Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Comment Re:Next Phase (Score 1) 597

Definitely not 12 gauge. Why on earth would you use 12 gauge for skeet shooting? It's a clay pigeon, not a crazy next-door neighbor. It was some kind of birdshot, I don't recall the exact spec, but it had barely any recoil, which means that even if it wasn't .410, then it was pretty close. Nonetheless, in most cases a quadcopter doesn't move nearly as quickly as a clay pigeon, and if you can't down a quadcopter that's anywhere within the effective range of birdshot then you're kind of a bad shot.

Comment Re:Next Phase (Score 0) 597

Eh... With a shotgun you don't exactly have to be a crack shot. I've done skeet shooting with no experience at all and typically was able to shoot two of them down in succession, (that is, both being launched at the same time, hit one, cock, hit another one) even at long range.

Drones should be even easier since you don't have to lead as far.

Comment Re: A effective attack and defense (Score 1) 159

You can either mail it in or bring it to a polling station.

I was at first surprised to see Arizona mentioned because our ballot system uses those forms where you use a marker to draw a line to connect your choice. The scanners aren't internet connected and just show a tally that gets reported, with write in candidates being manually counted where indicated.

That said, it somewhat makes sense that no actual damage was done in the Arizona case, though I honestly have no idea how registration data is stored as it is possible to register to vote online at the service Arizona website used by the DMV.

Comment Re:Idiots Rule The World (Score 2, Insightful) 311

Ugh...you're really part of that movement? Hay caramba...

I mean I get it, I've had enough with trigger warnings, safe spaces, unfair campaigns, and the fact that Bruce Jenner can kill somebody, and then proceed to sue one of his victims, but once he gets a sex change suddenly he's a stunning and brave hero. It's all a big load of 100% grade A bullshit.

This alt-right, and the fact that Europe now has 25% of the voting population favoring self-identified fascist parties, I think it's more of a reaction to the insane notion that you MUST hop aboard the pussy wagon and truly believe in all of the bullshit I just described above, and if you don't then you MUST be a Nazi IRL and we cast the out. Well, it kind of leaves very little choice, doesn't it?

But, I'm not going to go repeat world war 2 (I mean shit, I still have yet to see what exactly the world's beef with the Jews is) however at the same time I'm going to disregard that notion of "they came for..." because I honestly think both sides of this issue are evil.

Comment Re: Logic Says It Should Be Legal (Score 2) 391

Insulin is harder to fuck up than epinephrine, and if you do fuck it up the symptoms are easier to correct. Epinephrine, by the way, is the hormone secreted by the glands that sit atop your kidneys; most people know it as adrenaline after the name brand of the first synthetic version of it. Also, if you inject a dose of epinephrine standard for prophylaxis treatment into a vein, it'll cause a hypertensive surge that will kill you fairly quickly.

Comment Re:Logic Says It Should Be Legal (Score 3, Informative) 391

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion in the media about the real issue here, the EpiPen problem (1) has nothing to do with drug patents, and (2) has relatively little to do with patent protection in general.

IIRC doesn't the patent in this case apply specifically to the mechanism? And yes, epinephrine, for those who don't know, is commonly called adrenaline, which is the name brand of synthetic (but is chemically identical to the endogenous source, and thus no different from it) epinephrine.

And indeed, in many cases when there's a drug monopoly, it doesn't involve a patent. Because I have stage 4 CKD, I have problems with gout. The only medication that effectively treats it in my case is a drug called colchicine. That particular drug has been in use for a few centuries now, but a company presently has market exclusivity. Why? Well, when the Food and Drug Act was passed in 1934, any drug made from that point forward had have its efficacy proven before it could be prescribed, however old medications were "grandfathered in" until a few decades ago (I don't remember the exact year) when the FDA said they needed to pass scientific scrutiny, go through clinical trials, etc, to have their efficacy empirically proven. Colchicine was one of these drugs, and before this happened it was about 10 cents a pill, until the company that put it through its paces was granted market exclusivity as part of their efforts to prove that it works. They then trademarked it under the name Colcrys and raised the price to about $6 per pill.

And again, there is no intellectual property involved here, just the FDA granting market exclusivity. And to a point, I agree with this; they put in the effort to make sure that a drug that's actually by all definitions of the word toxic (it comes from a highly toxic plant) actually works and won't kill you, which isn't a cheap thing to do, they should be able to see a return on investment. But allowing them to raise the price of a drug that is super cheap to produce to a price that's just flat out extortion is ridiculous.

About the only rationale I can figure for avoiding the syringe issue is people's fear of needles

Actually believe it or not I'm less scared of a syringe than an autoinjector. Why? Because in the Army we were issued an autoinjector in case of exposure to some kind of gas (I don't remember which one) which you were supposed to inject into the muscle in your butt cheek. The scary part was how I saw one of these stick right through a 2x4 piece of wood. Imagine if you accidentally stuck your hip bone or your hand...oww...I'll stick with the syringe, thanks.

Comment Re:Logic Says It Should Be Legal (Score 5, Insightful) 391

Your resident crazy libertarian here:

Indeed there doesn't seem to be any good reason to prevent importing anything from international editions of books (save money for college students) to pharmaceuticals. There may be some merit to that argument for places like Mexico where quality controls are quite poor, however that should be a judgement call left up to the consumer. Likewise, I think the idea of tariffs, embargos, and other forms of mercantilism ultimately cost a domestic economy much more than they supposedly preserve.

Nevertheless, I don't think that's quite the root of the problem. This isn't, by any definition whatsoever, a free market. This is in fact a government granted monopoly. You cannot have both a free market AND a monopoly in most cases. That said, I don't quite understand why we give i.e. patent holders, copyright holders, etc free reign on how, when, where, and how much they can charge for anything with the sky being the limit. There probably should be some system in place whereby if they opt for government protection, then they must follow certain pricing and trade rules in order to keep that protection.

Slashdot Top Deals

As of next Tuesday, C will be flushed in favor of COBOL. Please update your programs.

Working...