Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Duh. (Score 1) 248

The paper you are referring to mentions modifying cowpox to become virulent, not rebuilding smallpox from scratch. In fact that is not mentioned at all and that is for a reason - it cannot be done at present. Anyone who says they can rebuild it better put their money where their mouth is and do it with cawpox which is similarly sequenced. Not that they will be able at the tech level of today.

Read the paper again - it goes through how many things we do not know about how smallpox works - the proteins which nobody knows how they work, the inhibition of immune system, etc. By the way, the relationship to HIV is also of considerable interest and there is potential benefit to the humanity as a whole if we find how to study it. If being vaccinated against smallpox or having had smallpox actually confers at least some level of HIV resistance... Hmm... That is an interesting thought... To say the least...

Comment Re:Duh. (Score 3, Interesting) 248

No, You _CANNOT_ recreate smallpox from DNA sequence. Not yet. There is a world of difference between simple viruses which have been assembled in the lab like the polyo virus and a smallpox virus. In fact there is a world of difference between a SmallPox virus and Flu.

The SmallPox virus is _BIG_. It is so big that it is on the borderline to defy the common assumption that viruses are not visible under microscope. It carries a whole battery of own enzymes which are essential for the initial cycle of the infection. We have not yet learned how to build all these with the correct glycosylation (they have glycosides sticking on them same as your average eucariote protein). We are not in a position to assemble it either. If we were, we could assemble a whole eucariote cell which is not anywhere near the current science level. Same level of complexity more or less.

In 10 years we may be in a position to build it from sequence. Now - not a chance.

Comment Bollocks, for the most part... (Score 1) 399

And why do you think it matters? The only data in the HDMI spec which need to be isochronous, jitter and delay controlled, etc is _ONE_ _WAY_. You need several _MILES_ to get jitter between the signals on the different wires worth mentioning. The two way signals which can be influenced by this and used for keying, recognition of capabilities, etc are low bandwidth and non-realtime.

The only thing that matters for one-way serial connections like DVI or HDMI is reflections from the connectors (and transmitting/receiving electronics) and noise (especially from crosstalk). For 15 feet the cable needs to be really sh*t for these to show up.

In fact, just open up a player or a computer with a HDMI in/out and look at the traces coming/going from/to the connectors. They sometimes go for up to 10cm unprotected, unscreened and in HIGH NOISE environment. Snapping a 100$ cable on top of that because it "does not deteriorate the signal" is not just stupid, it is totally bonkers.

Comment Re:a judge with common sense (Score 1) 130

He will do a summary judgement at 20. So the reduction to 3 is actually only if the trial goes in front of a jury.

Most patent trials do not. If the summary judgement does not go the way the defendant wants it the defendant usually caves in and licenses at that point instead of being nuked by jury assigned damages.

In any case, that is only patents. Oracle has launched a salvo of license and copyright missiles as well.

Comment Re:Multiple? (Score 1) 458

Agree - the "paranoiac" option of "Whatever + VPN" is missing.

I use WEP just to make freeloaders and iPhones go away. However, in order to get to anything once you are past the WEP, you actually have to set-up a VPN. So the real security and real encryption comes courtesy of AES256 OpenVPN, not any of the WiFi protos.

Comment Re:that van may need to chgnge for that to work (Score 1) 178

China is not using the US 3-drug cocktail which will damage heart and other organs. It uses barbiturates which kill the prisoner as fast as the 3-drug and leave the organs nicely suited for harvesting. Further to this, it is a "clean brain death" so you can put the living vegetable on a ventilator for transport purposes if you want to. The only damaged organ may be liver and even that will happen if the vegetable is kept alive too long. If the liver is collected right away it will be in OK shape for transplant as well.

As far as HIV, HEP C, etc these are all tested in advance as well as the exact tissue matching.

In any case, my thoughts on the article are slightly different: "Only three? In China? You gotta be kidding"

Comment Re:Obama acomplishments (Score 1) 639

The difference is how the money is consumed. The fact that the money is collected via payroll is of little relevance.

In an insurance based system theoretically, you can take your money and go to a different provider as long as said provider is happy to treat you for the regulated price.

In Sweden you originally could, then you could not, then you had again "patient choice" in the early 90-es, then you could not and so on. Now you see it, now you do not depending on how "social" is the current party in power. However the option to HAVE this is present and it is an inherent part of the "insurance" style system. That is what the original law of 1946 intended to.

Similarly, theoretically, you can set up a private clinic, pass a few regs and as long as you are happy to treat patients for the amount of money spec-ed by the insurance you can charge that to the national health insurance. AFAIK in Sweden presently, this is mostly theory (but the law actually allows it). In most other EU countries it is the practice and the norm.

UK is a take it or leave it with no such option. NHS is state funded and the option of taking your treatment money and going elsewhere is not available even in theory. Some people tried that one by going to France during the worst years of NHS under Blair. They even sued the UK in the EU court. The end-result is that you can now apply to the NHS itself to have your treatment elsewhere which is from the realm of "yeah, right, not that this will ever happen".

That is the fundamental difference between the rest of EU and the UK.

  Anyway, this is all hugely OT.

Comment Re:Obama acomplishments (Score 1) 639

Sweden is a mandatory health insurance country. National Health Insurance act of 1946 implemented since 1955.

It tried to do "national health care budget" in the 1980-es by adding extra funding different from insurance into the health budget. This resulted in a spectacular UK style fiasco with waiting lists, failing care and so on. It fixed some of it by going back to closer to the original system in the early 90-es only to have that axed on "we are not so far right" grounds and fail again. It is now looking to go back to where it started.

Out of all examples that mandatory health insurance works and should not be spoiled by budgetary injections it is probably the best one because you have a system that is mandatory insurance by law and a long set of data on how it fails when it is not executed as intended.

By the way - do some reading before calling other people idiots.

Slashdot Top Deals

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer