Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Re:You are wrong. Elon is right. (Score 1) 266

Erm yes, absolutely. It is inappropriate for media concern to be significantly higher than the risk of an event - that will never change because if that's true the media is contributing to an unsubstantiated panic and panics are a PROVEN risk to public safety (and coincidentally, among the most common and severe public safety events). Mass hysteria kills people, hurts economies badly (which also kills people) and happen frequently.

A few years ago, a private fax from a secretary at the South African weather service to a friend mentioned casually that they were tracking some tornado-like cloud patterns (which is a pretty bad laymans misunderstanding of what her bosses were doing). The friend forwarded the fax on to dozens of people, including the media and it morphed into a massive e-mail, social-media and fax warning campaign that somehow ended up declaring that the weather service were warning people of a tornado expected later that day. Radio and TV were reporting it as an actual warning from the weather service (but somehow, despite being in daily communication with them for weather reports - none of them actually called the service for comment - which would have seen the myth debunked)

Schools were closed, businesses shut down and sent their workers home early. The single worst traffic jam in the history of Johannesburg happened that afternoon. The economy of this poor country is estimated to have lost 7-Billion rand that day as it's most important economic city came to a shutdown. Dozens of people died from heart attacks and other mundane emergencies while the emergency services were unable to get to them through the traffic.

All because of one fax which had a weather service letterhead mentioned the word 'tornado' in a country where those happen less than once in 30 years on average and never with warning.

Oh, by the way, the typical damage and death tolls from actual tornadoes in South Africa is far, far lower than the what was caused by that one day of panic. Media response being hugely out of proportion to the actual incidence of events is massively inappropriate because it kills and starves people.

Comment Re:Slapping time (Score 1) 564

>No, it wouldn't. In Japan the authorities have postponed the MMR by one year after the controversy broke out, and the new cases of autism immediately went down spectacularly. Later the government idiots resumed the original schedule and up it went again.

Correlation does not imply causation. The only fluctuations in autism cases in decades have all been caused by improved diagnostic criteria - there is no reason to believe the number of cases has changed at all. Moving the MMR vaccine later would have one and ONLY one effect. Far fewer people would be diagnosed with autism shortly after their vaccine - but the ONLY reason it would have that effect is that those people are now diagnosed a year before they get the vaccine.

>For the rest you call a lot of things bullshit in screaming and shouting capitals, but fail to supply any reference to any randomly placebo controlled double blind study in an epidemiologically relevant part of the population published in a peer reviewed journal, so I just as well call out bullshit on your claims.
Which of the thousands ot studies that disproved this claim would you like a link to since you are apparently unable to use google to find anything that alters your expectations ?
What does NOT exist is any study that supports your claim.

>As long as such a study has not been published my doubts regarding vaccination are justified and any claims to the contrary are unproven.
No. That's not how it works. The burden of proof is not on vaccine makers to prove it doesn't cause autism, it's on those who claim it does to prove it does. Either way - it's been tested thousands of times and all the studies prove it doesn't.

Comment Re: You are wrong. Elon is right. (Score 1) 266

No. Im just once again informing you that nobody ever claimed awareness influences likelihood. That is not what the sentence "if you see it on the news it will not happen to you" means.
That sentence means the same thing as the one you agreed with. Just more poetically expressed. Your strict literal interpretation is simply false.

Comment Re:how about 4A (Score 4, Insightful) 284

That's not what they did.

It's more like you had a party at your house with 50 people, and the police got a warrant to search your house,
that included a clause "allowing" them to search the fingerprint-protected safe of any person who was at your party

scope that allowed them to force anyone inside the premises at the time ....

Contrast that against the Fourth amendment's requirements:

supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Note that the constitution requires that warrants describe particular people or things.

It's Unconstitutional and Illegal/violation of the supreme law of the land to have a "generic search" or a "generic warrant document"
allowing police to search and seize or disseminate the personal property of ANY random person they happen to find at place X.

The constitution requires they have made a specific list of people to search people, or a specific list of things to search objects not in peoples' personal affects.

Comment It's a 4th amendment issue (Score 5, Insightful) 284

Unreasonable search and seizure

A search warrant for building contents is fine.

Searching the personal affects of every person just because they happened to be present is not reasonable.

The constitution requires a specific warrant. Searching someone's person constitutionally requires that person be named in the Warrant.

Merely being present at a place of work or being at a restaurant or other public place is not probable cause for a search of someone's person.

Comment Hold down power button and ... (Score 5, Informative) 284

... keep holding it down.

Seriously, this is such an unconscionable violation of basic privacy that even people who have done nothing wrong should automatically have that reaction. And anybody who has done something wrong should know better than to use a fingerprint for unlocking anyway. What was this supposed to prove other than that they have a judge who will rubber-stamp any order no matter how appalling?

Comment Re:You're being silly (Score 1) 316

The evil libtardos aren't coming for your guns

They've been trying for 50 years and their repeated failures have been precisely because we take a hard line on the issue. Not one inch.

It's been 8 years. Don't you think if he was going to do it he would have?

He has done everything within the power of the executive branch. Operation Chokepoint was instituted to make it hard for gun related businesses to do business. He has blocked importation of perfectly legal guns from Russia and South Korea. He has been hostile to the American gun owner, even if he doesn't have the votes in congress to pass a new anti-gun law.


Comment Re:Ignore the ones that have been edited (Score 1) 272

Truthiness, and the crazy they have been force-fed for so many years has melted their minds.

You're welcome to argue that Hillary is the lesser of two evils, or perhaps that you like her political program; but to be so utterly blind to her duplicity, corruption, and incompetence that you still defend her shows that it is your mind that has been "melted" by years of overexposure to Democratic propaganda.

Now ther ya go - You immediately assume that I think Hellery is some sort of angle and go on the attack. Hey fellow, the answer to my points is not to divert. You go a long way toward proving my point.

You don't care what the truth is.

Slashdot Top Deals

To iterate is human, to recurse, divine. -- Robert Heller