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


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

Comment Willing accomplices and quiet endorsement (Score 3, Insightful) 137

Throw Google under the bus not the poor folks just trying to feed their families.

"Poor folks just trying to feed their families"? These are well paid engineers with options. Anyone talented enough to get a job at Google is talented enough to secure employment elsewhere. They are willing accomplices to this action and pretending otherwise is disingenuous. Evidently these engineers lack a moral compass and their word means nothing. If they had a problem with this action they could easily have spoken up and taken action but they took the easy path and did nothing.

Pretty sure you'd scream bloody murder if you employer's actions were layer at your feet - douche!

My employer's actions are routinely laid at my feet and rightfully so. I am responsible for my actions at my employer as well as those who work for me. Companies are comprised of people who commit these actions and when these actions injure others there should be some accountability. If I have an ethical problem with what management at my company is doing or if I was wrongly accused of something I was not responsible for you can be quite certain I would either leave or take appropriate action to defend myself. But if I'm quiet about something then effectively I am endorsing it.

Comment Crap accountants (Score 1) 480

In the end, IT saved millions globally because their stock orders were drastically reduced, yet on the local level you had engineers being paid upwards of $1000 a day to twiddle their thumb while they wait for their $500 computer to arrive. But IT doesn't see one dime of that cost.

That just means that the accountants at that company were crap at their job and weren't assigning costs properly. Sadly this isn't an uncommon occurrence.

Comment Still bullshit (Score 1) 545

There are no known "facts" regarding the safety of the full vaccine schedule

You've said that elsewhere and it's still bullshit. There are is plenty of evidence and research about that exact thing and I've given you links in other threads. You just can't be bothered to look for any of it. Stop it with your nonsense. You are wrong and don't know what you are talking about.

Comment Safety and evidence (Score 4, Informative) 545

Have you ever seen scientific study of the full schedule of vaccines in a double blind?

No and you haven't either. Conducting such a study would be hugely unethical because it would involve exposing large numbers of people to preventable diseases with known means of prevention. Double blind studies are ideal when possible but there are plenty of other valid means of studying diseases without resorting to double blind studies.

A vaccine may be safe, but the full schedule of vaccines has NEVER been studied.

Not true at all. It has been studied extensively. Furthermore there is substantial empirical evidence than any safety concerns about the full schedule of vaccines is a very small effect if it exists at all.

Now, tell me. where is the actual science on the full schedule of vaccines?

In the clinical studies for each and every vaccine and diseases that could conceivably be related to their administration. I suggest you go speak to an epidemiologist since you are in need of a clue about this. I'm sure they'll be happy to fill you in.

In other words, do you have scientific proof that a full vaccine schedule is safe. Until then, you're just sciency not scientific.

Yes we do have proof that a full vaccine schedule is safe. Scientific proof in the form of a measurably healthier populace and hugely reduced incidence of disease with barely any measurable side effects despite copious studies about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

Comment Block It (Score 3, Informative) 60

The Feds should block this one if it ever comes close to being attempted. We have an absolute dearth of competition as it stands now. I looked at moving from Time Warner for my internet and found AT&T is the only option in my area. TW is okay, but overpriced and I have never heard a good thing about AT&T. Allow the two to combine and I get the worst of both worlds.

Comment Profit not revenue (Score 2) 331

At a U.S. average rate of 12 cents/kWh = $120/MWh = $0.12 million/GWh, that's $947 million worth of power generated per year.

The amount of revenue it generates is not the important consideration in determining if a project is economically worthwhile. It has to generate enough PROFIT to repay the investment. If the annual cost of generating your $947M worth of power is $947M then the project will never repay the cost of building the plant. The cost of generation plus the amortized cost of building and maintaining the plant has to be less than the amount of revenue brought in. Presumably the amount charged for a unit of electricity is high enough to pay for the plant during it's lifetime but you cannot just assume that to be true. In the case of a plant that cost $4.7B to build and is expected to last for 40 years you would need to bring in $117.5M in revenue each year in excess of the operating costs just to break even. And that is ignoring inflation, financing costs, etc. So by your example that electricity had better not cost more than $829.5M per year (actually less than that in the real world) or the plant will not break even.

Comment Economic benefits (Score 1) 90

So now that the costs of research and experimentation have been paid for by the public, "entrepreneurs" are willing to step up and reap the profits?

