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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Ya know what? (Score 3, Insightful) 281

You a troll? This guy didn't say "I got mine screw you". He served the community by taking a risk and getting himself and his kids vaccinated. That's the exact opposite of "got mine screw you".

What he's saying is, "I contributed to the public safety at some small risk to myself and mine, SCREW the people too selfish and cowardly to do the same!"

Comment Actually, there are a few cases smoking benefit (Score 4, Insightful) 532

Hello,

    There are in fact a few positive reasons for smoking. Nicotine helps schizophrenics regulate their illness. Also, nicotine helps some intestinal disorders.

    However, seemingly the use of e-cigs or nicotine patches or other safer nicotine delivery would provide the same benefits at far lower risk.

--PM

Comment Burning gas directly drives turbines (Score 1) 504

When you burn natural gas in a gas turbine, which is I think routinely done in the USA, the burning gas/air mix directly spins a gas turbine. There is thus no intermediary medium as you claim.

That is one of the reasons gas is cheap to use. There's simply less capital involved in handling the intermediary medium. No boiler, steam generator, steam turbine, condenser, heat exchange.

https://powergen.gepower.com/r...

--PM

Comment Maybe more for the oxygen byproduct (Score 1) 228

The other product of the reaction is oxygen. You can't get energy out of ethanol without "burning" it, which would require an oxidizer (probably oxygen), however, you could make ethanol, discard it, and the people could breathe the oxygen generated.

If it's a pretty efficient process, the oxygen might be the "killer app" for Mars purposes, not the ethanol.

--PM

Comment I realize that you are wrong. (Score 1) 249

There IS still an issue if your child is immunized AND vaccines are effective.

1) Vaccines are rarely 100% effective. So something like 5% of people vaccinated can still get sick. Furthermore, in the case of measles, which is highly contagious, >~5% vulnerability in the population to measles is enough to support an epidemic. ~5% vulnerability means that measles doesn't get the chance to spread and is incapable of becoming epidemic.

2) It's an issue for ME anyway, if people who are immunocompromised and can't take the vaccine, or are just sick, get sick because of vaccine non-compliers weakening herd immunity. For example, I don't some poor kid on chemotherapy with degraded immunity to die because someone else couldn't be bothered to get the measles shot.

I don't get vaccinated just for myself. I also get vaccinated FOR EVERYONE ELSE, and especially for the most vulnerable.

As for the rest of your comment, it is so incoherent that it's hard to decipher what you mean. Yes, vaccines fade in how well they provide immunity with time. That is why I get booster shots periodically--as should everyone. That said, the subclinical cases you mention are often also not very contagious.

--PM

Comment Elephants have a defense against cancer (Score 3, Interesting) 259

And it's surprisingly simple. And they need it, because they have so many more cells than people do they would have a high risk of cancer without some sort of defense.

http://www.nature.com/news/how...

To summarize the contents of the link, elephants just have 20 copies of the p53 gene. To incite cancer, all the copies would have to be disabled, via the most common cancer generating mutation mechanism.

If you want to engineer people to be cancer resistant, it might be as simple as introducing more copies of the p53 gene into our genome.

Comment Error free copies wouldn't work. (Score 1) 259

The DNA damage that leads to cancer doesn't exclusively happen during copying. Sometimes free radicals just damage your DNA, or radiation does, or just heat, or other chemical action. You not only have to copy 100% correct but correctly repair errors 100% of the time.

In order to fix both issues to extremely high probability, we'd need to have SIX strands of DNA. In case of damage to one, the repair happens according to the majority opinion of the correct sequence. If there's no majority opinion, (all three strands differ) then the cell self-destructs. When copies are done, the copy has to check correctly vs. the previous strands. Periodic comparisons of the three strands would eliminate random bit flips.

Given the already low error rate of DNA copying and data storage, such a six stranded system with elimination of cells that fail the test would come so close to 100% that it almost wouldn't matter. Existing error repair mechanisms have the error rate at 10^-10. This sort of system would push it to 10^-30 or lower--since we're discarding cells that can't agree.

--PeterM

Comment $10 refrigerator? Great! Can I have $10 please? (Score 2) 256

As the the other reply to your post said, how are people going to get *any* money if their labor can't be sold?

