Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Not exactly a hack (Score 1) 78

by Jane Q. Public (#49618437) Attached to: Hacking the US Prescription System

I heard where pharmacies are sharing prescription data with each other and with doctors to stop people from going from doctor to doctor to get more meds. More prescriptions than any one doctor would let one patient have. It might be required by law in my state.

We have a state pharmacy database which does that. However, the data is not supposed to be commercially available, AND it most definitely is not supposed to be hooked up to any kind of Federal system.

Comment: Re:Chrome - the web browser that's added as bloatw (Score 1) 239

by Jane Q. Public (#49606881) Attached to: Chrome Passes 25% Market Share, IE and Firefox Slip
I have been using Firefox on the desktop since it was Netscape. About the only time I fire up Chrome is to check CSS compatibility in a web page. I dislike Chrome very much. Last time I recall checking, the Chrome executable was about 10x (!!!) the size of my Firefox, and slow, slow, slow in comparison.

One of the first things I did when I got an Android phone was disable Chrome and install Firefox.

Comment: Re:Not exactly a hack (Score 1) 78

by Jane Q. Public (#49606843) Attached to: Hacking the US Prescription System

How long will it be before all our medical histories become public knowledge?

Well, I think there are two important things to note here: first, IANAL but sharing this data between pharmacies without any patient input would appear to be a blatant violation of HIPAA regulations. Second, my state's prescription database is very definitely NOT supposed to be connected to any Federal database. That would be a violation of State law.

Comment: To answer my own questions. (Score 2) 475

by Jane Q. Public (#49597987) Attached to: New Test Supports NASA's Controversial EM Drive
I followed the "thread 2" forum for a while. It appears that the effect they are seeing is approximately 2 micronewtons. That's a pretty small effect. This comment was interesting:

I can attest that it is not thermal. It works in a vacuum. It works in a Faraday cage and it works when you reverse the device (the thrust reverses).

Comment: Re:I want this to be true, but... (Score 1) 475

by Jane Q. Public (#49597951) Attached to: New Test Supports NASA's Controversial EM Drive

from what i recall , it does not defy the laws of physics , it uses a traveling em wave to crate "grip" to the static universal em background field , this method provides thrust from input power by creating a traveling wave that is out of phase to the external one causing motion , like swimming through the background field using the background field to displace it like a phase drive motor , just that its too easy to miss in the maths

The problem is that theoretically, there is no "background field" to "grip". You appear to be proposing a "universal aether" or maybe "phlogiston". Those aren't exactly groundbreaking ideas.

According to theory the quantum vacuum has virtual particles in it, but that doesn't make it a "fabric" to grip or push against.

I am interested to see what kind of thrust they DO claim to have gotten this time. And I am also curious why they chose to use a lower-power source, rather than trying to replicate the original experiments.

Comment: Re:Not just about terrorism (Score 1) 209

by Jane Q. Public (#49591801) Attached to: McConnell Introduces Bill To Extend NSA Surveillance

Also remember that the context here was that I pointed out why the people Jane's disagreeing with might claim to have studied something for years, even though their absurd conclusions might suggest otherwise to students of the Constitution like Jane Q. Public.

I doubt the average reasonable person would, on reading the original comment this is about, conclude that it referred to "other people".

Comment: Re:The all-or-nothing fallacy (Score 1) 353

And make no mistake, this bill is written by corporate lobbyists, which to me is enough to disqualify it entirely.

I've read the bill, and it looks completely reasonable to me. I don't much care who wrote it; I only care about what's in it.

(Certainly who wrote it might cause enough alarm to justify actually reading it, but it isn't excuse to damn it without reading it.)

Remember, an earlier draft of this bill forbade government agencies from using scientific "models".

No, it didn't. It merely required whatever models are used to be made public.

Comment: Re:The all-or-nothing fallacy (Score 2) 353

Do you believe the EPA should not be able to restrict the high-pressure injection of toxic chemicals into the aquifer because the information isn't "public"?

We agree on many things, but this isn't one of them.

The EPA clearly (at least at present) has jurisdiction over polluted groundwater. That's the kind of thing it was created for.

Industry is not "allowed" to pollute groundwater just because its use of the pollutant is a "trade secret". That's not how it works. This is about the basis of regulations. If the public and "reasonably reproducible" science says (thin air example) isofurans above 20ppb are harmful to health, they can be regulated.

That means they could not be released into groundwater, "trade secret" or not. (Not that I am any fan of EPA... I have had far too much experience with it to think it is our friend.)

Look, I'm a big fan of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning too, but when you have corporations with vested interests in keeping information away from the public, forcing the government to only be able to act on information that's public will only let them run further amok.

That's really not how it is written. I suggest you read the actual bill.

Comment: Re:Not just about terrorism (Score 1) 209

by Jane Q. Public (#49573773) Attached to: McConnell Introduces Bill To Extend NSA Surveillance

Ad-hominem? Where? Do you even know what that term means?

Yes, indeed. Apparently better than you do. It still applies even when the argument is implied rather than stated explicitly.

I know who you are, and I understood the context of your comment just fine, even if other readers here don't. Hey, there's a word for you: context. Do you even know what the term means?

Comment: Re:Not just about terrorism (Score 1) 209

by Jane Q. Public (#49573427) Attached to: McConnell Introduces Bill To Extend NSA Surveillance

What they'd fail to realize, of course, is that compulsively stuffing their brains full of conspiracy theory nonsense isn't the same as "studying".

Of course, there will also always be those who claim any skepticism or examination of facts outside the mainstream "official" story is "conspiracy theory". Despite the fact that skeptics have in fact routed out skullduggery and real conspiracy a rather alarming number of times throughout history, and despite the fact that they have not studied those issues themselves.

Or those who don't realize that many individuals acting to the same purpose, in all good will and without coordination, can have the effect of conspiracy even where there is none.

I know you haven't been a student of the Constitution or its history. I have been. You can call that "conspiracy theory" all you like but that doesn't make it so.

Unless you are confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence (which would surprise me not at all). The latter was, indeed, a grand conspiracy.

Take your ad-hominem and shove it right up there where the sun doesn't shine. Because that's where it came from, and that's where it properly belongs.

Comment: Re:Talk about creating a demand (Score 1) 333

by Jane Q. Public (#49573329) Attached to: Why Our Antiquated Power Grid Needs Battery Storage

Have you even imagined what permitting such a thing is like? You could only do it in the country, and only where the lay of the land permits it.

I wasn't exactly proposing to use it in an apartment. It was just some thoughts about what is possible, not what is practical everywhere.

Help stamp out Mickey-Mouse computer interfaces -- Menus are for Restaurants!