Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: Any sufficiently advanced technology... (Score 1) 166

We used Oraquick as part of a study of high-risk individuals, and would confirm positive results. It's also a fairly economic way to do quarterly screenings for people who are in high risk categories. Of course, an individual with the means, would opt for a full screening if they were worried about exposure from a particular event.

It's used in developed nations primarily in the same way it's used in developing nations - for people who do not necessarily have the resources for and access to medical care. Inexpensive and better than nothing.

Comment Re:Any sufficiently advanced technology... (Score 1) 166

In general, people in Africa probably have a lot more understanding of HIV/AIDS and the testing procedures than people in the West do. For example:

You say that HIV testing requires drawing blood and testing at a lab. Nope - HIV testing can now be done with saliva, in a cheap ($40) device, and give you results in about 15 minutes. A person in a country with a high rate of infection would very likely be at least somewhat familiar with such a thing considering that those tests are vastly cheaper than the old blood tests. Moreover, as far back as 2015, there was a smartphone dongle that came out that can test for HIV.

Given that we have gone from tests that required a doctor visit, could take days for results, and required blood to tests that can be done anywhere, require a little spit, and 15 minutes to get results, it absolutely wouldn't surprise me that someone would think that advances made it so that perhaps sweat from a fingertip could be analyzed to give a diagnosis. Given that we have gone from gigantic, hideously expensive satellite phones that didn't do anything but allow you to (barely) make and receive calls, to tiny, dirt cheap, and ridiculously capable smart phones, it absolutely wouldn't surprise me that someone might think that a phone could now be capable of performing that analysis.

And finally, she probably knows many, many, many people who have HIV or have died from AIDS. In many countries in Africa, HIV/AIDS is a common, everyday thing that many people deal with, either as having it or having people close to them who have it. To say someone is stupid because they allow a prank app that's just shy of feasible and that preys on an omnipresent threat - that's not just ignorant, but cruel.

Comment Whole lotta wrong in that. (Score 1) 306

The golden path should be:
1) User reports a problem to the service desk.
2) Service desk looks into the problem and either addresses it if it's user error or punts it to QA/testing.
3) QA/testing investigates and documents as much as possible about the bug - replication steps, affected screens, whatever. They would do this both in production and a staging environment to see if it's an environmental issue.
4) Developer takes the bug and figures out the issue, creates a fix, which is then sent back to QA/testing.
5) QA/testing tests the fix in a staging environment and signs off on it.
6) Fix gets deployed to pre-prod staging, QA tests it.
7) Fix gets deployed to production, QA tests it.

I get that in smaller shops devs tend to just push stuff out (I worked in a few of those) but that's really not a great way to do things.

Comment Re:virtue signaling (Score 1) 476

While I admit that I don't like the SJW type (and I'm inclined to believe you are one),

You missed the point, there is no such thing as a SJW, it's just a way for you to show a tribal affiliation.

Your pathetic attempt to reinterpret my text, and in the process put in a few cheap shots on my person, suggests you are feeling threatened, which in turn indicates I came entirely too close to the truth for comfort.

Projection. You're not worth insulting. That was also the point: you're not saying anything, you're just raising the noise floor. I am also compelled to point out that in no sense were your words "reinterpreted", and I said nothing to suggest that your words should not be interpreted in their literal meaning. It would be convenient for you if that were true, and it would save you an awkward self-realization.

you're a wanker.

Deflect, dehumanize. How tedious

Comment virtue signaling (Score 4, Insightful) 476

That position is exactly as valid as saying that the opposition to "Social Justice" is merely a bunch of amoral recalcitrants.

But really you're just using "Social Justice" to mean "people I don't like". Because to the degree that that has anything to do with this subject, basically the strongest argument that can be brought to bear would be that the "slave" women have internalized the Patriarchy to the point of self-degradation. But if you're wont to hold that opinion, there are quite a few things higher on the list than private sex games.

What you're doing is virtue signaling. It's not very intelligent and rather boring.

Comment Re:Saudi Arabia (Score 1) 301

Your education on this subject is insufficient for discussion. You have no idea of the context of these topics in either current or historical Muslim philosophy. You're an adult and should not need to be spoon fed information. The book I mentioned will be a good introduction to the relevant phases of expansion and the beliefs on jihad at those times and in the present. And I can promise your opinion of Islam will be preserved.

The insults you deserve. What you are doing is more or less exactly what is meant by jihad. We as a nation do not need to engage in religious conflicts, domestic or abroad. The analysis of the threat from radical Islam needs to be driven by intelligence, in the military sense. Islam is a deeply divided religion, and understanding those divisions is very important in controlling the region. The suggestion that anyone is making a politically correct argument here is ludicrous.

