to the government requires you to keep government wrongdoing secret, the problem is not with the whistleblower, but with the government.

Whenever people agree with me, I always think I must be wrong. - Oscar Wilde