Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:organs and operations are free (Score 1) 445

> operation is paid by hospital

Or insurance. In the US, it's always an insurance company. The idea that a hospital/caregiver cares more about an organ than a patient, is economic suicide for multiple parties, with even the appearance of impropriety. It's laughable to see this discussion blow up because of studies in other countries. Insurance company decisions, in regards to long-term care and super-expensive procedures, is closely scrutinized in the US.

Comment Re:Presumed consent (Score 1) 445

Most importantly (IMO) is that, statistically, nobody thinks about organ donation too much in the US except when looking at their Driver's License every couple years. The public thinks long and hard about comas and other altered states and has plenty of time to do so. The slippery slope can't practically apply when comparing events that have orders of magnitude difference, in time between deliberation and consequence.

Comment Re:Only in America... (Score 4, Insightful) 126

This, like most plans about survivability on Mars, is fantasy level design. Just have to carry the water in supply ships or bring it with you around each transport ship (once we make ships that do that) or mine the water from the Martian surface (hopefully it's about the same as what we need, right?).

I believe, the only way to live on Mars, in the forseeable future, is underground. That has enough problems to make it impractical in the next century. It's been particularly biting that In the 80's we thought we'd have flying cars and instead we got the "don't pokemon and drive" freeway warnings.

If we can get something long-term set up on the Moon, we can handle Mars. Humans haven't been willing or able to try yet. It should net some tasty govt grants though, eventually (eco-dome experiments primarily resulted in a terrible movie).

Comment Re:Block them (Score 4, Informative) 116

I assure you, blocking the ads doesn't change the data collection aspect of most adservers. Disabled javascript (80%) and image loading (19%), you eliminate most of the tracking....excepting your cellphone. Nothing stops collection on that device. Having worked on a host of adservers, I'm surprised at how the biggest problems are scaling and manipulating large data, not the complexity of gathering data.

Comment Re: Nothing odd here, no sir... (Score 1) 118

...or he's just integrated software and it accidentally turned the output to arabic sometimes due to intention (maybe that's part of Cerebus) or accident. I wouldn't be surprised that he didn't detail the bugs of his program(s), especially if there were proprietary or not-so-EULA bits used. There's nothing about the film maker that seems like he's trying to be a major anything other than "innovative" documentary maker.

Comment Re:What's the rush? (Score 1) 216

> Any cashless payment platform leaves an audit trail

Look at any game economy. The population will agree on a stable desirable set of proxy currency and use that for alternate transactions and audit avoidance. We don't even use cash for everything...ever. I don't see what's so scary about an underground economy in some other currency (like Yen or whatever).

Comment Re:Fake News? (Score 1) 789

> You think your source is always right and mine is wrong so don't apply your brain.

That's not what I said. Always right or wrong is nonsensical.
Truth is subtle and the narrative can connect facts that aren't connected, so there's a question of why you would risk being manipulated by a source who formally states a lack of factual integrity. If you are tempted to claim "I can decide for myself", you are missing the can be manipulated despite your best efforts.

Once a source has shown to disregard basic standards of proof, there are other sources. Circle round if you find another. Shouldn't there be someone else who cites those studies outside of Tech Dirt?

> Believing every news source to be equal is the problem.
> No, that is what causes fake news to work in the first place

You restated my assertion, while saying "no", as if it's a disagreement. Not believing something is the default position (skepticism).
I feel like you're just too wound up now to be rational in an attempt to "win" something so good luck convincing someone else.

Comment Re:Fake News? (Score 1) 789

> Right, so nothing they say can possibly be true

I did not say that and that's not the point.

> This is exactly the issue that causes Fake news.

No, it is not and I don't think you understand the nature of the problem with Fake news. Believing every news source to be equal is the problem.

> You choose to believe something based on who says it

Tech Dirt has the journalistic integrity of Facebook, I don't need to "check it out" to treat it as such.

Comment Snopes and Fact Checking don't go together anymore (Score 2) 624

When you alter you contradict your own fact checking to include partisan interpretations and equivocation to bolster an agenda, you lose credibility.

Snopes is no longer a credible source for fact checking when they don't stick to facts as stated BY SNOPES. Now I have to suspect every analysis on editorializing. Snopes provides their own custom narrative on judgement re: - she did laugh, she did plea bargain him out, etc. Don't say false when it's true, but you are trying to meet your own overall conclusion. It really soured me. Yes, the story is basically false, but the fact checking there is factually incorrect. Her behavior isn't all that strange among defense attorneys.

That being said, the idea of "fake news" is tricky subject when real news can be spun so hard. Facts get blurred when put together in unexpected ways to form a new headline which is almost always to meet some agenda. On the other hand, a news story always starts with a perceived context, so which is more correct? The more factually correct or the more coherent narrative?

Slashdot Top Deals

Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. - Paul Tillich, German theologian and historian