Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:All the data means all the data (Score 1) 303

No, it isn't. At least in the US, posting medical records publically is only illegal if you yourself are a "covered entity," e.g. a member of the health-care team bound by law to keep medical records private. If you're a journalist (or some other random person like Julian Assange) and someone gives you a medical record, you're legally free to post it everywhere you want. The only person breaking the law is the person at the start of the chain. This is similar to how government leaks work--Woodward and Bernstein are within their rights to publish, and the only person breaking the law is Deep Throat.


Comment Re:Why is it troubling? (Score 4, Funny) 499

gender-imbalanced offices/teams/companies have a higher probability of disfunction

FTFY. Having too many women is not likely to be an issue for a tech company, but it's still worth noting. (Though I suppose you could argue that the problems in that case arose more from the fact that it was intentionally all-woman, which probably wouldn't attract the most healthy applicants...)


Comment Re:I like Prince but. (Score 1) 172

African-American culture is a subset or even a distinct American culture on its own. What may very well prove successful with one group of low income people may not work as well with another.

Yes, for black students to succeed they very much need courses that are separate from, but equal to the courses that white students take.


Comment Re:Of course not (Score 1) 345

The pharmaceutical companies aren't interested in developing inexpensive drugs you take a few times and then are done with. They want to develop something you have to take for the rest of your life to treat a chronic condition and charge as much as they can get away with.

Bzzt. This is a very common misconception about the motives behind pharmaceutical companies not going into antibiotic or vaccine research without government funding. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Any competent pharmaceutical company is constantly looking for cures to both acute and chronic conditions. Why? Because not only would it be a very expensive drug that you take a few times while the patent is active, but when one company discovers the cure, all of the other companies are left holding their dicks in the wind. No company wants to be in that position, so they all want to be the first to a cure even if they technically would make more money with a non-curative treatment in the long run. It's the Prisoner's Dilemma writ large.

Funding for antibiotics isn't low because Big Pharma doesn't want to cure people. It's low because there's a lot more money in a cure for type II diabetes than there is in a cure for carbapenem-resistant enterobacteria.


Comment Re:Shop elsewhere if you need this drug (Score 4, Insightful) 372

Incorrect. If brand-name manufacturers had this sort of power over generic drug approval, then there would be no generic drugs. The people who are saying that they can withhold consent to having their drugs used in bioequivalency trials are doing so based on a court case that never went to trial, about a company (mis)using REMS (a restriction placed by the FDA on certain dangerous drugs) to keep other companies from having their product. Daraprim is not a REMS drug AFAICT.

The real reason why there are no generic versions of Daraprim is because creating one and getting one approved costs a lot of money. When Glaxo was still selling the drug at a relatively low price, there was no incentive to make a generic because said generic couldn't be competitive. Now that Turing has marked the price up, a generic is far more feasible, but it will still take a considerable amount of time before one gets on the market. And even then, it might not be worth the risk that Turing will just lower the price and undercut any would-be competitors.


Comment Bad summary of good article (Score 1) 119

The article does not at all say that there aren't gamers who are fans of specific genres. What it says is that the giant categories of people who play video games (which should be differentiated from "gamer" in the same way that "people who watch movies" is differentiated from "movie buff") that small developers tend to go after in order to do well in the marketplace, like "MOBA gamers," "core gamers," or "female gamers," aren't cohesive blocs that all buy and play a variety of games within their interests. Indeed, the vast majority of people who play video games tend to stick to a handful of games for various reasons. The point of the article is that while genre gamers and hardcore gamers who will buy your game even if it isn't mainstream exist, there are a lot fewer of them than indie developers tend to assume that there are, and those developers should keep their sales expectations appropriately low.


Slashdot Top Deals

If we could sell our experiences for what they cost us, we would all be millionaires. -- Abigail Van Buren