Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

Comment Re:Restart the elections, primaries and all. (Score 1) 199

<quote><p>No, I am not new to the process and I know that there is always accusations of fraud real or imagined and such. One major difference though is this time we have lots of PROOF involved in it.</p><p>Them trying to accuse Russia is just a scapegoat at this point of them trying to misdirect from the volume of stuff coming out at this point that they can't rightfully deny.</p><p>I am one to definitely advocating to restart the process with the level of crap that has happened this cycle and the level of proof that has come out as the end results of this election may very well have been tainted already due to this just from the primary results already. To just suck it up and move on is to just let the damage persist that you clearly have evidence of.</p></quote>

There has always been "lots of PROOF", as you put it. Lincoln's people fixed the primary. Kennedy was elected in the closest election (at that time) in US history, where if in Illinois and Texas 22,000 voters had gone Nixon, he would have won. Yet, in certain districts of Chicago, more people voted for Kennedy than the total population, eligible and non-eligible voters combined, in the district.

And so on ... I just picked two easy ones. There are more; in fact there are multiple proven, to use your phrase, examples in every single Presidential election, period. It is so far from new to have "proven" fraud in 2016 that it's not only not surprising, it's a given.

Comment Re:Restart the elections, primaries and all. (Score 2) 199

I won't argue your points. I just want to point out that there has never been a US Presidential Election that was not tainted by fraud, real and imagined. I'm not suggesting that is a reason not to be vigilant, but to think this is something new is to reveal a very poor grasp of history, and we're talking the Primaries and the Election proper, back to the first ever election of a US President, with no change right to the present day. I'll make a bold prediction: the Presidential Election of 2020 will also be tainted with dirty tricks and outright fraud.

Restart the whole process? Not trying to be rude, but are you new at this election thing?

Comment What "influence" can they really have though? (Score 1) 199

I'm not sure exactly how much influence the Russians could have on an American Election. The US pretty much looks towards itself when it comes to news, and as for Election Issues, it's an even tighter focus inward. There is, of course, the influence you can get by throwing something out there and letting the victims (American News outlets, US citizens, and the Candidates themselves) do the actual influencing portion, however innocently they come by it.

But any non-US entity really has always had that power, if by some other means than hacking some server somewhere, by raising some issue or acting in some manner that involves a Foreign Policy situation. Still, the US Election is rarely about Foreign Policy issues, at least to the extent that, say, the British Elections traditionally have been. But it seems to me (warning: personal opinion ahead) that broadly speaking an American Presidential Election is about domestic issues, and to a large degree very local issues. In other words, the scope of influence possible with regard to a Foreign Policy issue is I believe small.

If you would argue that even a small influence is too many, well, there is a valid point there, but it seems unavoidable. Looking back, I would say that Israel has probably tried more often than Russia to influence an American election. The net effect was probably greater than zero, but still small, in the grand scheme of things.

Sort of off-topic, but topical, the British Monarchy has a very strict policy whereby no member of the British Royal Family will visit any Commonwealth Nation during an election campaign. By strict I mean to the point where they will cancel any planned visit (and in some countries, they don't get many, so it's a big deal and a big loss) should an election be called. In this case I would suggest it's more a thing of not wanting to be seen to influence an election rather than any actual influence, but there is the argument that a Royal Visit would tend to support the current administration as far as re-election goes.

All in all, though, I think that there are too many issues and too many way in which an Election could potentially be influenced, that in the end you are not going to get much traction from foreign influence in the first place.

Just accusing Russia of an attempt to influence a US Election goes a long way to negating that influence, because the US is somewhat paranoid about foreign influence in the first place (not that it's a rare trait amongst nations, but it does vary and America is on the more, rather than less wary side).

The end result is you can't actually be sure your "influence" is going to go your way; it could easily backfire. The risk itself is probably enough of a brake to make the practice unlikely to be a true influence, versus just one of a thousand small potential influences.