Get off it. You know that you know next to nothing about Islam, and what you're objecting to is that you don't think I have any right to call you on that. You can't articulate what the Muslim idea of jihad is in either a historical or modern context, and you can't give any reasons why medieval interpretations of Islamic expansionism have any relevance to modern politics. You have never talked to any Muslim on this subject or read anything written by a Muslim on this subject, or you would know that violent interpretations of jihad are very much not the dominant view. Quote-mining Muhammad, whose every word has had centuries of religious and legal interpretation, is facile. You don't know Mughals from Ottomans from Umayyads. Go educate yourself.

Comment Re:Saudi Arabia (Score 1) 301

Telling you to get your head out of your ass and learn something is not an insult. You deserve abuse. You're spreading a message of fear and hate, and as it happens you have an extremely loose understanding of who you're attempting to target. These are all bad things, but your argument isn't completely baseless. You just don't know which parts might be valid and which might not, because you don't understand your enemy. You prefer to dehumanize and demonize them, because it's an effective way to make other people fearful. You want people to sign up for a religious war, and to that end you don't particularly care if your knowledge of the other religion is accurate. And you don't care about the consequences of this mistaken belief because you're a general misanthrope.

That this is a common behavior pattern has a lot to do with why these brown people you don't like keep trying to kill us. Your post could be a recruiting message for ISIL -- "See? The Americans are going to treat you like a terrorist whether or not you are one, so you may as well take up arms." And among other things this is exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted to have happen: that the US would be so consumed by fear as to oppress our own citizens, and export our own brand of indiscriminate terror. You need to figure out how to be more dangerous than useful to your enemies.

Comment Re:Saudi Arabia (Score 1) 301

You don't know as much as you think you do, and you're spreading a message of fear which is unnecessary and uninformed. Get your head out of your ass and learn your enemy's teachings -- it's the only path to victory. You need to understand jihad as it is understood by Muslims, or you'll fight the wrong threats. Mostly you're a terrified moronic misanthrope, but to the degree to which you're not you need to actually understand what you're talking about.

Comment Saudi Arabia (Score 2) 301

Everything quoted is true with one exception.

But one must also recognize that there is a weighty tradition to the contrary and that a large number of Muslims, possibly the majority, does not favor these reformulations."

Jihad is something that Islam can't really live down, but most people of any stripe are not interested in engaging in holy war. The problem is Wahhabism, which was originated by the House of Saud. It is still actively promoted by them and they want it to be the default sect of Islam. Wahhabism teaches that jihad is a duty of all Muslims in the same sense that praying five times a day and making a pilgrimage to Mecca is a duty. That would be the reason why 15/19 of the September 11th attackers were from Saudi Arabia. Al Queda is Wahhabist, and so is the Islamic State.

I hear Trump went to Saudi Arabia to kiss ass a couple weeks ago. Isn't interesting that at this height of anti-Islamic sentiment, our leaders are embracing the Saudis? Funny how this idea of Wahhabism has had zero press since 9/11 too.

By the way, if you want a real introduction to Islamic history, pick up a book called 'Destiny Disrupted'. I am the mushy liberal who welcomes all -law abiding- muslims, but I recommend the book in the sense of 'know your enemy'. It's not a book to change anyone's opinions. It may give you some perspective on exactly how far the Islamic world has fallen. It will refine your priorities of what sects to keep an eye on.

Honestly, Islam is a hell of a lot more problematic for its practitioners than to anyone else. The religion is fucked, and more or less incompatible with either the modern concept of the nation-state and generally prohibitive of democracy. But western civilizations beat the Islamic world so badly in the 18th and 19th centuries that we don't even bother to teach that part of history. The entire history of the Islamic world does not even merit a footnote in most western histories. And if you'll take a look at (e.g.) the civil war going on in Afghanistan, it will hopefully become clear that these people are mostly dangerous to themselves (especially in the sense that sharia law does not apply to non-Muslims). However, to the degree that there is a threat, let's do be specific about which country is exporting terrorism and terrorist ideas.

Comment Re:Believing crazy things (Score 1) 269

if you can't explain what's causing it

Bzzzt. It's very well explained.

predict the future by modelling the data

Predicting the future is hard, especially when you have to take into account human reactions to what you're doing. Modeling the entire planet plus whether or not humans take action sounds hard enough to me that I'm willing to cut people a bit of slack. That the warming will happen is driven by fundamental properties of atmospheric gases, and this has been obvious since Tyndall in 1856.

Personally I have little doubt that burning billions of tons of fossil fuels into the atmosphere every year is contributing hugely to global warming, if global warming is indeed real, but I keep an open mind. Personally I don't give a fuck what the current scientific consensus for anything is. Most new scientific discoveries go against the current scientific consensus. Fuck scientific consensus up it's closed minded ass.

Dipshit. Go learn the science then come back and tell us what's wrong with it. We've been trying to falsify this theory for over 100 years. It was considered completely invalidated throughout the entire first half of the 20th Century. The consensus did change. Read about it.

Open minded my ass.

Slashdot Top Deals

I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere.