Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Why the harsh reaction to people trying it? (Score 1) 314

If it doesn't work, but it also doesn't cause harm, then why go do people need to get a court order in many place just to even try it? I thought this was a very liberal place that was generally against regulating harmless drugs...

You can calm down with the 'horse paste' insults too...it's literally on the WHO's list of essential medicines for people. People on resorted to trying horse paste because they were going after any doctor who would prescribe it to them. (Because prohibition policies are soooo effective...)

Comment Re:So (Score 1) 520

The unvaccinated are better breeding grounds for mutations that put the rest of the population in danger. We're allowed to care that a bunch of people are idiots and risking the health of everyone else. There may not be anything legal or ethical that we can do about it, but we're allowed to be angry at the obstinance and stupidity. It does affect us all.

I wouldn't be so sure of that, given how many people are fully vaccinated and already getting the new variants.

In the cases of things like Marek's disease, it's exactly the opposite - the vaccinated animals were the origin of the variants that made things worse. This article on wikipedia is still quite good though I'd watch for edits, give the current state of the world we're in.

I'd recommend doing some reading on 'leaky vaccines' because that's literally what the 'safe and effective' vaccines that they're pushing are. It's worth noting that other mandatory vaccines for mumps, measles, rubella, and smallpox are NOT the 'leaky' variety.

Honestly...the unvaccinated are getting scapegoated by manipulative media and most people don't know any better...that seems to suit Pfizer's stock price just fine though.

Comment The solution to this communications problem... (Score 0) 254

is to just loot and pillage the SnapChat offices. They've made it obvious that they're not willing to do anything to defend their property from being taken because apparently it would be racist and unjust.

The rioters would do us all a favor if they would have a party in the posh SnapChat offices and loot the idiots so that they might learn something.

Comment Re:Just pull out of Austin (Score 1) 260

They're doing their best to manufacture outrage - that's for sure. They seem to want people to believe that Austin in banning them, when really, they're threatening to leave if they have to deal with this requirement. (A requirement that even applies to a pedicab driver in Austin. Along with a limo driver, taxi driver, etc.)

Houston also has the same fingerprinting requirements. Uber threatened to leave, as did Lyft. In the end, Uber stayed...even with the fingerprinting requirements.

They're playing Austin like a bunch of cry-bullies. They feel that we all owe them an easy and profitable business model as they didn't do any due freaking diligence before jumping into new markets, etc. This is the kind of bullshit they pass off as 'disruption'.

Honestly...they can't afford to leave big cities like Houston and Austin if they want to continue to justify their current valuation, which is 70+ billion dollars. Literally...tens of billions of dollars more than GM or Ford. It sounds pretty bubbly to me.

Comment Re:Oh...they have access to better imagery... (Score 1) 82

Google doesn't (Or didn't until a few days ago) own satellites. They buy their satellite imagery from Geoeye and DigitalGlobe. I'm not sure if they own any aerial providers or if they just buy aerial imagery from a third party. Aerial imagery is higher resolution, but it's a lot easier to shoot down an airplane if you don't want it taking pictures of something.

I stand corrected on that...you're right. Just had to double check that for myself. I thought they owned some imagery satellites of their own already.

Anyways...the other part is true. Many of the existing satellites up there can do higher resolution than what we've currently been allowed to see. I got to chat with someone at DigitalGlobe at a conference once...it was interesting stuff to hear about. I had no idea about any of those details up until that point.

Comment Re:Oh...they have access to better imagery... (Score 1) 82

Airspace restrictions are a limitation on aircraft photography, but no such limit can be enforced on Satellites. You could not go get a high-resolution photos of Area 51 or Aberdeen proving grounds from your airplane.

Yeah...this is obviously true. When I wrote that I had more conventional things in mind, such as the 45 degree views that are available over many cities in Google Maps. Those were done with aerial photography, if I'm not mistaken. I think Bing maps and others are the same way. There were some OpenStreetMap projects doing some things with aerial imagery too...I haven't looked at the state of those projects in awhile, but it looked like neat stuff. Obviously there are services that will do aerial imagery for you for a price too...where allowed by the relevant authorities.

As for Area 51...I wonder how long it's going to be until some civilian manages to get a drone with a camera over that. Maybe it's already happened. Maybe they've already disappeared... :)

Slashdot Top Deals

Brain off-line, please wait.

Working...