Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I think this is bullshit (Score 1) 1746

by nbetcher (#46654609) Attached to: Brendan Eich Steps Down As Mozilla CEO

I am gay and I think that for the company to be able to stand by their values and morals, one of which is declared as equality, the management of the company should reflect that not only in their professional lives, but their personal ones as well. It's the same idea that a CEO being caught in an extramarital affair reflects on a company and how he/she lives, operates, and performs in honest transactions (extramarital meaning that he/she took and oath to not be involved with another person). It's not to say that Eich should not have the right to believe in inequality, it's simply that his decisions reflect his, "state of mind."

While I understand that Mozilla holds freedom of speech dearly, I don't believe that you need to pick between one or the other. Just because Mozilla believes in freedom of speech and equality doesn't mean Eich can use freedom of speech as a platform to undermine equality -- that would be hypocritical and hopefully everyone can see that.

Comment: Re:Myogyny? (Score 1) 704

by nbetcher (#46549289) Attached to: Getting Misogyny, Racism and Homophobia Out of Gaming

I wonder, who gets to decide? Does this mean that all game avatars will be wearing grey coveralls like THX1138?

.And how do you resolve the "it's misogynist to have women avatars in combat" and "it's misogynist *not* to have women avatars in combat" groups?

The problem arrives in that games portray women as objects of sexual appeal more frequently than simply just being a normal character. And what about butch or androgynous women or the equivalents for gay men in games? Gaymers are a big player base now days (being one, I know since we often tend to congregate accidentally) and yet the only option remains the macho DUDE that wants a piece of the slutty CHICK -- Duke Nukem anyone?

Comment: Not Generic YET (Score 4, Informative) 491

by nbetcher (#38223092) Attached to: Patent Expires On Best Selling Drug of All Time

Lipitor has had an ANDA filed for a generic version by Watson, yes. However, the law allows Pfizer to grant a 180 day exclusivity contract to a manufacturer of their choice (in this case Watson) for the ANDA. To those affected by this drug going generic: IT HAS NOT GONE TRULY GENERIC YET! Wait until the 180 day exclusivity contract expires (in 179 days) and the true "invisible hand" will take effect in the market.

In the meantime, you're most likely going to need to get the BRAND NAME Lipitor for it to be covered to the fullest extent by your pharmacy benefit manager ("insurance company")! These PBMs get rebates (NOT kickbacks) to lower the cost of the brand-name drug, so it's financially advantageous to the member to not cover the generic yet. Here's why:

Lipitor (brand) 90ct bottle = $550 retail, minus $330 in rebates = $220 total cost of drug.
atorvastatin by Watson (generic) 90ct bottle = $530 retail, minus $0 in rebates (Watson doesn't offer any) = $550 total cost of drug.
(These amounts are fictional, however they represent true real-world scenarios.)

Disclaimer: I work for one of the US' largest Pharmacy Benefit Managers in the Clinical Review department. We had a meeting today regarding all of our Medicare Part-D patients and how they're affected by this specific drug going generic. No suits were involved and the members are receiving the best possible drug savings until the exclusivity contract expires. Once it expires the new generics will be placed on the tier-1 ("generic") copay structure.

Comment: Re:What? (Score 1) 770

by nbetcher (#37855684) Attached to: Android Orphans: a Sad History of Platform Abandonment
It does seem a bit skewed towards Apple with the exclusion of the Samsung Galaxy.
As for the iPhone 2G, the graph clearly does not indicate that it has current support updates. This is NOT a timeline, it is a bar graph, so read it appropriately. The support was terminated shortly after the second year, which was early 2010. It is now late 2011 - so support updates for it have been missing for over a year and a half.

Comment: Re:wrong calculation (Score 3, Insightful) 394

by nbetcher (#37497536) Attached to: EPA Bans CFC-Based Asthma Inhalers
I recommend not going to Walgreens or CVS - go to an independent pharmacy, you'll get better care there anyways and cheaper prices. Then, don't get Proventil or Proair, get Ventolin! Ventolin is the cheapest and Glaskosmith-Kline has $15 rebate checks they give to pharmacies sometimes (and no, I don't work for ANY Pharmas). You also may want to check their website because they have programs you can enroll in to get your meds for cheap/free, plus they may even have some coupons you can use there.

Comment: Very Old News (Score 4, Informative) 394

by nbetcher (#37497488) Attached to: EPA Bans CFC-Based Asthma Inhalers

This is actually extremely old news. A treaty was signed over a decade ago to ban various uses of CFCs in phases. The OTC epinephrine inhalers were pulled off of the market by the manufacturer some time ago due to a different reason (which I forget), then they decided to not restart production on it because CFC inhalers would be banned as of 1/1/2010.

Anyone that has asthma will tell you that things dramatically changed for them in 2010 when their old albuterol (fast-acting, for emergencies) inhalers were reformulated to not include CFCs (dubbed HFA, aka Hydrofluoroalkane) . Most HFA-using patients state that they cannot "feel" the aerosol or that it doesn't work nearly as well as the CFC-based ones.*

Point being, CFC inhalers haven't been around for a couple of years and we knew they were going away over a decade ago!

(*From my professional experience.)

Comment: Re:The Google chairman was on a hot seat (Score 2, Insightful) 285

by nbetcher (#37476152) Attached to: Google Accused of "Cooking" Search Results and Charging MSFT Too Much

He failed to explain why Google results always came 3rd on product comparisons though.

The entire interview can be watched here .

Watching the section of the video you're referring to, he specifically answers that the reason they are third is because Google does a VERY good job at finding the ACTUAL product, versus (yet another) product comparison website. He states that if you were to use those other product comparison sites to find the same product, you will find they rank the product results (what website the product is ACTUALLY sold at) in their own method. Basically, Google does the best job, but doesn't make it the first link.

Say what you will, but I think we all know by now that Google tends to have the best search algorithms out there, mostly because they hire the best-of-the-best and because that is what the company was founded on.

All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins