Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Commercial "education" generally fails (Score -1) 251

Nonsense. Your entire comment is nonsense. Education is just a service and fine best for profit. The problem with the USA system I'd government in student loans - issuing then or backing them, thud removing risk from lending. Government removing risk from interest bearing loans creates a perverse effect of banks dropping lending standards, the same thing that happened with every other bubble created by government money and involvement. Housing, stock, bond bubbles are no different from this student loan bubble. It will burst but before it does the colleges will raise tuition (and they have and they are) all the time much above what a free market would bear.

The reason for the most expensive 'education' today as compared to any time before now is the ocean of money pushed into it through the student loans, by the banks who are guaranteed a return by the taxpayer or the Fed printing (doesn't matter).

There shouldn't be any government money in education, today education can be provided cheaper than ever before in history of the world, do the prices do not reflect the reality. The reason of course is that all the price signals are removed from the system by government manipulation of the money and interest, by the Governemnt violent control.

The actual free market is not allowed UB education and it should be allowed. Government should be removed from it and actually from everything.

Comment From Glassholes to snapholes (Score 1) 91

Um... didn't we learn something from the abhorrence of google glass. I'd tolerate being in the room with someone wearing these as long as I knew ti was painful for the wearer to use them and put them in visible agony when they were activated. I'm thinking something like glass shard ear pieces and a 50Kv electro shock to the brain when turned on for ten seconds.

Comment Elephants have a defense against cancer (Score 3, Interesting) 258

And it's surprisingly simple. And they need it, because they have so many more cells than people do they would have a high risk of cancer without some sort of defense.

To summarize the contents of the link, elephants just have 20 copies of the p53 gene. To incite cancer, all the copies would have to be disabled, via the most common cancer generating mutation mechanism.

If you want to engineer people to be cancer resistant, it might be as simple as introducing more copies of the p53 gene into our genome.

Comment Error free copies wouldn't work. (Score 1) 258

The DNA damage that leads to cancer doesn't exclusively happen during copying. Sometimes free radicals just damage your DNA, or radiation does, or just heat, or other chemical action. You not only have to copy 100% correct but correctly repair errors 100% of the time.

In order to fix both issues to extremely high probability, we'd need to have SIX strands of DNA. In case of damage to one, the repair happens according to the majority opinion of the correct sequence. If there's no majority opinion, (all three strands differ) then the cell self-destructs. When copies are done, the copy has to check correctly vs. the previous strands. Periodic comparisons of the three strands would eliminate random bit flips.

Given the already low error rate of DNA copying and data storage, such a six stranded system with elimination of cells that fail the test would come so close to 100% that it almost wouldn't matter. Existing error repair mechanisms have the error rate at 10^-10. This sort of system would push it to 10^-30 or lower--since we're discarding cells that can't agree.


Comment Relevant versus price sorting (Score 1) 109

When I buy an item, I will pay more to get it directly from Amazon or from a seller that ships through Prime. That way I don't get screwed if there is something wrong.

Totally agree. Amazon's satisfaction policy is reasonable and uniform, so no surprises or hassles trying to save a dollar.

Here's something that puzzles me about their search algorithm. The first search will pull up "most, relevant" items. And you quickly scan the first pag or two for the cheapest version and find something you like. Then you switch to "lowest price first" sort order. And when you do this something really odd happens. That item you found using the relevancy search is often not there at all???? That is to say as you scroll down pass the irrelevant cheap stuff listed first eventually you reach the price point of the item you saw before and it's simply not there.

This also works in the reverse direction too. Sometimes a cheap item doesn't show up in the relevancy search as well. This I sort of understand: it must not have been indexed with the right key words so it gets knocked out of the relevancy search.

But the other direction I can't fathom. Why would a relevant item not show up in the price sort?

A cynical person might think they were trying to hide the cheap items from you but I sincerely doubt that.

Comment Re:Who knew? (Score 5, Informative) 294

It's pretty simple when you boil it down to its basic facts.

  • Fact 1: Girl was diagnosed and was being treated for a rare genetic disorder by qualified medical professionals at Tufts Medical Center.
  • Fact 2: Prior to incident in Boston, girl was shown on video walking, skating, and otherwise living a fairly normal life.
  • Fact 3: Hospital in Boston decided girl's medical condition was purely psychological and parents were forcing unnecessary treatment.
  • Fact 4: After the "care and treatment" received at hospital in Boston for nearly a year and a half, girl's condition declined to the point she could not stand, walk, or even sit unassisted and was in constant agonizing pain.
  • Fact 5: After resuming treatment for original diagnosed problem and receiving surgeries to correct year and a half of damage done by lack of treatment for original diagnosed problem, girl is recovering and is now speaking out against the lack of treatment and the whole ordeal wherein she was kept from her parents and locked in a psych ward.
  • Fact 6: State/courts initially backed the hospital and held the parents liable for child abuse, threatening to remove permanent custody and make the child a ward of the state
  • Fact 7: On the cusp of killing the girl with negligence, the state finally cut a deal whereby the parents (you know, the ones who were abusing their child so severely that the state needed to protect the child by forcibly taking custody and prosecuting the parents) would take their child back and quietly leave the state.


This isn't a complicated situation and we don't need Matlock to figure out what the fuck happened here. It's pretty plain and simple, actually.

Comment Re:Who knew? (Score 5, Informative) 294

Do some research on the case. The hospital's opinion is at odds with a load of other independent medical experts with direct familiarity of the case. The state and the hospital overstepped their rightful authority in such an extreme example of overreach that it crosses well past the point of negligent misfeasance and frankly some people out to be in prison over it and the state and the hospital should be splitting the cost for real care for Justina for the rest of her life.

That said, I don't think that justifies attacking the hospital electronically or physically; just through legal channels. But the hospital and courts were complete and utter pieces of shit in this case.

Comment Re:The whole problem was the unneeded secrecy (Score -1) 127

Trade secrets is the correct way of protecting knowledge, afaic all copyright and patent laws need to be repealed and for a company to make money it has to show results while protecting its knowledge and processes. I don't see anything wrong with treating a product as a black box that takes inputs and produces outputs, I only care that it does what it says it does by comparing the outputs to the expected results.

Of course this theranos thing (this is the second time in my life I am hearing about it, the first time was also on /. ) is a fraud and would be identified as a fraud based on the black box testing criteria.

Early investors should be more careful than trusting that a 19 y.o. girl with no 30 years of experience in the field will deliver 'ground breaking results'. I think in most cases this expectation will end up in a failure.

Millions of dollars are gambled on a promise because the market is set up for this type of a gamble by the Fedrleral reserve bank, by the dismal economy of the USA and by the government implicit and often explicit promise to bail out failure.

So the real problem here is the loss of efficiency in the overall economy, not that the product was never delivered, it was always a pie in the sky, just like never falling housing or bond markets.

Slashdot Top Deals

Save the whales. Collect the whole set.