Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Pharmacists can be replaced now (Score 1) 369

Pharmacists also help in another area - suggesting cheaper options. I had a medication which was not covered by insurance. The pharmacist suggested asking the doctor to prescribe a specific higher dosage, and the resulting pills could be divided into fourths. Same quantity of medicine for less than half the price. Sometimes the reverse is true, for example five 1mg pills is cheaper than one 5mg because there is a generic for the 1mg.

Another benefit: for elderly people, finding pills that are easier to swallow.

A robot *could* find such options for you, but probably wouldn't be programmed to (certainly not the pricing ones).

Comment Re:Basic ettiquette pays I guess (Score 4, Interesting) 113

"You're welcome" can come across as slightly arrogant. As in, "you are right to show gratitude for the generosity I have shown". Conversely, "no problem" and "no worries" can be interpreted as "no need to thank me, any reasonable person would have done the same" and conveys humility.

I suspect I'm not the only one who feels some variant of this, whether it is conscious or not. probably due to people of the previous generations using "you're welcome" pointedly when people forget to say thank you.

Comment Re:Anchor admits to lies on RT (Score 5, Insightful) 405

That's quite interesting, though the anchor did not reveal anything I did not already suspect. With RT you know what you get - news with an extra helping of bias, just like everyone else. It's actually easier to see through RT's because the bias is focused on Russian interests, but everyone does it. Fox's is deeply conservative, CNN's is deeply liberal, and BBC is close to neutral but still very western-slanted. The best approach is to read / watch news from different sources and form opinions then, especially while keeping in mind the biases of each one. For internet news I cycle through CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Straits Times, Asahi Shimbun, and yes RT.

My complaint is the way the original article threw "Kremlin backed" out there, as if that were unusual. BBC is backed by the British and Al Jazeera is backed by Qatar. Yet the same people who decry RT espouse these two as bastions of truth. While I do trust BBC more than the average US-based news site and certainly over RT and Al J, I recognize that is an opinion shaped by being Western rather than some magical knowledge. Both sides of US media bought the "we have proof Saddam has WMDs!!" rhetoric hook line and sinker for years. Either they suck at their job or pressure was put on to avoid digging into that.

Comment Re:Sprint is great... (Score 1) 78

Actually Sprint is great if you do travel internationally. They have unlimited global data (though only 3G speeds outside US/Canada) and texting at no additional charge. There's also some sort of $5/month pro-ratable plan that upgrades you to unlimited full speed data/talk/text in some countries, if you ask for it they'll automatically add/take it off during your stay. It ended up being their saving grace for me because their in-store customer service is abysmal.

Comment Re: Cool story, bro. (Score 1) 78

There were some winners and some losers for that. For about two years, I had the same discount applied twice by accident (came out to about 34% off). When some audit system finally caught it, I got a form letter apologizing profusely for the 2 years of billing errors "I had to endure". It's true, the extra cash in my wallet was little heavy to carry...

Comment Re:Radium Water (Score 1) 59

SSRIs don't turn you into some kind of psychopath that doesn't give a shit. That sounds like something straight out of "reefer madness".... Please don't perpetuate bullshit about SSRIs that may prevent even more people from being helped by them. They may not work for everyone, but the picture you have painted here about both kinds of drugs is completely absurd.

I didn't say that. People still care about things (work, friends, their own self being). FTR l've found them quite helpful for OCD at a low dose. But I've heard from a few people who take higher dosages that intense feelings of love for their children or s/o simply disappear over time (yes I know plural of anecdote is not data, but you can find internet corroboration). To say they are devoid of side effects that some find undesirable is a bit disingenuous. An artist friend of mine stopped because she thought it changed her brain such that she was a different person - except that is kindof the point of taking them. OCD me is an environmental activist/SJW who freaks out every time his roommate puts recyclables in the regular trash, and triple checks to make sure doors are locked. SSRI me gives 0 fucks.

And yes I know regular usage of benzos is bad - that is why I was advocating it as the "spot" solution not the "pop one every morning" solution. Any drug that has fast acting psychoactive effects can be abused. But for some people who only have depression cycles once or twice a month, a spot fix is all that is needed (not to mention requires less pills, so cheaper).

Comment Re:Radium Water (Score 2) 59

Except the best one (Diazepam aka Valium) is super controlled. You cease to give a shit about anything bad, and enjoy anything good, for quite a few hours. It's a spot solution that can turn a mood around that doesn't require regular dosage. The ones they like to prescribe instead (SSRIs) require regular dosage, have intense withdrawl symptoms, and at higher doses have a troubling mental side effect: you no longer 'love' anyone or anything, and even those who notice this will find they are not troubled by it.

Comment Re:Not doomsday (Score 1) 745

Fair enough. I acknowlege that as a possibility, albeit an unlikely one. Currently through luck more than anything else, the nuclear-armed nations are large enough and have enough high elevation land to be able to help their own people resettle within their borders. Some might even have their populations benefit from climate change (deserts becoming less desert) at the expense of the current non-human ecosystem. In that sense I would say Donald Trump's election is dangerous - he wants to give places surrounded by water (Japan, S. Korea) nukes.

Comment Re:Not doomsday (Score 1) 745

There's only 9 million in New York city, using the state population for hyperbole doesn't really help your case. In any event, the rest of the state (except Long Island, sorry guys) has tens of thousands of acres of quality land far above sea level. Much of it is currently being held by rednecks who *already* have been selling their parcels to developers building high end housing for people moving out of the city. Given the right storm, the situation would only be about 100x worse than New Orleans after Katrina. A disaster? Of course! Doomsday? Hardly not! The economy will take a dive for a little while, I'll get some new neighbours at 200' above sea level, but most importantly life goes on. Which it would not in the event of global nuclear war.

Comment Re:Not doomsday (Score 1) 745

Calling me foolish? If you are seriously telling me that sea levels rising 6 inches a year is even in the same universe of terrifying as the world becoming uninhabitable within an hour, I think you'd best look in the mirror. Your low UID is implying to me that you've gone senile.

I will humour you to and pretend that you are capable of rudimentary thought. When water gets higher, you move inland. If there is no more inland to move to, sucks for you. But there's plenty of people who have further inland to move to, and plenty of people who are already inland. Like China, Europe, USA, Canada, Australia. Eventually landlocked countries will get some coastline. Essentially, those too stupid or poor to be able to escape slow but steady climate change will die off, likely at the hands of the military of more fortunate countries, while the majority of humanity continues on.

Comment Re:Not doomsday (Score 1) 745

Yes but this clock is either representing "global" annihilation or "American" annihilation depending on how you look at it. If "American" you've already made my argument for me (people and resources can move). So global: if an arbitrary 20% of the countries in the world literally disappeared under the ocean tomorrow, unless one of those was China, "most" of the world is still fine and the event would not be called "doomsday". When it was concerned with just nuclear war, it was a measure of actual doomsday, as in more than half the planet becoming uninhabitable in less than an hour.

Comment Re:Meaningless (Score 1) 745

I cannot comprehend what goes on in people's minds, that they are more concerned about nuclear war (of all things) in this climate than they would have been with Hillary (who was openly hostile towards Russia). The decision to first strike with a nuke isn't ever going to be a knee-jerk reaction, so the cavalier statements Trump has said aren't any more dangerous than the loudmouth at the bar shouting "turn the middle east to glass!" However, continuing to poke the bear as Hillary would have done would have a greater chance at us being the target of said first strike. And then we retaliate, and then goodbye Northern Hemisphere.

Comment Re:Meaningless (Score 1) 745

They moved it forward several minutes when Reagan got elected to. In reality, not only did he not start a nuclear war but he ultimately ushered in the age of Perestroika [wikipedia.org] and an end to the Cold War.

If this is how things go for the next 8 years, then the biggest disaster we'll need to worry about is a shortage of crow to eat in blue states...

Slashdot Top Deals

Yet magic and hierarchy arise from the same source, and this source has a null pointer.

Working...