Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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

Comment Re:What's the long term cost? (Score 1) 324

So you'd have no problems citing a source for that, then? A photo of an epipen showing an expiry date of 2021 or something?

Epinephrine degrades steadily with time and expired doses are not as effective as fresh ones. I've not been able to find anything to suggest a 5-year shelf life for an epipen anywhere, so if you'd be so kind...
=Smidge=

Comment Re:What's the long term cost? (Score 1) 324

Ibuprofen isn't quite the same thing. Most drugs absolutely lose potency over time, and in the case of common over-the-counter analgesics that's not a huge problem since, at worst, you'll be getting a slightly lower dose than the label indicates. No big deal.

But in some cases, like with adrenaline shots, a lower than needed dose could be fatal.

As with food, "expiration date" is usually another way of saying "sell by" date - it is not a magical date when the food becomes inedible, but there are legal requirements to not sell food that is old to eliminate the possibility that spoiled food is sold... completely different from the rationale behind putting expiration dates on medicines.
=Smidge=

Comment What's the long term cost? (Score 1) 324

It's my non-expert understanding that epinephrine has a short shelf life, and that the dose is fairly critical so using expired vials/doses is not really an option... the recommendation is that Epipens be replaced after 12-18 months but apparently the vials/normal syringes only last about two months. I can only imagine that in a system like this, the exposure to oxygen would shorten it even more.

So you'd probably need to replace the syringe and dose daily, or every other day, for both dose freshness and sterility reasons. I'm sure you're still saving money in the long run but it's now a lot more effort, time and material to make sure it's ready to use...
=Smidge=

Comment Re:Clamp down on this socialist crap (Score 1) 579

I said nothing because that was the first post I ever made in this thread.

That said, you're a fucking idiot if you don't think Apple is in on it.

https://www.opensecrets.org/lo...

I suppose now you're going to pout and claim that there's no specific specific evidence that Apple specifically lobbied for specific tax rules specific to their business, or some weasel-worded shit like that... but all that will mean is you just want to stick your head in the sand.
=Smidge=

Comment Re:Clamp down on this socialist crap (Score 1) 579

http://www.citizen.org/documen...

And on several occasions it's been shown that bills submitted by representatives were essentially (sometimes literally) word-for-word copies of legislation drafted by lobbying groups.

http://www.npr.org/sections/it...

It's cliche' that if you're rich you buy yourself a politician. If you're rich and smart, you buy yourself a lobbyist - lobbyists can't be kicked out with an election.
=Smidge=

Comment Re:A couple of benefits - liquidity and parity (Score 1) 214

HFT increases the liquidity of the stock, and therefore its value (slightly).

The way I understand it, this isn't and can't possibly be true.

HFT "works" by creating both buy and sell orders for stocks and commodities at the same time, and either completing those transactions or canceling the buy/sell orders and posting new ones based on new information, often several times per second.

If the HFT system ever completes a buy/sell order, it only holds the stocks it trades for typically less than a second, meaning there must be a matched bid to buy and a request to sell that stock within that time frame if any transaction is to take place. Otherwise, the orders would be canceled and reposted.

In other words, HFT can only be effective if there are already buyers and sellers in the market at that specific time, and even then only to the volume of stock that is being sold or purchased.

I have a hard time seeing it as anything other than a man-in-the-middle attack looking to shave a few fractions of a cent per transaction. Maybe this made sense before computerized transactions were a common thing and you still had humans negotiating the transactions, but now that *all* transactions are negotiated and matched by computers it seems completely unnecessary.
=Smidge=

Comment Re:We should speed this up (Score 1) 263

Subsidies do not reduce prices; the costs are still there, you're just paying for it in your taxes instead of at the pump/meter. The stick in the eye is, with subsidies you're paying for it whether you use it or not.

That said, the benefit of subsidies is as you say; to foster growth by hiding the true costs and making the sticker price more appealing, and that is not inherently a bad thing.
=Smidge=

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Users are afraid they'll break the machine -- but they're never afraid to break your face.

Working...