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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Do Sleepy Surgeons Have a Right To Operate? (Score 1) 332

Close. You don't have a right to operate, you have permission to operate, subject, as you say, to informed consent. If you had the right to operate, the patient's consent wouldn't be an issue. You have the right to speak freely, without the consent even of those about or to whom you're speaking. Big difference.

And, as a patient, I would deny consent if I thought you were not competent for whatever reason, be it fatigue, intoxication, or just plain being a lousy doctor. Informed consent requires that the patient understand the risks to which he is being subjected. Your fatigue--or drunkenness, or your six trips to the review board--are a relevant risk.

Comment Re:This is just another waiver (Score 1) 332

And now us doctors will have another reason to be afraid of lawsuits: "Your honor, evidence shows that the defendant was awake for 16 hours straight and did not inform the patient. Thus, he should be found guilty of malpractice!"

And what's wrong with that? The patient has the right to expect his surgeon to perform competently, just as the passenger has a right to expect the airline pilot/bus driver/etc. to perform competently, and to hold him responsible if he is negligent.

If a trucker on a long run gets tired behind the wheel and runs into you, do you want to be able to sue him for damages?

Comment Re:The gap between the old and the new (Score 1) 280

Of course islamic terrorism has replaced IRA terrorism. And for sure CCTV has foiled more terrorist plots in the UK in recent years in than there have been terrorist plots that have been successful.

If your government is anything like ours, it has foiled more terrorist plots in recent years than even existed.

Comment Re:I don't get it. (Score 1) 156

Why is it better for the US Government to pay a corporation to build spacecraft?

People always give the line that corporations are more efficient, but I don't really see why. Not only are they likely to shell out big bucks to their execs, but they also have to get enough money selling products/services to the government to make a profit. NASA doesn't have to make a profit, so they're providing the service to the government at cost.

Saying that private entities are cheaper for the government to use because private entities need to make a profit seems backwards to me.

How many private entities have the ability to either print money or seize money from others through force (taxes)?

That's why the private sector is more efficient: even with profits, private entities still have to work within budgets. Governments don't earn money, governments take money, and if they have cost overruns, they can just take more. Where's the incentive to be efficient?

Comment Re:Voluntary (Score 1) 156

First and foremost, SpaceX achieved its funding through voluntary means, quite the opposite from how governments achieve their funding.

That's right: Investors voluntarily invest their money in SpaceX. But they do it mainly based on the expectation that SpaceX will win fat government contracts, so they can repay these same investors with a larger amount of money involuntarily extracted from the taxpayers.

...in exchange for providing services to the government--services the government would have demanded anyway--and in competition with other entities, spurring innovation and driving down cost, while also offering to the same service to other entities the private sector.

Or are you saying that everybody who ever sold a product to a government is morally identical to that government creating that product itself?

Comment Re:Not Just Hateb by the Left (Score 1) 1425

Huh? How is providing healtcare to those that can't afford it wealth redistribution?

...by taking money from those who have earned it and giving it to those who haven't? Isn't that pretty much the definition of redistribution? We can argue all day about whether that's a good thing or not, but are you actually trying to take the position that taking from one person and giving to another isn't redistribution?

And while we're on that topic, why is always considered a bad thing when wealth redistribution benefits the lower-middle income, but it's a good thing when it benefits the upper 2% (e.g. tax breaks for the wealthy)?

Reducing taxes isn't redistribution, it's "taking less away from people." There's plenty of redistribution going on that favors the wealthy--corporate welfare, bailouts, barriers to entry, etc--but "not taking their money" isn't redistribution.

Comment Re:So what is a defense? (Score 1) 351

She was not "completely innocent." She did share the files*. "Innocent" means "didn't do it." Her claim is that she didn't know it was illegal; unfortunately, ignorance of the law is not, and never has been, a defense.

* From a link in TFA: "Whitney admitted to using KaZaA as well as downloading and sharing music over the P2P network, but said she didn't realize what she was doing was wrong."

Comment Re:Solution --- only distribute files for PD thing (Score 4, Interesting) 316

Even more fun than blueprints: http://www.cncguns.com/projects/1911a1frame.html

That's right, complete CNC files. No need to translate the blueprints and drawings into instruction lists. And light-duty CNC mills can be had for under $10k new. Sure, that sounds like a lot of money, but how many people have two or three times that in a bass boat? If machinework is your hobby, you can have your "3D printer" right now, and it'll make real metal objects, not plastic toys.

God, I love living in the future!

Comment Re:Go after billionaires then (Score 2, Interesting) 866

They can either graciously return a very small fraction of what they have taken in a gesture towards keeping those they've exploited well fed and educated, or they can be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

So, basically, you're taking the same strongarm robbery position as your average mafia don, and calling it "civilization."

Image

Frustrated Reporter Quits After Slow News Day Screenshot-sm 178

Norwegian radio journalist Pia Beathe Pedersen quit on the air complaining that her bosses were making her read news on a day when "nothing important has happened." Pedersen claimed that broadcaster NRK put too much pressure on the staff and that she "wanted to be able to eat properly again and be able to breathe," during her nearly two-minute on-air resignation.

Comment Re:Sigh again (Score 1) 711

By society's "norm" i'm a waste. disabled, living off the government.
By my goals, I have a my own place, a cat, computers, internet. I'm a slacker, taking this life off.

Well, thank you for giving me the opportunity to work to support your chosen lifestyle. Is there anything else I can do for you? A pillow, perhaps?

Slashdot Top Deals

...when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. - Fred Brooks, Jr.

Working...