Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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:The REAL Facts (Score 1) 622

If a) then there is a 4 month old who had no choice in suffering the consequence and is suffering through the stupidity of others. If they fully accepted that vaccines caused autism, should have looked at the pros and cons and quickly come to the rational answer that even if you assume every single bad thing about vaccines are true, they are still the better choice, she likely would not be facing all of the potential complications.

if b) no, it's alerted us that no vaccine is 100% effective. This isn't news. Vaccines work through herd immunity. Once there are an insufficient number of carriers available, the disease will no longer be able to spread. That is the true science behind disease eradication.

Comment Re:Please Explain (Score 5, Insightful) 622

You don't need to even bother with any reputable source. The simple fact is this. If you want to beat an anti-vaxxer in an argument, simply give in to them. Admit every single thing they said is true.

Now, with that said. We are going to assume that measles causes 10 autism cases per 1000 kids. A 1% rate.

Measles alone, and JUST Measles, in a first world country, has a 0.3% mortality rate -

Now we have 3 dead kids, against 10 autistic ones. This doesn't factor in the kids maimed and permanently blinded by complications of just measles.

Now throw in rubella, diphtheria, polio, smallpox, pertussis, hep b, influenza, mumps and chicken pox.

How are those 10 autistic kids looking against the pile of dead, blind and scarred kids.

Exactly. I can concede every single point to an anti-vaxxer and still show the outcome is better with vaccines.


Should Microsoft's Amdocs Deal Worry Data Center Operators? 32

On Tuesday, Microsoft signed a patent cross-license agreement with Amdocs Software Systems. They specifically noted in their press release that the agreement covered Amdocs' use of 'Linux-based servers in its data centers,' and noted that Amdocs paid them money for the privilege. In light of the current state of mobile device licensing, with Microsoft getting a cut from most Android device sales, should data centers operators worry about having to pay Microsoft for their use of Linux servers? From the article: "To date, Linux advocates have been hypersensitive to any move Microsoft has made against the open-source OS—which, to be fair, Microsoft has seen as a threat since its inception. It's certainly possible that Amdocs approached Microsoft for a patent cross-license for its own purposes; but if that's the case, Amdocs would likely have disclosed that fact. Amdocs representatives declined to comment on the deal, and the arrangement has been completely ignored on the Amdocs Website. ... The question, though, is whether Microsoft will begin eyeing data-center operators as a similar source of licensing revenue. The company has avoided directly challenging Linux developer/distributors such IBM or Red Hat, instead targeting partners and customers."

Comment Re:Indeed. (Score 5, Insightful) 219


I have bolded the relevant bit that the biased summary failed to include. It is exactly the same as the Microsoft term above.

No, not it is not. There is a huge difference between Microsoft's (The Service) and Google (Our Services). If Google decided to come out with a new service where they allowed you to search anyones documents on their site, you've already agreed to it. With Microsoft, you have not. Is it a glaring omission in the biased summary? Yes. But does it mean that your stuff will only be used for operating,promoting and improving Google Drive? No. No it does not. When Google collects it and starts distributing your family photos as part of GIS, you've already agreed to it.

Comment Re:50 years ago... (Score 1) 184

"50 years ago the U.S. had a plane capable of traveling at Mach 3.35. Today it doesn't.
this is just false.

Fine. The A12 broke Mach 3 in 1963. So 49 years ago. I concede your point, it doesn't change the fact that this country has continued to shy away from the industrial and scientific frontiers that used to be established on a near weekly basis here. It isn't waxing nostalgic, its a simple truth. Our frontiers no longer lie in a national interest in being better than our forefathers. They lie in getting news that someone's kid took a bike ride to my friends list on facebook faster.

Comment Re:50 years ago... (Score 4, Informative) 184

PS... NASA still has operating SR-71's, so we technically still have a plane capable of traveling at Mach 3.35. And, God only knows what the slow, Government-teat-sucking, mouth-breathing engineers have been able to cook up in the past 50 years. Maybe they have us up to Mach 4 now.

No they don't. They haven't since 1999...

Slashdot Top Deals

Refreshed by a brief blackout, I got to my feet and went next door. -- Martin Amis, _Money_