Yes! That's one of the great things about publicly funded research. It turns into economic benefit to society via technology transfer. You seem to be implying (wrongly) that this is somehow a bad thing. Quite the contrary - this is a hugely awesome good thing. It means tons of jobs, new industries, and economic benefits all around. It grows the economy. Keeping the research in a lab where it will do nothing would be pretty much the worst thing you could do with it because then you spend the money and get no economic benefit either.

Comment Legally responsible entity (Score 1) 301

Substitute the word "use" for the word "drive".

Ok but it doesn't change the argument meaningfully.

I can see why Tesla would want to be able to impose that kind of condition. However, I think the First Sale Doctrine is going to say they can't. Especially, if they allow it to be used on their own driverless taxi network.

First sale doctrine doesn't apply if you sign a contract that stipulates explicitly that you will not use the car for that purpose. Now the interesting thing is that the second buyer of the car cannot be bound by the first buyer's agreements so you'd have to have a GPL style agreement whereby the first buyer would be forced to impose a similar restriction on future buyers. Not sure if that would work out in Tesla's favor under current laws.

BUT here is the real question. We need a legal determination for who is operating the vehicle when it is being driven autonomously. If the legally responsible entity that is considered to be the "driver" is Tesla then they have every legal right to refuse to use the vehicle for purposes they do not approve of. After all, it would be unreasonable for me to be able to incur liability for Tesla with them having no say in the matter. If the legally responsible entity is determined to be the vehicle owner then Tesla really shouldn't have any say in the matter. To date I don't think there is a clear determination legally for this key issue.

Comment Freedom of speech does not apply (Score 2) 545

Apparentley there is no more freedom in opinion in Australia, and also no more freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech does not apply here. Conscious misrepresentation of known and proven facts by medical practitioners who should know better is called malpractice. It's a crime with real consequences for good reason. They are literally harming patients by spreading provably false and dangerous information. People who do that should at minimum lose their license to practice medicine and if anyone is demonstrably harmed they should go to jail for their actions.

Comment Syndromes = we don't know much about it (Score 1) 545

Autism can and does run in families but I don't know if there is a gene or genes you can check for it.

We don't because autism isn't a single thing as far as we can tell and we don't even have a clear definition of what it is. Any time you hear the word "syndrome" what that really means is that we have a collection of symptoms that we have observed seem to run together but we don't know much about the cause or pathology of them. Autism is clearly a real thing but we don't understand it terribly well and we certainly don't know the cause(s). Genetics seems to play a role but the nature of that role is still being determined.

Comment Ignorance is not an opinion (Score 1) 545

Suppression of freedom of opinion and expression thereof is never 'very welcome'.

Conscious misrepresentation of known facts by individuals who should know better because of their professional training is not expressing an opinion. Ignorance (willful or otherwise) of a fact does not make an "opinion" about those facts valid when the expression of that "opinion" demonstrably results in illness and death of others.

Comment Words are the means to meaning (Score 1) 545

You are just stating your opinion, not more than that. What if we'd prosecute you for your opinion?

When the expression of your opinion directly results in people becoming ill and dying then you are effectively an accessory to manslaughter, particularly if your "opinion" is actually a misrepresentation of the known facts.

Comment Not a matter of opinion (Score 2) 545

"The worry is the confirmation bias that can occur, because people might say: 'There you go, this is proof that you can't even have an alternative opinion.' It might in fact just give people more fuel for their belief systems."

That's right. On this matter there is no room for an alternative opinion because it isn't a question of opinion. Vaccines work and they are safe and are critical to keeping the population healthy. That is a proven and indisputable fact. You have the right to elect to not get a vaccine but you should not be allowed under any circumstances to spread misinformation or discourage others from vaccination. If you want to decline to be vaccinated that is your prerogative but there should be some quarantine consequences to your actions. Nurses who should know better discouraging others from getting vaccinations is particularly odious and to my mind criminal. Such people have no business being in the field of medicine.

Comment Who is the driver? (Score 1) 301

Tesla is trying to say "you can't drive your own car in a manner that we don't like."

If software is driving the car then by definition you are not driving it. For all practical purposes Tesla is the driver. And if Tesla is driving the car it is actually kind of reasonable of them to want to do it on their terms if for no other reason than to protect themselves from liability.

Slashdot Top Deals

Take an astronaut to launch.