Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Nibiru (Score 1) 135

Why are they still covering up NIbiru?

Nibiru!?!? Pah!! Fantasy!

Everyone knows it's "Planet X"!

There were documentary films made in the 1950s about it when the war started! It was so important that they showed the films to large public audiences by having them simply drive into parking lots facing a huge screen with sound provided by window-hanging speakers provided at a kiosk at every parking spot.

I can't imagine how people could not rememb...!!!

Oh no! They used the mind-ray!

We're doomed.



Comment Re:Foreign? (Score 1) 159

Call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist but wouldn't this be more likely to be at least sponsored domestically?

Foreign hackers could be hired by domestic US political interests. Just because the actual attack originated outside the US does not preclude the attack having been funded and ordered by some person/group in the US.

Maybe that's why Hillary Clinton has been so determined to scrub her email history from her stint as SoS. She would have been in the perfect position and had the perfect opportunity to make the necessary foreign contacts and arrangements to set something like this up.

Maybe this is part of what Julian Assange has promised for Wikileaks' "October surprise" data release.


Comment Re:Free market (Score 1) 391

Ah, so you were deliberately picking a "bad" example. And when that's pointed out, you get all aggressive. In a free market, one could choose whether they want to import Canadian, UK, or Somalian drugs. A "free market" doesn't mean you can only buy the cheapest supplier, but that you have choice.

Learn what "choice" means, then try again. Or is that the real reason the conservatives hate a free market? "Choice" is a bad word, so any "choice" must be ended at all costs.

That there will be choices is exactly what I was pointing out. People would be free to choose Canadian or Somalian, Indonesian, Pakistani, or any other nation's pharmaceuticals. The point is that it's a pretty good bet that not all those nations' pharma regulations & standards will meet or match those in the US. As a matter of fact many drugs would be imported which are restricted or banned in the US on top of bad batches of low quality pharmaceuticals. Even with current restrictions regarding importation of pharmaceuticals, literally tons of both 'legitimate' prescription-only and 'illicit' recreational pharmaceuticals are illegally shipped by foreign suppliers to people in the US from online orders every year and results in many overdoses, poisonings from bad batches, and deaths/crippling disabilities.

There has to be restrictions on importations of pharmaceuticals because all the various national standards are not the same and neither are laws regarding banned/restricted drugs. Opening foreign online drug purchase will also throw the door open wide to recreational designer-drugs with little or no quality standards or safety testing.


Comment Re:Big data is gonna kill small crime (Score 1, Informative) 85

Might as well just go ahead with actual eugenics, just approach it from a positive reward system rather than a negative.

Done and done!

78% of PP clinics located in predominantly black neighborhoods, blacks ~12% of total US population but ~35% of total PP abortions. Margaret Sanger gave talks at KKK gatherings and was highly praised for her work by the KKK.

They seem to want to cover all the bases.


Comment Re:Free market (Score 1) 391

Indonesia? Why that?

Because you wanted foreign competition? That 'free market' you were on about the conservatives fearing?

Wait, do you now want to pick and choose who gets in? What happened to 'free markets'? In a 'free market' US pharma would compete with Canada and Somalia...and Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, China, Turkey, Israel, Russia, etc etc.

Don't want that? Maybe 'them evul conservatives' are onto something in opposing it?


Comment Re:Free market (Score 1) 391

The liberals want to set drug prices in the US, the whole "allow people to buy drugs from foreign nations" is just the whip they're using to pressure the other lawmakers to allow them to set prices to avoid opening the US pharma market.

So the whip to pressure the conservatives is a free market, and the conservatives run from that idea.


Pharma is anything but a 'free market', it is one of the heaviest-regulated US industries. This would simply be allowing in competition that can easily undercut prices as the competition doesn't have the expenses incurred by US pharma companies to research, develop, and eventually, after up to decades, possibly bringing them to market. Many shady foreign companies copy US patented drugs that cost US pharma companies many millions at each step along the way and sell the knockoffs for a fraction.

This would put pressure on US pharma research, development, and sales to leave the US and cripple what remains.

If the goal is to globalize pharmaceuticals then US pharmaceutical regulations, laws, and procedures for testing and certification in the US will have to be lowered/reduced/softened to more closely match the global markets like Indonesia or they will cease to exist (in the US, at least).

I too want reasonable pharmaceutical costs and robust research and development of new drugs and treatments, etc. I just don't think loosing the foreign competition on US pharma that's effectively hamstrung by a cumbersome, inefficient, and achingly-slow regulatory structure seems wise.

I believe much more could be gained all around if serious reform, downsizing, modernization, and streamlining of the current US pharmaceutical regulatory structure could be accomplished. At that point opening US pharma markets to foreign competition would not matter as US companies could easily compete.

Competition is great. It drives innovation and keeps prices low. Having one competitor deliberately hamstrung is not competition or a 'free market'. In this case it amounts to targeted economic destruction of a nation's particular industry.


Comment Re:Free market (Score 0) 391

Free Market, unless you want to buy medicine, then we don't let you. Funny how, in this, like so many other issues, the "conservatives" are against a free market, and the "liberals" are for the free market.

The liberals want to set drug prices in the US, the whole "allow people to buy drugs from foreign nations" is just the whip they're using to pressure the other lawmakers to allow them to set prices to avoid opening the US pharma market.

There are no "Liberals" in Congress (using the original definition of "Liberal" which derived from "Libertarian"). Those that call themselves "liberals" are actually "Progressives" and they exist in both (D) and (R) camps.

George Bernard Shaw was one of the early proponents of Progressivism (now deliberately mislabeled "liberalism").

I highly recommend that all do their own homework and do some digging into the history of the Progressive movement.


Comment Re:Hello women at these companies, (Score 2) 292

I'd rather work for a place that pays well, I'll work there for a few decades and retire.

Too bad that many employers these days don't keep employees that long. Heck at many companies you'd be lucky to make it to the point of qualifying for the health insurance/benefits package. Employee-churn helps to keep the costs of labor down when costs are driven up by government mandate.

The more that government causes labor costs to rise, the more ruthless employers will be forced to become towards the workforce in order to remain competitive, which will cause workers to grow ever-angrier & resentful towards employers. This is a good thing in the eyes of TPTB when TPTB are trying to incite class-warfare among the population as a reason to increase government power, scope, and control so as to maintain order.


Comment Re:Market Rates (Score 1) 156

The poors can get power from bicycle power or beg for power for services.

Nah, they'll simply commit crimes for money to pay for power, steal power directly with unauthorized line taps, and build generators that burn anything (wood, plastic, diesel, old tires, cooking oil, coal, anything available and burnable, basically) and pump out tons of particulates, GHGs, and other pollutants and toxins and thus make the entire situation worse all around.

People will not go without energy and if you try to stop them they'll simply go around, over, or through you to get/make what they feel they need.

Prohibition never works regardless of whether it's alcohol, drugs, guns, or energy.

Interesting fact: The US Government intentionally poisoned liquor during Prohibition and allowed it to be distributed killing between 10,000 and 50,000 people. Then there was Paraquat used on marijuana that poisoned and sickened unknown numbers of people.

The US government does not have the welfare of its' citizens as a high priority.


Comment Re:Mount Tambora (1815 volcano eruption) (Score 1) 695

They've realized that with oil being cheap, the non-oil energy sources margins are too thin, or at a loss. With an USA oil tax at the pipe line, or from imports at oil carrier ship (unless the importing country has already taxed it), would then increase oil prices, and the market would then put more money non-oil energy sources.

Higher fossil-fuel prices will also assist in reducing the numbers of old, sick, and poor (especially the poor) through attrition as the prices for heating and A/C go higher and higher and more and more deaths from heat/cold exposure and starvation (many will have to choose between food and heat/AC). Luckily it won't much affect those that matter...the rich and the politically-connected who can easily afford outrageously high energy costs.

Increasing energy costs have a very real and serious affect on the lives of people, and price increases are extremely regressive as they hurt the poorest first and worst.

Can't we come up with a solution that doesn't involve forcing poor, sick, and elderly people to die of exposure?


Comment Re:65 million? (Score 1) 130

Just imagine how much we could accomplish with all that welfare money? (3 trillion a year).

Where are your priorities, man!?

Don't you realize that $3T is what keeps the status quo the status quo and contributes heavily to a 90%+ incumbent reelection rate?

Why, I just heard about the new program being proposed by the administration to help quell the recent riots. It's sort of a spin-off from the 'Cash For Clunkers' program.

They believe that access to safe and stylish transportation will both assist in their financial mobility but also in bolstering self esteem.

They've floated a few possible names for a vehicle giveaway program for inner-city "justice-involved" individuals at risk:

"Caddies For Baddies"

"Navigators for Violators"

"Lugs For Thugs"

"Escapes For Rapes"

They briefly considered but abandoned an identical plan with motorcycles for those involved in gun violence they considered calling "Scooters For Shooters".


Comment Re: Using Satellites to Do What Satellites Already (Score 1) 159

Some of the equipment is even capable of ssb, eh? All of the last generation of tube based transceivers from the 70s/80s had the same basic functionality as todays rigs - that certainly includes SSB, AM, CW, digital modes, slow scan TV, and some FM. Even now, most brand new high powered RF amplifiers for hams sold today are still tube based, though solid state amps are getting more popular.

Sorry, was talking to younger people that likely have no clue and think if something uses tubes it's a step above the abacus at best. I've owned walls full of all sorts of old radio gear and used to have a repair shop back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Usually had a table at the hamfests upon which such things as E.F. Johnson transmitters/amplifiers, Yaesu FT-series transceivers, Collins Radio gear, Hallicrafters gear, all the old classics, might be found on any particular occasion, but I almost invariably ended up going home with as much or more gear than I brought, heh!


Comment Re: What is it that you say? (Score 2) 445

I think you mean, "Uber and the like are free to compete, but we're going to hamstring them so the antiquated taxi companies can still compete, because they're an extraordinarily powerful political special interest group."

Rather, at some point citizens wanted taxi services to be well regulated, but they can longer afford the cost of regulation given competition that isn't held to the same standard.

No, people only wanted the minimum amount of effective regulations of minimum standards of safety and quality with some assurance of honest fare systems. Although very heavily regulated, taxi services have only marginally improved in the last several decades in regards to unfair/deceptive/dishonest fare structures/practices and little else.

As has been pointed out repeatedly most taxis are disgusting, smelly, rattletraps that...if they show up at all...are likely in big cities to have surly and rude drivers that may even in some cases refuse you a ride if you have a guide/companion dog or you're carrying alcohol.

The system of laws and regulations which you insist that Uber, Lyft, etc comply with have almost totally failed to solve the majority of the problems for which they were created. That's why they exist in the first place. If the current system had not failed, Uber and their like would not and could not exist regardless of if it were legal or not. There would simply not be enough demand (both drivers and riders) to make such a system viable.

Yes, Uber, Lyft, and other similar entities are a response to demand for a better system, and that's because the current system of regulations, laws, and controls have failed. Attempting to simultaneously publicly vilify and force the same system that has already failed and continues to fail on those attempting to relieve the transportation stress caused by that failed system is not a solution. It's simply screaming "Sit down and shut up!" to maintain the corrupt and broken status quo.


Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer