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: It will be used for the traits that pay the mo (Score 2) 159

Actually you can buy pre-made kits on line that let you do CRISPR editing for $1200 in your own garage. Obviously you're selecting from a set of existing tools and it's not for editing human cells, but one of the reasons CRISPR is such a breakthrough is because of how cheap and simple it is - and it's very powerful.

+++ This is the very point. G*ogle "CRISPR kit" and... blamo within 5 top match : Page "CRISPR-Cas9 Vectors" : nothing over 500$. All possible in your kitchen. What some of us don't get IMO is we are not talking about a revolution here but instead a full scale disruption. I know ([fr] some national defence office are well on the case. Already. We all know whether legal or not is irrelevant. It will be done. Don't we know ?

Comment Re:Not the first one (Score 1) 101

He's far left by American standards, but just regular left by French ones.

The far-left in France is occupied by communists, and those called "socialists" in France (and Europe generally) like this guy or the current president, aren't what Americans call socialists.

  • The far-left is: NPA (Nouveau Parti Anti-capitaliste) and LO (Lutte Ouvrière) : these are calling for armed revolution, and "grand soir" and so on.
  • Then come : Communists.
  • Then : Left parties : Front de Gauche, Gauche Unitaire, Partis Radical de Gauche, Ecological party. Mélenchon is trying to aggregate from this domain.
  • Then : Socialists (PS) : In France PS is not any more "socialist". It's kinda rubish social-liberal proxy for openly right opinions.
  • Then : Center parties
  • Then : Right...

So to call Mélenchon a Communist is incorrect. Not only because he is not tagged so, but also for fundamental divergences.

For example : PC in France keeps promoting productivisme (producing a lot) and internationalism (free movement for workers). While Mélenchon calls extremely loudly for less & better production, and for joint-protectionism : we may exchange things, services and workers but with solidarity. Not at he expense of environment, local workers neither remote. So... see: these are not minor details. On the contrary : it makes Mélenchon's position quite different from extreme left and communists. And it makes Mélenchon's position simply socialist unlike those of PS in France.

Comment Re:WTF Time (Score 5, Informative) 101

More similar to Lepen. In fact they are close on many subjects, Lepen being extreme right and Melenchon being extreme left.


To coin it simply : beyond Le Pen on the right side there is... nothing. No other party. So, technically Le Pen is indeed extreme right. Yet the main reason why to tag Le Pen "extreme right" is its fundamental views : ethnic, xenophobic, anti-semitic influences, islamophobic, rather incompetent regarding public policies. These points will be vehemently disputed by this party and Marine Le Pen worked hard to soften the picture. Yet, fundamentally it is correct to state it is extreme-right : it is conceptually and historically. It is also little known yet well analysed this party actually picked-up many political concept from left movement. Yep : you see it is the other way around, Front National try to look acceptable and credible by diverting ideas from the left. Nice tactic isn't it ?! Classic.

Mélenchon (his movement is currently named "La France Insoumise" or FI or Greek symbol Phi) is a all together different story. Many have a strong interest into shaping this politician as an "extremist" : it would so much easier to discredit him. Yet he is not. At all. That would be as bold as stating Berni Sanders is a dangerous extreme left. Bold and... incorrect. Indeed he severely questions EU and globalisation as also do some... centre party, not only extreme right. That does not make him extreme.

First item : beyond Mélenchon on the left side in France one can find at least 2 groups : NPA (Nouveau Parti Anti-capitalist) and LO (Lute Ouvrière). So, simply put : no Mélenchon is technically NOT extreme left. Second and more important item : these two party (NPA and LO) are anti-republican (they do not believe in the concept of Republic as a collective type of organisation). They promote armed revolution. Their view is very much labour-class centric. These party (NPA & LO) are technically and conceptually really extreme left. On the other hand Mélenchon promotes an "extreme-republic" (his words) view. He calls for pacific drastic changes in the form of a 6th republic. He cares not only for the labour-class but more importantly for the human-class : the one that is being shredded by necro-liberalism and environmental lunatics. He for example explicitly calls for legalisation on long-term-illegal-workers. He is not maniac about Muslims or other religions (He calls for a clear state-church split. He thinks citizen should believe what they want at home and at church. (He also stresses in France more than 50% is agnostic or atheist)). And so on...

So Dude wake up ! You may not like Mélenchon or left or far-left or or extreme-left or socialists or your auntie or you name it : fair enough. Yet, you cannot just go banana and disseminate random idiocies. I also notice that for me to give a little context, it takes... this. While for you to libel it is as easy as a one-liner idiocy. This is classic malevolent rhetorical technique : dump a crap-load and force your opponent to waist energy and time on the clean-up. Did that for you.

Sorry, I don't buy your bullshit.

Comment Something to fry my brain... (Score 1) 111

Now let's imagine : let two AlphaGo machines play each other Go games. More games. More time allowed... Folks : it becomes IMO so abysmal. Where will it stops ? I literally shiver in awe. I believe this could be radically extreme disruptive technology. Keep in mind, AlphaGo invented moves it never observed before. Keep in mind, it can learn quite some different games, just by being exposed to samples. Wooooooaaaaaa. Impressed, concerned, exited, I am. Z.

Comment Ad is not the problem, intrusive ad is. (Score 2) 287

FTA on SD : "it is the overabundance of low quality ads that practically force the public to seek out ad blockers"

IMO it is missing the point : intrusiveness is the problem. Overabundance is just one type of intrusiveness. Intrusive means : consuming the resources I own ( cpu, mem, disc) or that I pay for (bandwidth). Putting my very own resources at risk with the malvertising. Rendering my interface slow. But mostly : too big, too visible, too noisy, flashy. AFAIK it's one of the points fought by AdBlockPlus : Ad is not the problem, intrusive ad is. It is enough to have one single intrusive ad - the contrary of abundance - to make me install all I can (ADB+, etc file, FlashBlock, etc). Z.

Comment Re:Reality acceptance issues... (Score 1) 728

It's pretty obvious the world would be far better off without religion.

^^^ THIS.

Someday people will look back on the shared delusion of religion and wonder what the fuck was wrong with everyone.

It's like a mind virus or brain disease that most people simply accept. WTF??

The amazing part is that most people don't consider it as a disease to be eradicated.

Hi there. Marc Trévidic was judge at anti-terrorist office in Paris for 10 years. On this [french] France-info 14.12.2015 radio interview, he states "Murderers motivation is at most 10% religion based. Main reason are personal path. Religion is only a varnish." At minute 18h 15m 25s [fr] So even though religions are indeed delusions, they are not guilty of these murders. Anger should be directed only at those persons who perpetrated murders, who individually hold responsibility. Let's not play terrorist game. Their goal is to divide and trigger retaliation against Muslims in France so a vicious circle is started. Every one : do _not_ sort people according religion or atheism.

Comment Re:Scientific worldview undermining own credibilit (Score 1) 668

Odds are I've thought about this and looked into it a lot more than you. Odds are I'm a lot more articulate than you speaking about it. And odds are I'm better trained in science and more experienced working with technology than you. Just sayin'.

This is an interesting statement your are making : because your are (so you say) more educated you would be less subject to believes. You will be surprised to know that this statement has been properly studied. And... the results are exactly the opposite ! Yes. ( I was actually surprised too.)

The concepts of "believes" and "faith" are extremely interesting objects. Homeopathy is good test case to study them.

Comment Re:May be (Score 1) 668

There's no scientific evidence [for homeopathy]?

Hint 1: Indeed. That is a good way to check whether something is magic or real. In general, a medicine with no scientific evidence has quite some chances to not work at all.

May I stress the following: The scientific understanding of a "thing" is not to be confused with the fact that this "thing" must exists in order to be (or not) understood. Rephrased : scientific evidence regarding homeopathy still means today "is there a 'thing' at all to be explained ?". And up to today the answer is : no. The status of homeopathy today is not whether one can explain it, or which theory is good about it, but is there something to be explained. And, again, up to today the answer is : no. Explaining homeopathy - today - is like explaining how good father xmass is at going through chimneys : wrong question. Question is : is there a father xmass ? And up to today the answer is : no.

To be noticed : No one denies the "feeling good" one may express after having ingested homeopathic pills. I am sincerely happy this happens. I feel good after a cup of coffee. Because coffee dos not claim to be a medicine there is not need to prove a link between my feeling and the coffee. On the other hand, homeopathy explicitly claim to be a medicine. Wow ! Then, there is no choice : proof must be produced.

Well, there's a lot of evidence against many products which is very dangerous to health and their are legal.

Hint 2: Yep. That is also a way to detect real medicines. A real one will have effects and side effects. Both are even - or should be - documented on the notice. That is actually what is expected from a medicine : have at least "a" effect. Unfortunately it comes with "side" effects. This is a reason why medicine should be prescribed only by trained medical staff : because they are indeed dangerous. This is a good hint : a medicine claiming to have zero side effects is very more likely to have zero effects. Welcome to homeopathy which - up to now - have never produced any measurable specific effect.

Comment Re:No evidence? (Score 1) 668

The undeniable fact is that there *is* evidence in favor of homeopathy of the same nature as that used to support other medical treatments. As I said, I think this indicates poor methodology on the part of medical researchers in general. This is similar to how ESP studies are the control group for psychology:

The original post which includes some of the evidence, and that paper cites many others. You clearly cannot conceive that this situation could exist, but it does. As to "every damn reputable medical body", only the uninformed care what a bunch of NHST-users think. You have to look at the evidence for yourself, it is extremely unfortunate but the medical experts cannot be relied upon to sift BS from good science. They are not trained in scientific thinking.

Again : "... You have to look at the evidence for yourself ..."

This is IMO where the problem is. No, you cannot "look at the evidence for yourself". Reviewing the quality of a test protocol, checking the statistical significance of some numbers, in a double-blinded, against placebo group, against control group is certainly not accessible to random one. Sorry. That needs proper education and training. That is named "scientific training".

So to make it short. Homeopathy specific effect has never been observed. Nor validated by enough independent scientifically trained reviewers. The number of studies brought into the picture has little - if not none at all - evidence value. Studies must be verified. Many times.

So to make it short. Homeopathy has not been shown to have any specific effect at all. Ever.

For the homeopathy to work or not, it must first have any observable effect. Until now, homeopathy have shown zero effect.

Maybe tomorrow.

Comment Re:Scientific worldview undermining own credibilit (Score 1) 668


I know from my direct experience that it works,

Direct personal experience is good to coin questions, not to produce validated knowledge.

== Sound: My "direct personal experience" tells me there is a constant high pitch sound in my environment. Knowledge tells me it is Tinnitus
== Sight: My "direct personal experience" tells me I see phantoms right now. Knowledge tells me these are floaters
== Taste & Smell: My "direct personal experience" tells me I am eating a peach. Knowledge tells me I smelling a peach, while biting and shewing an apple.
== Taste: My dad's "direct personal experience" tells him this peach has no taste at all. Knowledge tells him he is suffering Ageusia :
== Touch: My "direct personal experience" tells me I have pins and needles on my arm. Knowledge tells me I have a kind of nerve anesthesia.
== Sight: Through "direct personal experience", billions of individuals believed earth is flat. Knowledge tells us it is spherical.
== Sight: Through infinitely reproducible "direct personal experience" billions of individuals - including you right now -, across many centuries, across many civilizations, every where on the planet can drop a pen in a glass of water and believe it is broken. Knowledge tells us the refraction of light leads us to believe so.

See for yourself what your "Direct personal experience" tells you for example there on first Google hit on "optical illusion" :

Not a single sens we have can be trusted to produce knowledge. Not mines. Not yours. This is basic knowledge. At 18 years of age, school should have informed you about objectivity and subjectivity.

Comment Re:No dignity in witchcraft (Score 2, Interesting) 668

If that happened to you, YOU would be willing to try homeopathy and pretty much anything else that might work, because you don't have an alternative.

No I wouldn't use homeopathy because I am not stupid enough to ever believe it would cure me of anything. I'm going to die someday and I'd rather do so with some dignity rather than paying money to some snake oil salesman for something that will do nothing.

Hi there. Yes you will. The statement before makes an assumption : one will behave rationally under life-ending-stress. That is simply untrue. I salute the wish to stay rational in all and any circumstances. We all should have this ability. Yet that is only a wish. People are not necessarily stupid going into "idiocies". It is a better strategy to believe in rubbish and stay alive, instead of being clear-minded of commit suicide out of lack of hope. Let me diverge a bit...

A friend of mine - 35 years of age - suffers Chron like disease for years. I tell you, this is very practical : You poo blood, and are so week that you can't move a chair and suffers pain. Lots of pain. During a few weeks a year. That girl makes use of science-based medicine. Yet, when she perceives nothing cures her as much as she needs, she also turns to alternative-bollocks medicines WITHOUT abandoning science-based medicine. I discovered truck-loads of incredible crank-pseudo-medical-shit. UN-F...G-BELIEVABLE ! My rational side is screaming so loud : tell her this is all rubbish !

Once, I observed her going under 40 Kg body weight on a hospital bed. Man : when facing the real she-may-die-out-of-disease-OR-desperation-within-3-days AND given she still DOES make use of science-based medicine, my rational side screams even louder : shut up and let her believe whatever she wants.

Which leads me to this personal conclusion. We - humans - are faith machines. We want and need to believe. I am not happy about that for myself, but that is a different question. Sure hope does not cure. But it may seriously help not to commit suicide which is somehow useful. So... Sure let's banish homeopathy and others gibberish. But let's create a whole range of "official" placebos. The "red one", the "blue version", the "green style" and so on. With fine print on label : "This is not a medicine. It is distilled water void of any active content with no effect other than potential - but not guaranteed - placebo effect. In all case, you must seek professional qualified attention before using this placebo."

Comment Re:Sleep Collects Neural Garbage (Score 4, Interesting) 710

Hi there. IMO this is to be linked to the cult of "work hard play hard". The problem is... always over-driving one's life, leads faster to problems. Playing too hard also leads to problems. Hopping to balance one's over-work by some over-play is - maybe counter-intuitively for some - not a sollution. In french it is named "sur-régime" : if you always drive a car with the engine spinning well beyond what's necessary, well you may go faster, but you will certainly die earlier. Over-performing, over-working, and so on, has a cost. Ciao.

Comment Confused! (Score 1) 921


The review did not look at pesticides or the environmental impact of different farming practices.

Oops ! Isn't it a major point of organic farming. Not only the end product but also procedures and environment ? Many consumers choose organic product not only for it's intrinsic assumed qualities, but out of environments concerns. I'am no pro-organic man, yet that study seams to say little to me.

(...) they report in their analysis that there are higher levels of beneficial nutrients in organic compared to non-organic foods.

Now I am confused. What does this study have to say then!?


The Media

Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology 665

El Reg writes "Showing a new-found resolve to crack down on self-serving edits, Wikipedia has banned contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology. According to Wikipedia administrators, this marks the first time such a high-profile organization has been banished for allegedly pushing its own agenda on the 'free encyclopedia anyone can edit.'"

Slashdot Top Deals

Marvelous! The super-user's going to boot me! What a finely tuned response to the situation!