Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:One hour of basketball dunking per day. (Score 1) 126

Oh, you mean not every 18-year old is over 6 feet tall, and possesses the athletic ability to dunk a basketball?

You just pointed out the stupidity of your own analogy.

Not everyone is cut out to learn coding, in much the same way not everyone is cut out to understand advanced mathematics. You can try and drill it into Little Johnny Dumbass all you want, but if he doesn't "get it", he doesn't get it. If you're only 5 feet tall, you can jump up and down all you want, chances are you're not gonna dunk a basketball.

Can't believe I actually had to explain exactly how my analogy fits.

Comment One hour of basketball dunking per day. (Score 4, Insightful) 126

I think it should be mandatory that all college freshman students participate in one hour of basketball dunking per day.

Oh, you mean not every 18-year old is over 6 feet tall, and possesses the athletic ability to dunk a basketball?

Gosh, that must mean that not everyone is cut out for it. You know, kind of like coding, so how about we stop with this pointless "mandatory" bullshit already.

Looking for a skill that would truly benefit future generations? Perhaps we should mandate an hour of studying the Constitution every day, for an enslaved society is still enslaved, no matter how skilled they are.

Comment Re:The trillion-dollar answer to Why. (Score 1) 319

Not being argumentative here, but many forms of cancer are, in fact, things where successful treatment nowadays does mean a cure with no further treatment required; like in the old days when the main job of pharmacology was curing infections, and unlike the current paradigm of lifelong treatments of things that would otherwise be fatal, like HIV or diabetes or autoimmune stuff.

Your prescribed current paradigm tends to contradict your initial statement, but does tend to reinforce what I've been saying all along. More on that below.

In fact, it seems to me that the occasions where people are not cured and require lifelong treatments for cancer tend not to last for a particularly long life, by and large.

There's a reason that lifelong treatments are limited. It has to do with the average bank account that can afford to pay for it. I can assure you that Big Data has carefully calculated the MSRP of unending treatments down to the penny to maximize revenue streams while minimizing burden. In other words, they know how long they can suck you dry from a financial standpoint, and know when to call Hospice.

Comment Re:its in public (Score 1) 124

People will gladly give up privacy in exchange for a "free" price tag

Are you sure about that? Now people will sure give their name and address to some company for a free price tag -- but it comes with the expectation that it will only be used by the company they gave it to.

That's the disconnect of ignorance. People who haven't had reason to consider the issue in depth don't really expect that their data is being sold to 47 "partners" and stolen by hackers 3 times a year because the site is too lazy or incompetent to secure their system. We expect the data to be used for in-house things like product planning and flyer layout.

We've been told for centuries that business is the end-all-be-all and we tend to trust them until they break trust rather than requiring them to earn trust in the first place.

When the end result is a constant stream of hacks leaking consumer data, it's still willful ignorance, no matter how you want to paint it. If a company contracted to never sell user information and secured it using the best encryption, but charged $5 for their product, no one would buy it. People bitch about 99 cents these days. Willful ignorance at its finest.

With regards to hacking and consequence, it's the it'll-never-happen-to-me syndrome. That same ignorance leads to humans ignoring medical signs that lead to cancer being detected in the too-late stage, over and over again.

Bottom line is if consumers actually gave a shit, they wouldn't be handing over their most sensitive information. Convenience trumps privacy. Every time.

...And the hospitals -- who needs one everyone's partner or friend or neighbor is a fully trained doctor? But of course that's not the way the real world works and we really shouldn't expect everyone to have specialized knowledge online either.

Actually, it's ironic that the real world still requires 8 years of highly specialized schooling and a doctorate degree in order to for someone to be legally authorized to do work on a human body, and yet we recommend 30 days worth of training and a certification to work on a computer holding your most sensitive information. Funny how that shit works, isn't it. Again, mass ignorance at its finest.

Comment Re:The trillion-dollar answer to Why. (Score 1) 319

Good argument. But wall street isn't the only player. And some (say Bill Gates) have made their money and have no problem funding cures.

