Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment I'm for caution first (Score 0) 226

Just as with new processed food products, or mining techniques, etc, this sort of thing has potentially huge and life-threatening consequences. Google (and similar) should have to do the legwork to PROVE the safety of a product rather than maimed or widow(er)ed individuals having to do the legwork to PROVE a product is NOT safe.

Comment probably so... (Score 1) 712

Pay should reflect the good a person has done... a tech CEO could potentially have invented something that has changed the face of the world for the better, and I am happy for them to have benefitted from that (this applies less or potentially not at all to later CEOs who simply take the position as given them by money-only boards of directors and/or shareholders.) Bankers, though... it's a real stretch of the imagination to see them has having done anything other than a modest good at their broadest, and thus should incur only modest pay to match that.

Comment Re:"Not Reproduclibe" (Score 2) 618

see: ... in this case we're talking the food industry, and in an example a few minutes prior to where this is tagged to begin, Lustig describes how it was the food industry got away with not admitting to people what they were putting in our food (i.e., because it was proprietary information that their competitors could duplicate.) But the point is, some science MUST rely on causal inference. You can't go around infecting thousands of people with HIV to run a study. You can't make someone smoke for 70 straight years to see what happens. You can't spike their food with high fructose corn syrup and trans fat, en masse, and be doing ethical science... and so you must instead examine the statistics that came FROM the fact that industries have already subjected us to these things and make a strong inference. And yet, because of the methods we're limited to, the food industry keeps getting to set the goal line back. 'We need better data,' 'more research to be sure...' and as long as they're 'never sure' we can never say, with any authority, 'okay, this explicative deleted is bad stuff.' I actually kinda LIKE the idea of complete transparency... but if they're going to force it on the EPA, FDA, CDC, etc, they must ACCEPT it upon themselves as well. No product can be sold to the public before it is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN TO BE SAFE. Let's see how they like that one?

Comment Re:In defense of GCHQ... (Score 4, Interesting) 133

While I understand I am replying to a point of sarcasm, nethertheless we really should invest some time in using words correctly. Terrorists user terror to achieve a goal. Period. Activists use activism to achieve a goal. Vigilanteism may or may not use terror, but it is using directed force (of one form or another) to achieve a goal (in this case, hacking deleterious services in the name of 'justice' as understood by those engaging in it.) Whether justified or not or misdirected or not, it's not terrorism unless the force being applied is terror, and that does not accurately describe anonymous. Tangentially, I wish we'd do the same with words like LIBERAL (to behave permissively) vs. AUTHORITARIAN (to behave restrictively) or CONSERVATIVE (to resist change) vs. PROGRESSIVE (to seek change.) In all cases, the context is what's most important. Are you permissive toward personal in-home nondangerous lifestyles? Well, then you're socially liberal and probably democratic (party) leaning. Are you permissive towards gigantocorporations buying legislation and dumping toxins into water supplies on the cheap? Then you're corporately (neo) liberal. Hell, you have to be both liberal (towards individuals) and authoritarian (toward those arguing to take personal liberties away) to achieve and end... so I guess using D(D)oS against D(D)oSers almost makes sense. MEH! I just wish people would be simple and clear about the labels we through around and understand them in contexts.

Comment Re:It's the orbit, stupid (Score 4, Informative) 214

Oh, the orbit matters... but the orbit is EXTREMELY predictable even its wobble and orientation. It might, perhaps tip the scale during the (likely ongoing) pleistocene (Where 90% of our time is spent in ice age with 10% warm snaps that should have already ended by now, contrary to spiking upwards instead) but ebbs on a timeline that should have had the pleistocene happening essentially since beginning of observable time (which it has not.) So, it's a factor, but not a decisive one. Continental arrangements and landmasses propensity for temperature extremity vs. oceanic propensity for temperature moderation and long-distance transport matter far more (even than tilt, given measuring the southern hemisphere vs. northern.) And yet, in spite of the fact that the continents and oceanic currents are still in the same messy tangle they have been for the entirety of the multi-million year pleistocene, these beasts didn't go extinct during an of the previous warm-snaps... just the one we arrived in... and now that we should be quickly descending into ice age, instead we're headed the other way. This article is of interest, but it is not argument against anthropogenic extinctions or climate change.

Comment How short sighted... (Score 4, Insightful) 306

If, as a nation, you decide that some other nation is an enemy, how better to influence their youth and upcoming generations to become your friend than offering them a good education? All this does is worsen the divide and entrench the relatively few 'bad guys' said other nation may even have running the show into their positions against us. *headdesk*

Slashdot Top Deals

To communicate is the beginning of understanding. -- AT&T