Face it, the more jobs get automated, the less labor can be sold for. And when automation gets cheaper in terms of resources than maintaining a person to do the same thing, then the people who own capital will do away with labor entirely.

Then, people who own "enough" will be fine, and the people who don't own will not be able to labor to make money.

"But there will always be new jobs" you say? That's been true in the past, but look at what has happened to the earnings of labor in the USA as a fraction of corporate earnings. It has dropped 50% in inflation-adjusted dollars.

And a weak labor market brings down the value of *all* labor. People have been climbing up the skills ladder like crazy in the USA. More college graduates than ever before. Yet the wages are not higher. Why? Supply and demand. More supply of labor means lower wages for labor. More people fighting over the same jobs.

Even the poorest won't live comfortably when they can't get *any* money. And the USA has demonstrated a deep hostility to providing a decent safety net. People are reverting to subsistence farming in Detroit.

Comment I used to have insomnia too, just like you (Score 1) 819

But instead of using alcohol, I exercise a lot (a little under an hour on working days as a rule). I have very little trouble sleeping any more, and I have energy all day and pretty much never feel tired at work. No chemical enhancement at all, not even caffeine, and no need for alcohol either.

Not to mention all the other health benefits I get from regular exercise. And yes, I have a demanding job and I'm a parent.

--PM

Comment Speculation is a symptom of wealth inequity (Score 2, Interesting) 205

The 1% now has so much wealth at their command they don't know what to do with it, which fuels these speculative bubbles.

If the middle classes had this money instead, they'd be buying houses and living in them--arguably much healthier for the market than the very rich bidding up these assets because they've got nothing better to do with their money.

It's just another of the ways that the 1% is going to destroy the goose that laid the golden egg--the middle class--via their own unfettered insane greed. Because unless the people have money, there is no market, eventually, for the things the rich make via their assets.

--PM

Comment Re:Then mandating military service is tyrrany (Score 1) 499

At least you're consistent. However, consider a competition between two societies, one which allows a lot of individual freedom, but has military conscription and vaccination, and the other which doesn't allow military conscription or vaccine mandate.

I think it's pretty clear the "individual freedoms" society will quickly be outstripped economically (because of lack of disease burden) and militarily by the one with "tyrannical" policies on conscription and vaccination.

Unless of course, the "individual freedoms" society had the sense to voluntarily have very high military volunteer rates and very high vaccination rates.

That said, suppose you're one of the enlightened members of the 2nd society who is vaccinated and serves in the military. How do you feel about freeloaders who are enjoying the protections you risk your life to provide, but are not only doing nothing to help but are undermining those protections by failing to participate? (Herd immunity).

--PM

Comment Then mandating military service is tyrrany (Score 1) 499

If you think that mandating vaccination is tyranny, then military conscription is 10x worse. In the case of military conscription, you're being made to take a far higher risk of injury/death and being made to do violence against others.

Given that the vast majority in the US feels like mandatory military conscription is just fine, what's so horrifying about mandated vaccination?

Mandated vaccination is nothing more and nothing less than the military conscription of everyone in a society for the society's common defense--against disease. It also has the benefit that the individuals are far less at risk of the disease, are not made to do violence, and are at far less risk than military service in wartime entails.

Personally, I think mandating both military service and vaccination upon individuals in a society is NOT tyranny but rather are practical necessities of survival of that society. Don't like society? Go live where no society has jurisdiction and live without society's protection. Like society's protections? Then do your damn share to contribute to those protections! Want to live in society but not contribute? Then be prepared to be treated as that society's enemy! Because you are.

And let's face it, we have a lot of societal mandates for the general good. You are "tyrannically" prevented from driving any way you want on the roads, AT GUNPOINT, for the safety of others. Similarly, you can logically be forced to not risk the lives of others by negligently allowing yourself to be a vector of deadly disease.

Fundamentally, you go too far when you start calling slight infringements on your freedom for the common good "tyranny". How about we reserve the word "tyranny" for rules imposed by the minority upon the majority with no input from the majority that oppress the majority for the sole benefit of the minority?

--PM

Slashdot Top Deals

Veni, Vidi, VISA: I came, I saw, I did a little shopping.

Working...