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. ×

Submission + - Clinton Foundation works with Big Pharma to keep the price of US AIDS drugs high (

Okian Warrior writes: A newly released Podesta E-mail explains how the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) works to keep the price of AIDS medicines high in the US.

CHAI contracted with Big Pharma companies for AIDS drugs to be distributed in developing countries. In return, the group agreed to resist efforts to bring similarly lower cost and generic drugs to the US.

The email is a reaction to "comments President Clinton made on lowering domestic AIDS drugs prices at the World AIDS day event":

We have always told the drug companies that we would not pressure them and create a slippery slope where prices they negotiate with us for poor countries would inevitably lead to similar prices in rich countries.

[...] If we do try to do something in this area, we suggest that we approach the innovator companies that can currently sell products in the US with the idea of making donations to help clear the ADAP lists. For a variety of reasons, the companies will likely favor a donation approach rather than one that erodes prices across the board.

[...] I would guess that they would also likely favor a solution that involved their drugs rather than an approach that allowed generic drugs from India to flood the US market at low prices or one that set a precedent of waiving patent laws on drugs. ... We can go to war with the US drug companies if President Clinton would like to do so, but we would not suggest it.

Submission + - 'Calibration error' changes GOP votes to Dem in Illinois (

Okian Warrior writes: Early voting in Illinois got off to a rocky start Monday, as votes being cast for Republican candidates were transformed into votes for Democrats.

Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan: “I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent,” Moynihan said. “You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.”

The conservative website Illinois Review reported that “While using a touch screen voting machine in Schaumburg, Moynihan voted for several races on the ballot, only to find that whenever he voted for a Republican candidate, the machine registered the vote for a Democrat in the same race. He notified the election judge at his polling place and demonstrated that it continued to cast a vote for the opposing candidate’s party. Moynihan was eventually allowed to vote for Republican candidates, including his own race.

Comment Re:If the point was ... (Score 4, Insightful) 316

There's no proof that it has anything to do with Wikileaks, but in a world of IoT devices with no thought toward security, anyone who cares to do so can mount DDOS with the power of a national entity.

What's the point of doing what Assange and Wikileaks have been doing without any moral position? He isn't helping his own case.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 2) 258

No, of course it is not legal to set a trap to intentionally hurt someone, even if you expect that the trap could only be activated by the person committing property theft or vandalism. Otherwise, you'd see shotguns built into burglar alarms.

Fire alarm stations sometimes shoot a blue dye which is difficult to remove or one which only shows under UV. Never stand in front of one when pulling the lever! But they are not supposed to hurt you.

And of course these booby traps generally are not as reliable as the so-called "inventor" thinks and tend to hurt the innocent.

Comment Was that on purpose? (Score 1) 316

1) TruePundit is not a real news website.
2) It's much simpler than that. Julian Assange is a right-winger - a self-described fan of Ron Paul, anti-abortion, and with a long history of supporting authoritarian leaders worldwide.

Scott Adams says that attacking the source first is a tell for being "guilty".

I notice that you didn't sat that the information was false.

Was that on purpose?

Comment Latin lover (Score 1) 176

Both candidates have specific, well-laid-out proposals which anyone can find.

Yes, except Trump's proposals are all to women he's trying to feel up.

Do you know Trump's well-laid-out plan for international trade? Do you know his well-though-out plan for dealing with the deficit? Can you name a single bit of legislation that Trump said he would push besides term limits?

Is this discussion about *me*? (*BLUSH*)

Trump is a fraud of a fake of a fugazi [...]

Ah, I see it now. You want me to do all the work, just so you can throw an insult in response.

Here you go, Latin lover: "Salus populi suprema lex esto".

And no, I didn't look that up.

Comment Collateral murder (Score 5, Insightful) 316

Let's take a trip down memory lane.

Wikileaks published the diplomatic leaks in three large chunks, which included the "collateral murder" video.

