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 Re:Fighting nebulous "hate speech" will kill them (Score 2) 373

If these companies even tried to end "hate speech" or whatever nebulous crime where a specific group of pigs are more equal than another group of pigs, we will see the end of these platforms and companies full sail.

Banning trolls will hurt their business, how? As an employer, I'm MORE likely to advertise on a platform that wasn't full of screaming, stupid Trump people. Those are not people that I want to advertise to, anyway.

Comment Re:Not a proper study, get this astroturf out of h (Score 1) 74

our arguments are not based in law, nor are they in agreement with the physician's code of ethics, which works by informed consent in such cases.

I've already posted a couple of links explaining the history, the law, and the prevailing practice of ethics in medical research... which you very obviously have not bothered to read if you're making comments like that.


Comment Re:Not a proper study, get this astroturf out of h (Score 1) 74

Nothing you just wrote about would be resolved if we were to let patients die from lack of treatment. Hell, none of what you wrote about is even comparable, for exactly the reasons I've already explained.

I really don't understand why you're having this difficulty: If giving no treatment carries a known high risk of harm to the patient, then no treatment is not an ethical option.

I'm not dismissing the efficacy and usefulness of placebo-controlled trials. I'm saying it's unethical to not treat patients with fatal illnesses if a proven treatment exists.

Comment Re:Not a proper study, get this astroturf out of h (Score 1) 74

Yes it does, that's why it's called ethics.

As in, it's unethical to take a course of action that you know will result in permanent harm to the patient.

Not treating IBS can potentially result in non-life-threatening discomfort. With patient consent that's an ethically acceptable risk.

Not treating brain cancer can potentially result in mental disability and death. It is not ethically acceptable to provide no treatment when you KNOW that no treatment will result in an unacceptable outcome. So you provide the standard treatment and compare the experimental treatment to that.



Comment Re: Trump is already a uniter (Score 1) 625

Even the URL contains the word "purports", which casts doubts on the accuracy, which is highly questionable based on the source of the video. The content of the highly-questionable video even explicitly says it was not about the 2016 election.

Comment Re:"Open source" voting machines are stupid (Score 1) 299

How about we throw rocks AT the candidates instead?

Also, it's not absurd; How do you verify the code of a secure system, but in such a way that it's not possible to also alter the system in the course of verifying it? Think of a rootkit. Verifying OS files and BIOS data relies on the OS and BIOS at least to some extent, so a carefully modified system can fake its own authenticity.

You, the average voter or poll volunteer, have no way of verifying the code operating on a voting machine without also having the ability to change the code on the voting machine, and if anyone has the ability to change the code, then the code is not secure is it?

Voting machines need to be black boxes, but the content of that box is too critical to simply be trusted... so electronic voting is a non-starter.

Comment Re:Not a proper study, get this astroturf out of h (Score 1) 74

If you're informed that you're getting placebo then it's not placebo anymore. It is literally impossible to have informed consent in a placebo controlled trial.

And even if you phrase it like, "you MIGHT get a placebo" that still doesn't cover you.

It must come as quite a shock that there are rather strict ethical guidelines when it comes to experimenting on humans, born mostly out of a very ugly history of malpractice.


Using humans as lab rats is simply not an option.

Comment Re:Not a proper study, get this astroturf out of h (Score 3, Insightful) 74

There are serious ethical concerns with giving a placebo where giving no treatment is substantially worse. You'd basically be condemning them to a death if you did that. That's why, in these kinds of circumstances, the experimental treatment is compared to the current accepted standard of treatment.

This kind of treatment has been in the experimental phases since at least 2011, and has undergone clinical trials;



And I believe this link, from 2011, is a press release announcing the approval of the trial discussed in this particular story. I'm not 100% sure, but the names and terminology match up...



Comment Re:"Open source" voting machines are stupid (Score 1) 299

The ballot itself is not connected with an individual, it's mailed in an envelope that has to be signed off on by the voter.

Then it's connected to the individual. It can be verified that a particular person voted a particular way; All it takes is the person opening the envelopes to take note (mentally or otherwise) of how target individuals voted.

Slashdot Top Deals

"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs