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


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

Comment Investigating IF this is a criminal act?? (Score 1) 264

At the very least it's criminal mischief -- denying someone the legal use of their property. You can add all sorts of cyber crimes to the pool as well -- like using zombie servers means accessing (hundreds of) thousands of people's computers without authorization or permission.

The next thing to look at is whether or not this is just a dress rehearsal for a real attack. My guess is that this is just a test... They want to know what it takes to shut down a chunk of the internet. Next time will be the real act of 'terrorism'.

Comment Re:What part of this is hard to understand? (Score 1) 181

QOS is built into the Internet standard, and allow apps to self identify to qualify for a type of service.. -- but an ISP can't randomly (after payment!) put google mail ahead of hotmail, or charge people different for one vs the other.

So when every yahoo on your segment fires up BitTorrent your VoIP stops working? No thank you.

Basic prioritization: 1. Realtime Communications Traffic (VoIP) 2. Remote interactive sessions (RDP/SSH/Games/etc..) .....

Comment It all comes back to the patent system (Score 5, Insightful) 198

With the patent system as it is, where genetic codes and proteins can be patented, and where protection for drug profits is long and deep, there are situations like this that come up that allow unscrupulous companies to hike drug costs ridiculously like these clowns at Mylan.

Yes, many drug research efforts don't pan out. But Epinephrine has been out for a long time. Is anyone seriously going to try to tell me that $50 in 2007 became $304 in 2017? Even given the bogusly low inflation rates that are officially reported, that's insane.

This is profiteering. If the company didn't need to profiteer in 2007, why do they in 2017? No good reason methinks.

How about the definition of sole source is 'no equivalent product available at present'?

And how about you cap the rates at which drug costs can increase unless the providers can show material evidence that their costs have escalated so much?

I don't have $608 to shell out (US) for something I have to replace every 1-2 years. I'm carrying an old epi-pen that's probably not as efficacious now, but it's likely still better than no pen. I just can't afford the money to get a new one (let alone two, since protocol says you hit yourself with the first and about 30 minutes later the second if you haven't reached emergency medical care).

This should be a true generic. There should be equipment whose patents have an earlier mandatory expiry because they exist in the space called 'in the interest of public health'. I'm not suggesting these guys shouldn't have got their money back, but seems to me they are well beyond that point now.

On the other hand, this is exactly why the government or NGOs should be investing in some sorts of medical research in the public interest and making the product patents entirely open and available.

Epinephrine isn't patented. Its the injector. This seems like the kind of thing a Gates Foundation or even the Government could underwrite the development of (and may have already for Atropine and the like in prior days, if we call those syrettes an early version). Make the injector patent available and then it truly is generic because epinephrine is not patented.

The reality is that big Pharma has great lobbyists, political connections, and lawyers and the whole US patent system around biomedical issues defies any sort of common sense or rational thinking.

I hear rumours of alternatives, but I'm not sure they are available beyond the US borders. The Epipen fiasco and the price rise has hit many of us living in other countries too, but I'm not sure any alternatives exist where I live. I am going to look into that now though.

Patents should help protect innovation, but not form monopolies artificially (well, that may be other legislation that does that but that also needs looked at), should not have extensive duration, and should have clauses surrounding medical equipment that if the equipment price rises too quickly or if the provider becomes sole source, that the patent becomes licenseable by other companies for a very modest fee. At some point, the public interest has merit at least as great as profits for corporations.

Comment $5million for 1.5million accounts??! (Score 1) 341

That's about $3/account. I'm pretty sure that they made more than $3 per improperly opened account. My guess is that they're going to wait for people to complain, and hope that most people don't take the time to go through the bureaucratic process needed to claim the refunds (a process that will probably be much more involved than the one needed to open the fake accounts in the first place.

Cynical?? yep!

Comment Re:rotten at the top (Score 1) 341

You find me a bank that's not making money! They were making money. They just weren't making enough money for the executives' liking -- so they were pressured into increasing their profits 'or else'.

Executives and senior managers got their bonuses, and the line staff ultimately got the shaft.

Comment Re:A vote worse than wasted--but only in America (Score 1) 993

The US has gone through a whole list of third parties that grew into a primary party. Yes, it's disturbing to vote for a third party that you really want in power -- at the cost of possibly allowing the party you least want get into power. On the other hand, you sometimes have to take the road less traveled in order to get to where you really want to go.

That having been said, for this election, Trump is probably the worst 'worst case' I've seen in the US in a long, long time. as much as I'd like to see someone like the Greens gain stature, The risk of trump getting in is (IMHO), too disturbing to advocate a third party vote in this election (at least, not for president. For congress is an entirely different matter).

Comment Different answer if that weren't the intent (Score 4, Interesting) 186

Is a gun responsible for a shooting? If I build a Rube-Goldberg machine to drop a rock on your head, is the machine responsible?

In this case, doing harm was the intent of the machine and/or it's programming. As such, the maker is clearly responsible. If the harm was unintended/unexpected and there were no clear negligence, then I'd have a completely different conversation on this.

Things get more difficult as you get further away from the original source, but -- generally speaking -- if the result is generally what you intended from an action (or series of actions), then it's pretty clear that you're responsible. This is even true where there is a human intermediary. If I pay a hitman to kill my ex wife, I can still be arrested for first degree murder -- even if he kills the wrong person by mistake.

Comment Re:But they do, so do you (Score 4, Insightful) 113

While I have no problem with Google nailing pedos on the net, the problem I have with them searching through private images to do so is that it opens up a slippery slope for searching for other content that certain people might find 'subversive'... like being a Bernie supporter, or wanting to turn in certain kinds of corruption.

The privacy of private information that Google has access to needs to remain sacrosanct or there will be a huge pile of people walking away from Google.

Comment Re:Could Extend to Bernie Sanders, too. (Score 1) 416

That's interesting because you haven't provided any details about the subjects for which he is supposedly spreading ignorance. It looks to me like a symptom of you, yourself, being a victim of ignorance spreading about Sanders.

Have you been to his site to examine what his actual principles and platforms are?

That's because Sanders is spreading ignorance.

Submission + - Gene Spafford Spanks Prospective Obama Refuge.

darkonc writes: A (presumed) Republican posted a question on Quora.com asking:

Which Western democracy should an American conservative move to if they are afraid of Obama's policies and want to move somewhere more in line with Republican ideals?

The most popular answer to his question was from Gene Spafford (apparently a frequent contributor), who pretty much ripped the presumptions of the question apart. His final suggestions: Yemen and Afghanistan. Of course, you'd probably have to convert to Islam to take full advantage of the religious orientation of the governments there, bug beggars can't be choosers.

Comment Re:Yes but not at any cost (Score 1) 485

It looks to me like the main reason why the DOE turned sour on Thorium was that it was essentially useless for weapons production. As we've backed away from Uranium plants as seeds for the weapons industry, thorium should have looked better. Unfortunately we now have all of the sunk investment in Uranium technology. The MBAs like to chase their sunk investments.

From a financial prospective, it's also harder to lock in LFTR plants to your fuel source. The fuel for Uranium plants is very specific, so you can say "buy your fuel from us, or your plants go BOOM." Thorium plants, on the other hand, can (and should) reprocess their fuel on site, and just need to replenish the spent thorium to keep going... Not a good source of continuous high-margin sales for a plant manufacturer like Uranium plants are.

Comment Re:Pumped Storage, not Hydro (Score 1) 485

..... There is no point in backing wind/solar with ordinary hydro because you might as well just use the ordinary hydro and forget the wind/solar.

No. You use the wind/solar instead of hydro when they're available. This preserves the Hydro as on-demand for peak times and/or when wind/solar are unavailable. If wind/solar are ever more than enough to handle the region's power, then you can look at pumping storage, but we're nowhere near that point right now.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments. -- Earl Wilson