Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. (Score 1) 209

Suppose you posted anti North Korean comments on a North Korean website. Do you think you should be liable for breaking foreign laws of a country you never stepped foot in?

You don't get to pick and choose which laws to obey and which not. Your country either has an extradiction agreement with N.-Korea or not. If yes, you can be extradited for anything that's illegal in both countries. If the country you live in feels otherwise, they can strike "insulting foreign heads of state" off the roster and the issue's solved.

Comment Re:Why not covered by insurance? (Score 1) 195

I'll repeat: "The Institute of Medicine found that poorer health in the U.S. was not simply the result of economic, social, or racial and ethnic disadvantages—even well-off, nonsmoking, nonobese Americans appear in worse health than their counterparts abroad."

It's not just the lifestyle, even though it *is* worse than that of almost everyone else, but it's *also* the way in which the healthcare is structured that makes it more expensive and still provides a worse outcome for people with health comparable to other countries. If you read the report you see that in the USA there is a tendency towards a lot of very expensive medical equipment that then has to be used, so people get MRI scans where you'd normally get an X-ray or just a doctor looking at your ankle. They're great for catching cancer, but they won't help much for other ailments and are merely very expensive placebos in that case. Americans also tend to be overmedicated with drug prices much higher than anywhere else. That's a bad combination for the patient (but very good for the pharmaceuticals).

Comment Re:Why not covered by insurance? (Score 4, Informative) 195

There are several areas in which the USA provides world class care. To the rich. In most areas, it's rather depressing to look at the figures though.

Here is the summary from a report by The Commonwealth Fund, which was set up to improve healthcare in the USA in 1918: US healthcare from a global perspective

- High U.S. health care spending due to greater use of medical technology, health care prices
- U.S. spends more on health care than other high-income countries but has worse outcomes
- Health care spending as % of gross GDP, USA vs Canada: 17.1% versus 10.7% (2013)

Some causes:
"Data published by the International Federation of Health Plans suggest that hospital and physician prices for procedures were highest in the U.S. in 2013.10 The average price of bypass surgery was $75,345 in the U.S. This is more than $30,000 higher than in the second-highest country, Australia, where the procedure costs $42,130. According to the same data source, MRI and CT scans were also most expensive in the U.S. While these pricing data are subject to significant methodological limitations, they illustrate a pattern of significantly higher prices in many areas of U.S. health care.

Other studies have observed high U.S. prices for pharmaceuticals. A 2013 investigation by Kanavos and colleagues created a cross-national price index for a basket of widely used in-patent pharmaceuticals. In 2010, all countries studied had lower prices than the U.S. In Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, prices were about 50 percent lower.11"

But perhaps, if you pay more, you get more?

"On several measures of population health, Americans had worse outcomes than their international peers. "

Okay, but we know a lot of Americans have been smoking more than other folks, and are more... big-boned. Right?

"The Institute of Medicine found that poorer health in the U.S. was not simply the result of economic, social, or racial and ethnic disadvantages—even well-off, nonsmoking, nonobese Americans appear in worse health than their counterparts abroad."

But cancer care is top notch in the USA.

"One area where the U.S. appeared to have comparatively good health outcomes was cancer care. Other research based on survival rates also suggests that U.S. cancer care is above average, though these studies are disputed on methodological grounds."

However: "The opposite trend appears for ischemic heart disease, where the U.S. had among the highest mortality rates in 2013—128 per 100,000 population compared with 95 in the median OECD country."

To summarize: if you state that Canada has inferior care (imploying that it goes across the board), despite research suggesting the opposite is true, I'd like to see citations.

Comment Re:50,000 * 30 (Score 3, Insightful) 377

I find that highly unlikely in the first place, as the timing for a "big one" is not "two months from now" but rather urgently needed by Trump *right now*. Even if they do have something, given the rather suspected source of the documents I think that if they time a really juicy email to appear right before the election it's going to be dismissed as fabricated, and proving it ain't so will take time that just isn't there.

So: don't keep your hopes up. Clinton may be skating the edge of the law, but given the evidence so far, that's it. A bit like Trump, really, except in different areas of the law.

Comment Re:So the bureaucrats have solved all the problems (Score 1) 296

This stupid argument comes up every time range is mentioned. You *won't* be able to hire a long-range car for your vacation because everyone else is also trying to hire a car for their vacation. If the rental companies keep enough cars for 90% of the population that only gets used twice a year they'll have to raise rates far beyond what you are prepared to pay.

It's a stupid argument, and you should feel silly for using it!

Okay: I feel silly :)

But not that much. What is very likely going to happen is an increase in range and number of charging points in the near future, at the same rate as the sale of electric cars, to the point where it's not going to actually be an impediment to long road trips. But yeah, there are going to be a few years where there will be a lot of friction between supply and demand. So let's assume I can't hire a car: in that case I just plan a longer trip to my destination. My parents used to drive a VW beetle that took 3 days to get to the south of France, at top speed. We just drove during the day, then camped somewhere. Some of the best memories are from those little campings in the hill with a steam train running through at sunset, or in the Italian mountains. It's not a problem if that's once again going to be the norm. In Europe we have rather long holidays.

In the US and elsewhere this may be a real problem though. But only until chargers and capacity increase enough.

Comment Re:"remove the low cost of ownership" (Score 1) 296

So then, what's going to replace all the lost revenue from gas taxes?

Likely there's no need to replace that. The removal of subsidies for oil and gas, combined with the lower need to buy oil from regimes we'd rather not deal with, and the lower cost of healthcare due to less cases of long cancer, astma and other assorted ills will more than offset the revenue, I expect.

Comment Re: So the bureaucrats have solved all the problem (Score 1) 296

If you won't be able to register an ICE car, it really doesn't matter whether it's new or used. The used car market is going to take a hit.

It's already taking a hit locally: if you drive an older diesel engine you're going to get a fine in most inner cities in Germany and now increasingly in Holland as well. Resale value of 10 year old diesels isn't high anyway, though.

Comment Re:So the bureaucrats have solved all the problems (Score 0) 296

For personal transportation the issue is and always will be recharging. Until we get 400kW chargers, it's kind of a step back in personal transportation. That is, basically until we get full-range (300mile / 500km) recharge times down to 15 minutes or less... boo.

Meh - I live in a country where I can do all my daily driving within a range of at most 90 km one way. Let's say 200 km for a roundtrip. Most electric cars already get that much mileage. For the holidays I have the option to spend the money I saved on fuel and hire a car at my destination. Over long distances this is already the most useful option. If I really want a roadtrip I can also hire the car for the roadtrip OR spend a few hours more while travelling and recharge. Tesla's network is already getting pretty good and it will recharge while I take a break. I take breaks every 400 km anyway right now, might as well make it every 300 km. It's not as if that's going to be a serious inconvenience.

I know the USA has much more empty space between travel points, but still. For most of the folks in the cities it shouldn't be a big deal to drive electric.

Comment Re:unfortunately they do not (Score 1, Insightful) 296

Binding laws are inherently undemocratic. Voters today should not be able to impose policies and costs on future citizens against their will.

Which is exactly what polluting the environment does, actually. It imposes disastrous costs and policies on future generations while raking in the benefits in the present, and while not spending the much smaller amount necessary to prevent a much larger cost later on.

When binding laws have been allowed, they have generally been disastrous, with current voters giving themselves lots of goodies and pushing the cost off on future generations. This is what happened in Detroit.

Binding referenda you mean? Because most laws are binding, that's why they're laws. And the policy of mandating electric cars in no way pushes the cost off to future generations: it's just 13 years from now. I certainly hope to be still alive then! So current voters are apparently mandating something that they themselves have to pay for to avoid incurring a heavy toll on their kids. I applaud that.

Comment Re:Did you read the update in TFA? (Score 1) 404

A brief answer: it's hard to fake a database with hundreds of thousands of emails, but in this instance, the emails came from another hack and had nothing to do with what was claimed.

As for this:

No I was talking about looking for nefarious activities within the Clinton foundation in general, not these specific fake data dumps.

I would like to point out your original statement (the emphasis on the last two words is from me):

Obviously If this is indeed a fake data dump, certainly people shouldn't keep looking for evidence of crimes in it.

I understand that you intended it to mean something else, but it just didn't come out that way. Hence my questions.

Comment Re:Did you read the update in TFA? (Score 1) 404

Obviously If this is indeed a fake data dump, certainly people shouldn't keep looking for evidence of crimes in it.

What makes you think any evidence you find is actually true? It is a fake datadump after all... even if the evidence was 100% solid, you'd still want at least several other sources before trusting anything you find in here.

Also, the reason this is considered "tampering with the election" is that Guccifer is considered by numerous people to be an intelligence service, most probably Russia's FSB ( Whether it's true is hard to tell, but the indications do point in that direction. So tell me: do you really want to look for evidence in a collection of garbage provided by a hostile intelligence agency? Would you like to publish that evidence under your own name? If no, why do you think anyone else would do so?

Comment Re:This is the missing piece (Score 2) 132

Well, these guys ( seem to think it may work, at least for small packages.

"As an example, on the eventual upper end, a full scale DE-STAR 4 (50-70 GW) will propel a wafer scale spacecraft with a 1 m laser sail to about 26% the speed of light in about 10 minutes (20 kgo accel), reach Mars (1 AU) in 30 minutes, pass Voyager I in less than 3 days, pass 1,000 AU in 12 days and reach Alpha Centauri in about 20 years. "

Apart from Mars being 0.52 AU away right now, it would take 15 minutes to pass Mars. Unfortunately, if you want to stop you need to put on the brakes after a few minutes. But still. That said, having an orbiting 50GW laser array over our head might make some nations a tad nervous.

Original article:

Here's the calculator:

A russian billionaire is funding this:

I've a picture of him at the press conference here:

Slashdot Top Deals

Save energy: Drive a smaller shell.