Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Hurricane season is just about over. (Score 1) 117

New York is visible financially (tho it's slowly being routed around due to cost issues).

I think the concentration of the financial industry in New York is actually increasing, due, paradoxically, to technology.

In the 20th century, of the 64 major hurricanes to hit the US, 51 hit in september and august.

I understand that. My comment was addressing the point that in an important way, there's a good reason that hurricanes that hit New York have a greater impact on America than those that hit lower on the coast or even the Gulf.

Comment Re:Just to be real clear: (Score 1) 23

I'm old enough to remember when all US hospitals were non-profit. When doctors had the biggest house in the neighborhood, but they still lived in the neighborhood.

The ground under this discussion is shifting faster than most people realize. Some very interesting and unexpected voices are stepping forward in favor of universal, single-payer health care in the US.

And for those that can afford it, solid-gold, white-glove care will still be available, fee-for-service, as it is in the UK, Canada, Europe, South America and Asia. The only difference is that there will be a baseline level of care available to everyone.

Comment Re:On the plus side... (Score -1, Flamebait) 261

Mcgrew is a known troll

Then why do I have over 400 fans, including some slashdot staff, and only 30 freaks? Why do I get +5s daily and very few downmods? Why does achievements show you at 29 and me at 45? Why do I have twice as many +5s as you? I'm a respected member of the slashdot community, boy. Fuck off, you're the troll, dipshit.

Sorry, son, but you seem to be a bit delusional. 486 Euros is over $600 USD. Arithmetic fail?

Shove your flamebait up your ass, freak.

Comment not true (Score 1) 23

The driver is actually the growth of bureaucracy.

Then why is Medicare more efficient than the "free market" at providing health care.

Dollar for dollar, Medicare is the most economical way to get health care. By far.

You need to prepare yourself for the inevitable. Universal single payer is coming to America. If little Israel can make it work, I don't see why you think the US is less capable.

Comment "paint thinner"? (Score 1) 618

Made of codeine, a painkiller often used in cough syrup, and a mix of other materials including gasoline, paint thinner, and alcohol, Krokodil become popular in Russia because it costs 20 times less than heroin and can be made easily at home

If people are willing to go to these lengths just for a buzz, wouldn't it be better just to let them have narcotics that will give them what they want without eating their flesh away and making them an even greater burden on society?

We've already learned that people addicted to opiates can live crime-free, productive lives if they aren't made de facto criminals, so really, what's the harm in them being able to buy pharmaceutical opiates at market prices without a prescription?

Before they die, I wonder what the average "krokodil" user costs society in medical treatment and welfare, not to mention their families. Prohibition was tried and deemed a disaster, so why do we still criminalize drugs and drug users?

Comment Re:Natural selection (Score 1) 618

Oh, I fully agree that his initial few posts were inflammatory, unsupported, and largely not constructive. Sorry, I should have been clearer that I was referring to what he said as a whole. If you re-read the discussion, he did eventually support what he was saying with links to his sources, the basis for the statistics, etc., though clearly those weren't present up front.

And I do agree that he had some mistakes in his comparisons (some rather severe, in fact, of which you cited the biggest issue I had, which was that he was comparing lifetime mortality rates for Everest against annual mortality rates for meth users, even though the nature of the activities would dictate that we should be comparing lifetime against lifetime), but that's attacking a part of what he said without recognizing what it means to the whole. The point he was making is that people stop thinking critically when they hear certain topics broached, and then he demonstrated that. He could have just as easily replaced "climbing Everest" with something we do on a daily basis that is risky but that we all find acceptable, and he'd be making the same point.

Attacking him on that point would be missing the forest for the trees.

Comment Re:Framed, because they had to get her for somethi (Score 1) 150

A lie in the moral sense of the term requires intent which is pretty difficult if not impossible to prove.

Sometimes, but the jury seemed to think she lied.

It's stupid to talk to a cop period.

Depending on circumstances, yes it is. I would have insisted on having my lawyer present.

Comment Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh (Score 3, Informative) 618

The lady tried to settle with them for her current and expected future medical costs before even retaining a lawyer (i.e. $20K, of which $10K had already been accrued). They offered her $800 in return, despite the fact that she had been hospitalized for 8 days, undergone a series of skin grafts to replace the skin that had suffered third-degree burns, and faced another two years of treatment following the hospitalization.

Does your coffee typically give you third-degree burns?

Comment Re:Natural selection (Score 5, Informative) 618

I actually read through that discussion, and believe it or not, he has a decent point, though it wasn't immediately evident. He eventually explained what the purpose of the exercise was, as well as his own stances on the issues. And contrary to his initial, inflammatory remarks, he seems like he's actually a rather rational and coherent individual who simply wanted to illustrate a problem in the most direct way possible.

For instance, he never suggested that the drug should be legalized or that climbing Everest should be outlawed (quite the opposite, in fact), though people assumed that was what he intended. Rather, his point was that we, as a society, have lost much of our capacity for evaluating risk, since the rhetoric we choose to apply to certain topics is blowing the risks involved out of proportion and blinding us to how dangerous they actually are. To demonstrate that, he made some blanket statements about climbing Everest using the sort of rhetoric that is typically reserved for describing dangerous behavior that is frowned upon, such as drug abuse. To say the least, the reaction he got was predictable: outrage, dismissal, the construction of straw men, and ad hominem attacks, rather than rational rebuttals to the facts and logic he was providing.

His point wasn't that climbing Everest should be outlawed because it is too dangerous, nor that the drugs should be legalized because there are other things we allow that are more dangerous. He was simply asking people to think critically about how the way that we present risks and have been trained to think about certain topics has colored our perceptions. I actually thought he had a rather good point, and that he did a great job of demonstrating the problem by placing himself in a position where the other commenters would construct straw men to tear down while vilifying him as a horrible person.

In truth, I actually thought it was something a lot of people here on Slashdot would appreciate, rather than something they'd laugh at, since we're supposed to value facts and truth over rhetoric and soundbites, though, at least taken out of context, I can see why it'd be seen as ridiculous. I actually started reading the discussion just because I wanted to see how ridiculous the raving lunatic would get, but then I found out that he was anything but what I had initially thought of him.

Slashdot Top Deals

Save yourself! Reboot in 5 seconds!