Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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

Comment It's fine to let companies set prices (Score 1) 316

What is not fine is to give a very long monopoly to only one company to make them... without competition the price will not naturally fall.

You have to allow some time let companies have some profits on research, but how long has the Epi-Pen been around? Long enough there should be more than one company making hem now.

Comment Re:More political redirection (Score 2) 524

Let's be pragmatic here. She didn't decide the logistics of her email server and how to secure it or delete emails. Her IT intern did this.

Let's be realistic here. She didn't tell her IT guy what tools to use. She didn't have to. Someone -- and it doesn't take too much intelligence to guess who -- gave a directive to make that server and all its contents disappear Jimmy Hoffa style. That directive was given only after the existence of the server became public knowledge and its contents were requested. Can guilt be proven by such an action? No. But can anyone make any remotely plausible, intelligent, cohesive argument as to why someone running for POTUS would knowingly put themselves in such an awkward, damaging position?

Clinton is no fool. She knew wiping the server after it was discovered would leave her open to charges of hiding things. The most plausible explanation of why she'd do this was because there were things on the server that were even more awkward and damaging.

Comment Re:More political redirection (Score 2) 524

Whether the secure wipe was used as a simple matter of Best Practice, or was done for Nefarious reasons, is not known. So when the article makes judgements such as "When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see." it becomes a political mudslinging story.

What exactly is the purpose of BleachBit? As described on its own web page, BleachBit "tirelessly guards your privacy." It doesn't matter if it was wiped because of "best practices" (something rather laughable given that Sec. Clinton was violating the "best practices" of the very department she was head of according to the head of IT at SecState) or to hide nefarious activities. The main purpose of BleachBit is to preserve privacy by "obfuscating forensic evidence." The OP's statement was completely correct and made no judgments whatsoever about the guilt or innocence of Sec. Clinton. You're calling it mudslinging because you don't like the idea of people questioning her motives and wish to deflect attention.

Comment Re:Too secure for insecure? (Score 1) 524

Dear Friend,

I am a Prince in the House of Saud. My uncle oversaw numerous companies that awarded to my family contracts for services never rendered at overly high rates of income. We need to transfer this money into Swiss bank accounts but cannot pay it to ourselves for obvious reasons. Our first money transfer will be in the amount of USD 32,000,000 and for your help in transferring the funds we will pay you twenty percent of the total.

Please reply immediately.

Donald.Trump@houseofsuds.com

Comment Re:Conflating with Network Neutrality (Score 1) 90

The term arose when ISP's were throttling P2P traffic and is about treating all DATA equally

SOURCES. As in, not prioritizing or preferencing ISP services over external services.

The Internet was DESIGNED with the ability to handle different types of data differently. It's part of the protocol. There's a reason -- a very good reason -- to be able to do that. And as long as the source of the data isn't what differentiates the processing, it meets the definition of and reason for net neutrality.

Networks slowing competitors is just an example of the degenerate behavior that could happen without neutrality to all data.

Net neutrality does not now and has never applied to "all data", and slowing competitors down is the very reason why net neutrality is an issue. It is not just "an" example of the problem, it is THE example of the problem.

Comment Re:We really need some laws against false advertis (Score 2) 90

Network neutrality is about transporting all data the same regardless of what content it is or where it came from,

No, it is not. Net neutrality is about NOT differentiating transport based on source. As in, not prioritizing the ISP's own video service over another vendor's. As in not charging more for an outside vendor's video streams than the ISP's own service. It is about the ISP not getting an advantage in the commercial marketplace of ideas by hindering outsider competition for services.

It has NOTHING to do with prohibiting differences in transport for different kinds of data. The Internet was designed with the capability to transport different kinds of data differently.

Even if we go down your rabbit hole,

It's not a "rabbit hole", it's a fact.

they are only throttling certain protocols/codecs that they can detect so lots of less popular protocols/codecs are not throttled and any hot new protocols/codecs wouldn't be either.

All sources are being treated the same. That's the heart of net neutrality.

As for "hot new protocols", that falls under the wonderful concept that development of new protocols will be unhindered and new services are free to develop new things. That's also part of the reason for "net neutrality" -- to foster development of new things.

Hell, any site that wants to avoid the throttling could just encrypt it to bypass the content detection system.

Yes, they could. And since the source isn't determining how the traffic is handled, it meets all the requirements for net neutrality.

Comment Re:social experiments (Score 1) 306

I don't think it presumes a lack of free will. I think it presumes that a very small percentage of young people, in certain situations and with certain preconditioning, will tend toward activities that result in pregnancy. People can control themselves. Those young women that became pregnant, they controlled themselves in such a way that they became pregnant. Was that decision made easier by the stimulus they experienced? Well, it looks like in about 2-4% of them, the answer is yes.

One thing you need to remember is that you, and I, and everyone alive on this planet for that matter, comes from ancestors who all did one thing right, without fail, 100% of the time, each and every generation, going all the way back to the very first humans ever on this planet. That singular thing that every single one of your ancestors have in common? They procreated successfully and created offspring that procreated successfully.

Think about that for a moment and let's compare. What if every ancestor of a certain person from the beginning of human history was a murderer. How surprised would you be when that person committed a murder? Murder is, admittedly, a more complex behavior than sex so it is easy to argue that sex would be even more likely.

Also, it's not like there aren't tons of papers, experiments, and conjecture on the psycho-sexual motivations of humans. I have read that just about every human behavior has been related to or attributed to sexual drives by psychologist, psychiatrists, philosophers, and pundits. Everything from the drive to work and earn money and upwardly mobile social movement to speech patterns, vocabulary choice, and clothing. So it's not about whether or not people have free will, its about how people choose to use that free will, and how the world occurs to them when they make choices. Its about how people choose to have sex, when they will choose to have sex, and even why they choose to have sex.

I also seemed to notice a slippery slope in your writing that was coupled with a pejorative view of sex. If that is the case I fear we may have difficulty discussing this subject without knowing each other better. When discussing topics like sex there can be heavy filters and unspoken assumptions that lead to misunderstandings between people that are not aware of each others presuppositions. My goal in replying is not to say you are wrong, not is it to argue, but merely to say that any discussion of free will and sex needs to include the possibility that people will choose freely to have sex, and that those free choices are influenced by antecedents, stimuli, and experiences. It is true that acknowledging that people can control themselves is a good first step toward controlling that behavior. It is also just as important to realize what you are dealing with when considering human sexual activity. To deny that there are incredibly powerful underlying components to the human makeup that can be manipulated to increase the likelihood of procreation is shortsighted and leads to useless therapies like teaching abstinence, non-communication on sexual matters between children and parents, and ultimately sending children out into the world drastically under prepared and unsupported.

As humans we are, at our basest nature, violent sexual beings that don't always make choices that fit with the predominant behavior patterns we display to the world on a daily basis. Forgetting this leads to all sorts of problems. Like assuming that people will, with he proper training and teaching, decide to not rape an unconscious woman when she presents herself as such. I would love to live in a world where everyone could be taught proper self control and willpower, and would use those skills without fail. However, this is not the world we live in, and this is not who humans are. Drop a fully sedated and unconscious supermodel in front of 10000 young intoxicated men and regardless of how well you train them, some of them will rape her. Its not surprising, really. Remember those ancestors that I mentioned earlier, the ones that have been batting 1000 on the procreation front? Many of them were rapists, too.

Comment Re:social experiments (Score 4, Insightful) 306

Sounds plausible doesn't it? Show the young lady exactly what it is like to have a child, but without them having one. That should scare them into not wanting children, right?

However, when I read about this I thought "Aren't they risking priming and further activating all of the reproductive programming that women (and men) are subject to at that age?" I mean really, haven't we noticed yet that reproduction is a dirty trick that our biology plays on us? The drive to procreate is definitely not rational, in light of population pressure, economic well being, and lost opportunities swallowed up in the time it takes to raise young. But in spite of this it persists at a rate that is greater than necessary to sustain the species. What does that tell you? It tells me that reproductive motivations have root access to the wetware OS and are using that access to control the system subtly and pervasively.

Personally, I am surprised it isn't more effective at driving up pregnancy rates than it is.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 680

So what you are saying is that I was correct initially when I stated I always thought it was going to be right-wing reactionaries, but somehow when I misinterpreted his statement and expanded my viewpoint to include both right and left wing reactionaries and generally anyone who places ideology above the sanctity of human life, all of a sudden I don't get it...

See you said: "It's going to be the right-wingers who kill you for threatening the environment."

I said: "Always envisioned right-wing reactionary militants as the catalyzing agent for population reduction wars."

See, pretty similar. Also notice that I don't discount that idea, only add to it the possibility of another source of social breakdown. Yet somehow you declare I don't get it. Whatevs, man.

Personally, with all the "denier" talk, its the politically active environmentalists with language constriction as part of their policies that I really worry about. They sound like religious people, and we all know how dangerous and destabilizing they are.

Slashdot Top Deals

"One day I woke up and discovered that I was in love with tripe." -- Tom Anderson

Working...