Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re: Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score 1) 430

Sure, the US legal system is designed to make it easy for people to sue. You're overlooking my point: We should expect the government to be more discerning in its (civil) lawsuits than the "average" case. When the federal government prosecutes abusive lawsuits that cost citizens time, money, and stress, at least two branches of the government have failed.

Comment Re: Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score 1) 430

The plaintiff in this case is the US Department of Labor. They're not supposed to sue people without good reason, but the allegations as stated are very thin, and IMO likely to lead to a loss in court. Palantir will probably be entirely vindicated, but only after spending way more on lawyers than should be required.

Comment Re: Ruining it for everyone (Score 2) 302

If your car is driving along that dirt road while unmanned, maybe someone shooting it would be analogous to shooting down a drone. If a person is in the car, it's much easier to stop the car and tell them to stop (compared to a drone, where the operator may not be visible), and shooting at the vehicle puts a person at risk of harm (compared to a drone, where the only risk is recompensable property damage).

Comment Re: Rule of thumb (Score 1) 302

I'd go with something like: If the drone flew over private property without permission before, there's a presumption that it will fly over your property whenever it heads in the direction of your property. The property in the first case doesn't have to be your own -- it could belong to a neighbor who told you they hate drones and would never allow overflight.

Comment Re: And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interes (Score 1) 210

Having a control group without a diet plan would have been stupid. It would not have helped resolve the hypothesis (that fitness trackers help people lose more weight than the traditional self-monitoring of diet and exercise), and it would have reduced the power of the experiment by reducing the group sizes.

Why do you think the exercise goals were different for the two groups in this study? The "Physical Activity" section of the paper does not describe any difference in the prescribed regimen -- only, as I remarked above, on the method used to measure and record their exercise (and diet). As far as I can tell, you're flat wrong about the number of free variables.

You're already in a hole. Stop digging it deeper.

Comment Re: And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interes (Score 1) 210

I wasn't the one who said "You have to fully identify confounds and correct them. This study obviously didn't, thus is irreparably flawed, thus gives no useful information." My first comment was a way of calling bullshit on that claim (by AK Marc) -- but you proceeded to totally miss the point.

Comment Re: And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interes (Score 1) 210

Spare us your disconnected anecdotes. Specifically how do you think relevant, uncontrolled variables affected the outcome of this study? Like most blowhards, you have so far avoided being specific about the things you whine about. Please show that you aren't just a blowhard.

Comment Re:And of course the JAMA doesn't have an interest (Score 1) 210

Why do you believe "[t]he group that got fitness trackers also stopped participating in the health-counseling sessions"? According to the paper, "at 6 months, both interventions added telephone counseling sessions, text message prompts, and access to study materials on a website". It says the intervention staff had access to the fitness tracker data during those telephone sessions. The key difference appears to be whether participants (who completed the study) self-reported their diets and physical activity, or used the device alone.

Slashdot Top Deals

To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)