Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Anti-science is a PR plague (Score 1) 330

But you can't tell me that spraying our food with not just a little bit of poison but a TON of poison is not absorbed by the food.

Yes, we actually can tell you that. We can tell you that because, and this may be shocking, your government routinely tests foods for the presence of poisons, carcinogens, etc, and makes recommendations on maximum allowed presence of these contaminants. I'm sure there have been thousands of proposed pesticides that were never used because they could not get government approval due to negative effects on either humans or the environment. Honestly, sugar is killing you far more surely than these regulated substances are.

Comment Re:Hogwash (Score 1) 330

I have no issue with labelling GMO foods, it's just a label and it's better to have overly stringent labelling laws than overly lax laws IMHO

Even though it's just a label, the process surrounding the label is not zero-cost. Companies have to add the labels, and add a process to ensure they are complying with the label and that their supply chain is complying. This requires certification of parts of the supply chain, etc, etc. This drives up costs, which drives up the cost of the product. Also, labels are useless without regulatory enforcement. So you need a regulatory body to inspect/audit the processes to ensure compliance, and the cost of that will either be billed to the food company (again driving up product costs) or is simply paid for by your taxes. So in the end, everyone pays more for a process that arguably provides no benefit to society.

Comment Re:How do they define GM? (Score 1) 330

If people realize that they are eating GMO food all the day, and they are still healthy, wouldn't that be much better for proving that GMO food is ok?

The average joe who is generally uninformed IS eating GMO food all day today, and statistically is as healthy as the control group. But the only reason they are eating it today is because they do not see scary GMO labels that they have only heard of because their friend on facebook shared a meme saying it was a bad thing. In the end it is wasted productivity - the actual labelling, the enforcement, the consumer confusion. I'm all for allowing companies to label GMO products as GMO voluntarily to cater to the anti-science types, but forcing all companies to do so is just promoting quackery.

Comment Re:Safety (Score 1) 450

I love that at least two of the incidents linked on that page are examples of an argument escalating to shooting, which is the most obvious counter-argument to everybody toting guns around. I completely agree that everybody being armed would likely stop mass shootings, and this would probably save about 100 people every year who would otherwise have been mowed down by some psychotic. On the other hand, everyone having a gun on their person at all times would likely lead to a massive surge in gun-related deaths just from people acting irrationally for a few seconds in the heat of the moment.

Comment Re:Should work fine (Score 3, Insightful) 120

It won't work for exactly the same reason. Your average laptop owner doesn't know their device's MAC address. Even if they knew how to get it, they probably don't have it written down. The article also indicates they are not after bag-snatching types. This would be more likely to be used if there was a home burglary where a device happened to be taken among other things.

Comment Re:Why shouldn't this be public anyway? (Score 1) 65

HIV is highly communicable under certain circumstances.

If you are referring to the circumstance where someone puts their penis in someone else's body cavity, then yes you're right. But rather than publishing the name of everyone who has been tested positive (which wouldn't reveal the names of any one who HASN'T been tested), why don't you and your latest partner get tested before having sex? If that's too much hassle, then you (or anyone else) are part of the problem - you could be spreading HIV now.

Having a registry of people infected with HIV would allow people to avoid the type of contact that can spread HIV with infected persons.

Once people know that HIV test results are public record, they will choose to not get tested.

Comment Re:Because the parents don't care. (Score 1) 109

People don't buy baby monitors for security.

Agree. I have a video baby monitor and I don't really care if it's secure because the odds of someone targeting my wifi network and camera feed are low, and the impact of such a thing happening is negligible. While a few monitors have been hacked, this is not presently an issue of thousands of creepers hacking every cam they can find - we are talking about several isolated incidents. I am FAR more concerned about someone breaking into my house and being some kind of actual threat to my family, and even then I don't bother to have a functioning alarm system.

Comment Re:Does any one care? (Score 4, Interesting) 450

It is surprising that there are not MORE suicides correlated with that list, just based on general suicide statistics.

- General US suicide rate for men is 19.4 per 100,000 per year. (wiki)
- If there were 31,000,000 men on AM, let's assume a quarter are in the US, so 7,750,000.
- Based on the above suicide rate, one could expect 1503 suicides from that group within a year. That is 4.1 suicides per day.

People have discovered that 3 different people from the group committed suicide since it was dumped. Statistically there should be at least another dozen or two.

I am not a statistician, feel free to correct my math/assumptions.

Comment Re:Trust is basic to civilisation (Score 1) 706

Hmm, I had posted a reply yesterday but it didn't seem to go through.

I am not condoning people having affairs, nor am I arguing it is somehow beneficial to society for people to do so. Seriously, just because I disagree with the poster's stance doesn't mean I take the extreme opposite stance. The puritan view I am against is the belief that every profile on AM is someone who deserves to be ostracized because they are having sex or trying to have sex outside their marriage. I very much expect that significant number of users are probably just on there to fantasize about the possibilities, maybe even going so far as to have some explicit online chat. If that's breaking promises then watching porn by yourself shouldn't be far behind (I'll admit I may have a vested interest in considering watching porn as not cheating). Would I be upset if I found my wife having an explicit chat? Maybe. Probably moreso that she didn't tell me about her interest. Would the general population feel that is cheating? I don't know, but I don't expect everyone to have the same values as I do. I do expect my wife not to have sex with others without my consent (not that I would necessarily ever give it), but her having on account on the site doesn't mean she's having sex, it just means we need to talk. Personally I have 3 fake profiles on the site, that I made with my wife, because we were curious about what was on there when we first saw an ad - 3 because every time we went back we forgot the credentials. I did use an old personal email address to do it though, and I have no doubt if anyone I knew actually knew the address many would assume I was out there having affairs and I should probably lose my job and my kids and burn in hell, etc.

So again, I do agree that it is a "puritanical glee" with which people are condemning all entries in the database. AM's marketing is irrelevant too - just because their ads may encourage specifically going out and having sex, doesn't automatically mean every member, or even most, has done anything other than make an account to see what there is to see.

All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.