At the time, Julian was surprised at how little impact the releases caused. He thought at the time that a huge drop would cause a huge response, but that turned out not to be the case(*). The news cycle quickly moved on to other issues.

He realized then that to get maximum effect you have to play the media a little.

So now he announces ahead of time that he has the data, then releases the data. He releases the data in smaller chunks, to spread the effect out, to keep the news cycle interested..

People see the "I have an interesting drop coming up" announcements as feeding his ego, but what he's *really* doing is getting everyone's attention.

And of course, a single monolithic drop is easy to counter with a juicy counter article. We saw that with the Trump "locker room" clip, which completely eclipsed the first of the recent Podesta E-mail drops. If Julian had released the entire tranch at that time, it would have been lost in the noise.

If Wikileaks had simply released everything at once after getting it, and not let Assange make his statements obviously made to be clear attacks on Clinton's campaign, you might have a point. But they didn't.

You're completely wrong on this point. Portioning out the drops gives the data maximum exposure, and helps to ensure that people notice and comment.

Julian is doing a good job, let's not lose sight of the sheer volume of corruption he's brought to light.

(*) From my memory of an interview he gave.

Comment Competing theories (Score 1, Troll) 316

There were Trump leaks? News to me. It seems like Assange has just been going after Hillary because he knows she won't pardon him.

There are really multiple competing theories on this.

Maybe Assange has been going after them because he leaks what he has, and doesn't have dirt on the other side.

Maybe Assange has been going after them because they are more corrupt than the other side, so he has much more dirt on them.

Maybe Assange is going after them because Hillary conspired to have him killed, and took "legan and extra legal" steps to silence him.

Your position doesn't look too strong.

Who are the "morons" again?

Comment She's not here (Score 1) 176

Why don't you try an argument from reason, based on some specific examples.

Maybe first, your favorite presidential candidate should do those things.

I have it on good authority that she's busy.

Perhaps you could post something in her place?

What would Hillary actually *say*, if she had to make an actual argument?

Comment Two sides to every issue (Score 1) 176

> A link confirming that his position is what you say it is would be nice.

Lol. Trump has been on every side of nearly every issue. [...]

And Hillary has a public policy and private policy on every issue (in her own words).

What's your point?

And I note that you *still* haven't listed an issue or reasoned why her position is better than his.

Comment Equal amounts? (Score 5, Insightful) 316

Wikileaks hadn't been pushing Trump leaks as hard as Clinton leaks. Now its supports are trying to take down US infrastructure. I used to think that Wikileaks is a neutral organisation promoting government transparency, but not any more. I kind of feel that they are up to no good.

What do you propose? Should Wikileaks hold off on Clinton until they have an equal amount on Trump?

Is that your definition of neutral? That they must expose corruption in equal amounts for both sides?

Comment Totally different! (Score 1) 316

.... or by the 2nd?

Looks like the shoe's on the other foot, at least for their 15 minutes of Internet infamy, whomever did this.

We don't threaten to jail our political opponents - that would be a dictatorship!

(But we totally use our influence to silence their detractors! That's completely different!)

Comment Would too! (Score 1) 176

Trump's proposed solutions would not solve anything, and they're aiming at issues that this country has already successfully [...]

Would too!

See how easily I can refute you?

Why don't you try an argument from reason, based on some specific examples. A link confirming that his position is what you say it is would be nice.

You're talking to smart people, you have to use smart arguments.

Comment Address the issues (Score 1) 176

The problem is [...]

And none of that matters. You can try to spin this Clinton's way or Trump's way, but that's just partisanship.

The only issue of note is "change" versus "stay the course".

It's not one-sided, your candidate is not the best choice in all cases, stop trying to make her seem best for all people. Address the *issues*, not your wild guess of what their actions might be in some hypothetical situation.

Both candidates have specific, well-laid-out proposals which anyone can find.

Tell us why her policies are better than his.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The algorithm to do that is extremely nasty. You might want to mug someone with it." -- M. Devine, Computer Science 340