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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Just get rid of it (Score 1) 314

by gerardrj (#49570517) Attached to: Feds Say It's Time To Cut Back On Fluoride In Drinking Water

Why is it the "cranks" are all asking for scientific study or proof and the "sane" ones are all saying "trust we know it works, because we know" and quoting each other in support?

Do you know that for that $63,000 a year you could provide fluoride rinse or tablets to every at-risk kid in a population about 3x the size served by municipal water fluoridation? The rinses and tables have been studied and proven effective and they all use sodium fluoride.

Comment: Just get rid of it (Score 3, Informative) 314

by gerardrj (#49569461) Attached to: Feds Say It's Time To Cut Back On Fluoride In Drinking Water

Fluoride in water always sounds good to people who want "better smiles" but it's 99% a waste of the money spent:

1. The version of fluoride they put in the water (Hexafluorosilicic acid) is not shown to help with dental decay issues. Sodium Fluoride is the chemical the ADA studies and recommends for toothpaste and dental products.

2. Hexafluorosilicic acid is a product manufactured from industrial waste in the aluminum industry and is considered a toxic substance. If industry hadn't conned municipalities in to putting it in the water supply as a "fluoride source" it would cost them a good chunk of change to dispose of the stuff. (Look up ALCOA and fluoride).

3. Consumption of unfiltered tap water, I'd say, is just about zero. I know no-one that drinks any substantive quantity of tap water that the fluoride content in it would ever have any clinical effect. Almost any filter designed to remove impurities will remove the fluoride from tap water.

4. Even if people were drinking only tap water, over 95% of the water used in an average municipality is very consumed by any living thing. It washes cars, waters lawns, bathes people, flushes toilets, cools industrial equipment, etc.

5. When I had this discussion with my town a few years ago asking them to provide numbers they told my it cost $63,000 a year in product and personnel to run the fluoridation system for 29.5 million gallons of potable water. That sounds like very little, .2 cents ($.002) per thousand gallons or an average of about $.30 per family per month. Sure when you make the numbers small it doesn't look like much, but think about what $63,000 a year gets if directed an other programs in a town. Another teacher or two? Extended library hours on the weekends? A new after school program?

6. No-one, I mean I searched hard, has studied the rate of change in a community pre and post fluoridation of tap water since an initial study of Grand Rapids and Muskegon in 1945. A study that was ended prematurely but touted as a success anyway despite its very unscientific lack of compensating for outside factors not related to the study itself and the "control" changing programs during the study.

7. The Grand Rapids "study" was based upon Sodium Fluoride, which again is not what we put in the water today. So even if the result was positive the hexafluorosilicic acid used today has never been studied for prevention of tooth decay in municipal water supplies and is a very different chemical compound just like Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide are very different chemicals. Search for

8. There is no version of any type of fluoride that is indicated by the FDA for the prevention of tooth decay. The municipal water companies are adding an non-FDA approved and unregulated drug to our water supply. The other substance added to water supplies (chlorine to be simple) is approved by the FDA for water and food sanitation.

As you can see, there is simply no supporting truth to the argument that fluoride in municipal water prevents tooth decay. It does cost a significant amount of money, and almost no-one drinks the fluoridated water anyway.

Do your own research. You will come to the same conclusion: municipal water fluoridation is based on lies, it's a waste of money, it doesn't work and it may actually cause harm to public health.

Comment: These articles miss a very important point... (Score 1) 448

by gozar (#48765847) Attached to: Unbundling Cable TV: Be Careful What You Wish For

Who says a channel has to charge? TBS costs cable companies $.63 a month per subscriber, bringing in $731 million a year for 96,700 homes. ESPN is $5.75 a month per subscriber in 94,000 homes.

I'd pay $1 a month for TBS. Some channels wouldn't have to charge. QVC? That's just a big infomercial. Golf? Offer it for free.

It looks like we may get choices soon: Cable Under Fire: Plunge in Ratings Could Spell Trouble for Top Nets

Comment: Re:Taxpayer's Dilemma (Score 3, Insightful) 213

by mabu (#48494631) Attached to: Game Theory Analysis Shows How Evolution Favors Cooperation's Collapse

How much in taxes do you think you paid last year? $1k? $5k? $50k?

How much of the Interstate that you use daily will that pay for?

Maybe 1/2 an inch of the interstate.

Whine to us all about how government is raping you...

while you enjoy electricity, navigable waterways, the internet, safe food, police protection, fire protection, libraries, schools, parks, national forests, etc.

Comment: Re:Taxpayer's Dilemma (Score 2) 213

by mabu (#48494605) Attached to: Game Theory Analysis Shows How Evolution Favors Cooperation's Collapse

>You are assuming a perfect world where taxes are used efficiently, whereas most western government have rather low bang-for-the-buck. At the end of the day, what really happen is more of the realm of "Everyone pays taxes, but infrastructures still sucks".

Are you on the Internet in America right now?

If so, then the government infrastructure is working quite well. Last time I checked, we had relatively clean water and air, reliable utilities, navigable waterways, weren't being invaded by some foreign army, and have roads from one end of the country to another.

This notion that government is largely errant and irresponsible doesn't jive with reality. The exception does not prove the rule.

Comment: Re:TIt-for-tat fallacy (Score 1) 213

by mabu (#48494587) Attached to: Game Theory Analysis Shows How Evolution Favors Cooperation's Collapse

>What's unrealistic is believing one strategy is always favored by evolution. Evolution tries everything, so you get all strategies tried.

Actually if you read the study, their conclusion is, the aberrations in the cooperation between the parties is the result of their desire to "change the game" and avoid being put in scenarios where there is no clear winning choice.

Comment: Re:Chat is terrible hellscape (Score 1) 79

by gozar (#48460567) Attached to: Slack Now Letting Employers Tap Workers' Private Chats

Now we're seeing the slow death of IRC too at the hands of better but more proprietary user experiences being offered by Skype and Slack.

And it's easy to see why too. The proprietary chat tools out there like Slack are absolutely incredible user experiences.

If IRC and XMPP are ever going to be competitive with the new proprietary guys in town, it needs to get competitive on the usability front.

I think Slack is built on IRC, I use a bouncer and whatever IRC client I have handy to connect to our work Slack.

IRCCloud is putting a pretty face on IRC, if they would offer the Slack integrations they could be a real competitor.

Comment: I learned to program on PLATO (Score 3, Informative) 134

I learned to program on PLATO. It was an AMAZING system. In addition to supporting a variety of development environments, their system used a proprietary language called TUTOR. A good bit of networking technology today is derivative of this amazing system. I wasn't rich, although I noted a lot of kids who had access to PLATO tended to be children of CEOs and such. My parents worked at a college that had a grant to have the terminals available. The games on the system were also amazing.

As a programmer, PLATO was a great example of the "cloud"-type systems that will eventually become standard.. what Google is doing and Adobe is now proposing was done in the 70s at Plato, with centrally-hosted apps that routinely are updated automatically. As developers we could put in requests for program features and see them reflected in newer versions of the API. 512x512 resolution, touch sensitive screens, multi-player, real-time games between people all over the world..... in the 70s.

By the way, the original PLATO system has been ported and is running over TCP/IP. If you're willing to donate to the project, they have been known to grant access to people wanting to experience what it was like. See: http://www.cyber1.org/

By the way if anyone has the archive of the PLATO game 0drygulch.. PLEASE contact them... we've been dying to find that code and put it online.

Comment: This is really about controling the internet (Score 5, Informative) 571

by argoff (#48211713) Attached to: The Inevitable Death of the Internet Troll

This isn't about sexual harassment, but controlling the internet, and implicitly people in general. A lot of the powers that be have decided that, like other forms of media, they need to sanitize it in the name of control. (even with games, google gamergate) They want a name and an ID behind every post, they want to create "accountability". They gleefully ignore the fact that any woman, gay person, person of color, persecuted minority can take on an anon alias and argue their beliefs, do their work on merit alone. Seriously, how do we even know that Satoshi, the bitcoin creator, isn't a black lesbian? The internet frees productive people from race and gender in a way that before was never even remotely possible.

So maybe, just maybe, the people who want to make it an issue now, are the doing it not because of some high morality, but because they are discovering they can't compete on merit. But the issue is way deeper that that. In today's world, a lot of media and games are controlled via copyright, but copyrights by their very nature require centralized control by those who control them to work. Yet the internet is doing just the opposite, it is moving into the direction of decentralized control, threatening a lot of people, who happen to have a lot of money.

Comment: taxes are theft (Score 1) 259

by argoff (#48156637) Attached to: "Double Irish" Tax Loophole Used By US Companies To Be Closed

After reading the comments here, it's surprising how few people seem to understand that taxes are just theft. Yeah yeah yeah, I know the government provides public "services", but that's all just a pretext to justify stealing from people. It's pathetic when people think these programs are about helping them.

If the mafia went from business to business extorting money from people, and one of the business people found a way out of it via a technicality. That is not a bad thing. And neither is it getting out from under the thumb of government criminals either. It amazes me how easy it is to see all the evil and crap done by the government, yet people still want to give them money. It's like there is some kind of disconnect.

If a slave escaped from the plantation, would people go off and say that is evil because the master will just make the other slaves work harder ... yet this is the exact kind of logic people use when they see others escape taxes. The gov will take more from us! Less money for our programs! The Mexican mafia has charity programs too, do you think they're doing it just because they are nice guys?

The state is already taking the max they can, and giving back the least they can get away with to justify themselves. People escaping them will not make things worse for us, but instead create more opportunity out there for us to escape too as well.

Nobody's gonna believe that computers are intelligent until they start coming in late and lying about it.

Working...