Comment Re:Epipen cost: $30, regulatory costs: $30 mil+ (Score 1) 326

<quote><p> <b>Repurposed insulin pen</b>- one-time cost of $100, should last a lifetime. Epinephrine - dirt cheap. Disposable pen-tips - less than 2 for a buck. Used insulin cartridges - free.
</p><p>I don't see why people haven't been taking insulin pens that take cartridges, emptying the cartridge, and filling it with epinephrine. Simple, cheap, easy to use, and you just replace the epinephrine every 6 months to a year, which is a couple of bucks. The pens last pretty much forever with 3-4x daily use, so one pen should last a lifetime. Using the longest pen tip needle will mean being able to hit the muscle instead of subcutaneous injection, unless you're more than a little obese.
</p><p>Advantages: Device already approved for injecting drugs. Dial a dose (more accurate than a syringe), stick it in you, push the button with your thumb.. Easily replaceable needle. Available over-the-counter at most pharmacies.
</p><p>The cartridges you can get free almost empty from anyone who uses them (they were goig to dispose of them at that point anyway), you can use a syringe to inject air into the narrow end of the cartridge until the rubber stopper pops out, rinse VERY well (don't want any traces of insulin), add the epinephrine, stick the rubber stopper back in, you're all set for the next year (no, epinephrine doesn't "go bad" after 6 months. Studies show that at that point it's still at 90% potency or better. Just look for a color change).
</p><p>The pen is under $100, the cartridges are free, the pentip needles are less than half a buck apiece so if you ask someone with type 1 diabetes they'll probably just give you one, along with the near-empty cartridge they were going to toss, so once you buy the pen, your annual cost will be what - $5.00?
</p><p>As for ease of use, kids already use them.</p></quote>

I think the objection to using an Insulin Pen is that Insulin to someone who is not diabetic can be fatal. So the liability exists (Tort Law, remember, not "beyond a reasonable doubt") if it can be shown that even a trace of Insulin remained inside the cartridge, or who knows, maybe that it is only possible there could have been Insulin in the cartridge.

So that leaves you with the option where the user is the only person who has anything whatsoever to do with the DIY re-purposed Insulin pen. If anyone else even comes close to helping this device come to be, that person gets sued. Or, put another way, the user must be both diabetic and require the use of the EpiPen.

It would be enough to scare me off, anyway.

If you somehow used a sterile, empty cartridge, then the issue of dose comes up, as an Insulin pen requires you to set the dose manually and can deliver a huge variance in dosage. Not exactly a solution if you need someone's help, or at least not all the time. In other words it fails the "Idiot Proof" test. Is that enough to kill the idea? It wouldn't be for me, assuming I couldn't afford the approved version, but, as always, YMMV

Comment Re:Single payer system would avoid this problem (Score 3, Interesting) 326

<quote><p>Most of the western European countries regulate the price of health care. Most of them are NOT single payer. The two do not go hand in hand.</p><p>I'm personally a fan of the Swedish model, with minimal national regulation and all the money and implementation details are handled by the provinces. We should pass an amendment forcing the states to provide a certain level of health services. Everyone in the U.S. seems to be fixated on coming to a federal solution as quickly as possible, putting all of our eggs into one basket and ignoring the half of the population that disagrees with them.</p></quote>

You just described the Canadian Health Care system.
Federal Government requires that, in order for a Province to receive funding equal to about 10% of i's Health Care costs, it adheres to the one criteria which can be summed as:

All Health Care is provided by the Provinces, and they set the terms and scope of that care. No two Provinces in Canada have the same Health Care system.

In order to get a payment from the Federal Government, a Province must comply with the Canada Health Act, which basically says:

A Health Care provider must be either all-in or all-out when it comes to accepting Medicare patients. That is, you can accept patients and bill the Province, or you can accept patients and bill the Patient (or his/her insurer) but you cannot accept some of each. In or Out (and there are many Private doctors, clinics, and even entire hospitals in Canada. They are not prohibited).

A Province is free, of course, to forego the Federal Government's cheque and ignore the above, or have no Health Care at all, or comply with the CHA and offer anything at all in terms of what is covered. As it is now, no Province has opted out.

The Federal payment is equal to about 10% of a Province's Health Care costs.

Comment Re: Other than Brother... (Score 1) 387

HP makes a quality printer if you go by the output when new. The trouble is HP is notorious for these kinds of back-door attacks on it's users. I too was once a loyal HP printer user. I too quit on them on or about 2001, and went back to Seiko (Epson), the makers of my very first inkjet, circa 1995. I have yet to regret my decision.

Oh, and have you ever attempted to navigate HP support? My Lord, it's a blueprint for frustrating users. You could probably bring down an entire company by somehow selling them a clone of the HP system. Better than Industrial Espionage, because of the 100% potential success rate.

Comment Re:Covered in the past. (Score 2) 271

<quote>You don't even need vacuum tubes/valves, just build a <a href="http://www.siliconchip.com.au/Issue/2014/August/Nirvana+Valve+Sound+Simulator?res=nonflash">valve sound simulator</a> and you can get all the distortion and noise of the genuine tube/valve sound without any of the heat, fragility, and power consumption. It's a win/win situation.</quote>

They do throw some heat, they are far from fragile (otherwise every aircraft flight would be a throw of the dice, as there is no solid-state means of creating radar) and they use power because they are most often used in high-power applications where transistors simply cannot survive, even briefly (like, say, radar, terrestrial broadcasting, your microwave oven, and so on).

I am quite familiar with the digital simulations of vacuum tube audio sonics and tone, and the best they can do is come close. In no way do they sound exactly the same as a real-world vacuum tube circuit, which is why such devices still exist. They can emulate the sound in an mp3-kind of fidelity though, and generally they can only mimic the most eggrarious distortion modes of a tube driven circuit ... kind of like how TV Soap Opera Set colour mimics what you see with your eyes if you look around the room.

Comment There is this thing called "Google" (Score 1) 271

There is this thing called Google where you can search for things, like information, on the internet.
I suggest the OP use it, where they will discover rich information on how to build your own vacuum tubes from scratch.

Now, as to why you would want to, keeping in mind your assertion that it's to build a better vacuum tube driven audio device, I say you are barking up the wrong tree and the commercial efforts, either current production or New Old Stock (NOS) or even good, functioning used tubes (or valves, as those in the UK tend to say) will out-perform whatever you might come up with at home.

Oh, and did I mention the health hazards? Your typical vacuum tube fab was an environmental nightmare. Now you can poison your own yard. Yaaaaaay!

Comment Re:On the Inside? (Score 1) 192

<quote><p>Insulation on the <i>inside</i> of the fuel tanks? Who puts insulation on the <i>inside</i> of a fuel tank?</p><p>Reading between the lines, it is probably an anti-corrosion coating, not some foam or fiberglass.</p><p>There's really only one product on the market for this, from <a href="AHREF=">ATFI</a>, and the company relies upon knowingly upon falsified data-analysis to make the sale. ATFI bragged about their contract as a subcontractor to the F-35 in a press release a year or two ago . . .</p><p>Looking today, I see that ATFI has disabled their RSS scroller, and has disabled their previously-functioning link<a href="http://www.atfinet.com/index.php/site-media"> <b>NEWS</b> </a> menu-link at the top of their website.</p><p>Huh. No better way to show that they are the guilty party, eh?</p></quote>

The foam is not insulation (some Journalist decided that is what the foam is used for), it's for Fire Suppression, same as used on competition wheeled vehicles.

Comment Nothing to see here, folks (Score 1) 192

Now, I'm not going to defend the F-35 program against all it's issues, and there are issues, but fire-retardent foam inside fuel tanks is a problem that is solved, and has been for a very long time. This is just one supplier who fucked up, and that supplier will pay a price for it's incompetence. The issue was discovered, it will be easily fixed, and they will be flying again in short order. Yeah, I know they have been grounded, but that's exactly what you are supposed to do when an issue is discovered. "F-35" is a headline-grabbing set of characters, but as is often the case, this is only news because it gathers advertising-revenue generating eyes. As news stories go, it's not really much of a story.

Comment Re:Turnabout: their dogma ran over their karma (Score 1) 86

<quote><p>Unless the fault lies not in the battery, but in the charging circuitry and/or algorithms controlling said circuitry.</p></quote>

It shouldn't matter. LiON battery packs are supposed to have a fail-safe circuit built into the battery itself, that disables the battery entirely if certain charging parameters are met that are known to be dangerous. In theory a faulty charging system should result in a dead battery, not a fire.

Comment Re:Turnabout: their dogma ran over their karma (Score 1) 86

I disagree completely. Not that I'm in favour of non-replaceable batteries, but because I'm in favour of safety. The issue is that users will inevitably replace any user-replaceable battery with the least expensive available unit. It's these marginal batteries that don't properly incorporate the very necessary LiON safety electronics that form part of every LiON battery pack.

In other words, although non-replaceable batteries are a pain, and although Samsung in this instance has somehow managed to incorporate a somewhat dangerous battery pack / charging regimen (either of which can lead to fires), none the less tight control of the battery supplier's product is the only way to mitigate the issue.

Every manufacturer of a LiON-powered device has had, at some point, problems with a battery fire hazard. They all are aware of the potential dangers. Just because there is a current incident with Samsung's smartphone does not mean they are not actively working to have no problems. Shit happens, even when you are looking out for shit. But it happens less when you are on the case than when you have no control over it.

What are the chances that a large scale no-cost recall ... actually one with a small incentive thrown in ... would happen with a low-cost perhaps generic-labelled replacement? I say zero.

Comment Re:Surprised I'm still alive! (Score 1) 527

<quote>

<quote><p>We were made to eat meat, that is the bottom line.</p></quote>

<p>Considering that the primate whose digestive system closest to ours is Orangutan, we were made to eat fruit and scavenging the odd bit of fat or an insect when we can. Additional information about what we were meant to eat can also be gleaned from examining the diets of tribal and aboriginal humans.</p><p>
Weston A Price did this work decades ago and also found that Orangutan who ate scavenged human fast food would get the same diseases modern humans get. </p><p>
The bottom line? Don't eat processed foods, they mess around with the way the body figures out what nutrients it needs.</p></quote>

The *animal* whose diet and digestive system is closest to ours is the bear, another omnivore like ourselves.

Bears, by the way, are very much attracted to sugars. They will eat vegetables* but much prefer fruits, and consume large quantities of insects and animal protein. Humans also consume their share of insects, although in disguised form ... insect parts found in certain foods like peanut butter or jams, and of course all flours contain insect eggs. In some parts of the world they readily eat insects whole, so it's a cultural revulsion rather than a dietary one.

* Except onions. No animal other than humans will readily eat onions, raw or cooked. If you are a camper, you can find campsites easily by the onions left behind after animals have eaten everything else the previous humans have discarded.

Comment Re:More "research" (Score 1) 45

Yes, some /.'ers may not remember this one, I think it dates back to the mid 1990's, but it was determined you could accurately discover every keystroke on a keyboard and correctly identify the keys struck, by using a microphone, including built-in microphones in PCs and multimedia devices, or hands-free sets. It did not require the use of "loud" keyboards using the old IBM/Apple style scissor key mechanisms. Certainly a smartphone app would do the job nicely today.

Comment Re:This almost makes me want to move to Canada... (Score 1) 141

There is no such thing as a Cellular Telecom in Canada that offers "just small urban areas". They all, in fact, offer Nationwide coverage.

For example SaskTel, which operates only in the rather small (population-wise) province of Saskatchewan, has towers that cover 94% of the populated area of the province. Now, how many towers does "nation-wide" carrier Bell have in Saskatchewan? How many does "nation-wide" Telus? Answer: Zero.

While roaming in Saskatchewan, Telus and Bell customers use SaskTel towers. While roaming in Ontario, SaskTel customers use Bell towers (probably) or Telus towers (maybe, they don't have full province-wide coverage). So a "small urban area" carrier offers seamless nation-wide coverage. And SaskTel offers nation-wide text, data (including a true unlimited data plan, with reduced speed after 10GB per month but no data limit), and calling, at no additional charge, if you buy the premium plans.

The national carriers have trouble competing with SaskTel ... if you are a Telus or Bell customer in that province only, you get more data at the same rate as in the other nine provinces.

Rogers has it's own towers nation-wide, and until recently the systems were incompatible with the Bell / Telus / ManitobaTel / SaskTel / ... the list goes on ... system, but now they also share towers with the other carriers, seamlessly.

So there is no such thing as a non-nation-wide carrier in Canada. Period.

Slashdot Top Deals

"But what we need to know is, do people want nasally-insertable computers?"

Working...