When it comes to Bill Gates or any other human on this planet, I only have one thing to say regarding cures, and the ability to disrupt the Cancer Treatment Complex.

Fucking Prove It.

Comment Re:The trillion-dollar answer to Why. (Score 2) 319

I was just commenting on the premise that greed == always bad == corporations. Greed can also exist in individual scientists and bureaucrats and can be against the best interest of the corporation (or the funders of the project). Cancer cures are a good thing. Cancer cures requires work and investment capital. Scientists need to be paid (along with everyone else including HR and people mopping the floors) Investment capital needs to be repaid with dividends. All the above are good good things.

Common F. Sense agrees that all of the above are good things

The problem is Greed N. Corruption isn't really interested in curing jack shit anymore, and will always favor perpetual treatments to feed profits.

Treatments create unending profits.

Treatments create unending jobs.

Cures ultimately destroy jobs and severely limit perpetual revenue and profits, which does not pay the dividends that Wall Street now demands.

Those running counter to the best interests of those in Control will ultimately be removed from the equation.

Comment Re:The trillion-dollar answer to Why. (Score 1, Troll) 319

Greed? Whose greed? Foolish you. You assume greed == corporations. Greed for fame? Greed for advancement? Greed for pushing a personal agenda? Publish or Perish.

A landmark study can drive policy. It can shift entire ideologies. It can change a cultural mindset.

If you want answers to your questions, then I challenge you to dig into the five landmark cancer studies that they have found to be unrepeatable. I can think of a trillion reasons why studies might prove to be bullshit to benefit the Cancer Treatment Complex.

Do I need to research or even assume what would motivate Greed to twist facts and distort truth? No. All I have to do is look at history.

From TFA:

"Without efforts to reproduce the findings of others, we don't know if the facts out there actually represent what's happening in biology or not...It could be that we would be much further forward in terms of developing new cures and treatments."

Ah, there it is ...the other c-word no one ever wants to hear within the Cancer Treatment Complex.

'Nuff said.

Comment Re:I hate euphemisms.... (Score 1) 147

...see this as exactly what it is: an opportunity for businesses to return to a model where they make greater profits and don't have any obligations to their workers beyond today.

This is backwards thinking. I've been a contractor for years, an employer is not my mother. I get paid to do a job then when it's done I find another job. I think you'll find technology is allowing work to shift back to a needs based model, rather than filling the office floor with dead weight who only turn up for their benefits. The idea of a permanent job is outdated, the world is moving onwards and upwards and those that adapt quickest will do the best out of it.

Automation and AI are going to work to ensure the concept of human employment becomes outdated, so the future will have nothing to do with how humans will "adapt". What will need to adapt quickly is Greed, which is working faster than most assume to create that future. Greed will need to create a stable society that can provide to sustain life and prosperity without humans working for it, while continuing to find ways to motivate humans to learn. When there are no jobs to go off and do, it tends to eradicate the motivation for higher education.

Comment Re:Should they really consider themselves scientis (Score 2) 319

If they have trouble reproducing studies maybe they need to go back to science school. Or look up "science" on wikipedia and do more learning.

Ah, because there's no way in hell that the initial experiments could have been fabricated to favor certain outcomes, especially within the trillion-dollar Cancer Treatment Complex, right?

Yeah, you're right. Over 65% of trained researchers must be stupid or something...

Comment The trillion-dollar answer to Why. (Score 0) 319

Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments...

Well, damn, that's a rather huge issue. I wonder what the motivator would be to create experiments of questionable validity in the first place?

...which attempted to repeat the findings reported in five landmark cancer studies...

Ah, there's the trillion-dollar answer. I see Greed N. Corruption is still in charge...

Comment How this will kill Truth. (Score 3, Interesting) 192

If you have a troll problem, then moderate properly by banning. Censorship is not the answer because truth will ultimately suffer.

The definition of toxic will never be a constant, and I can already seen forums looking for revenue streams to favor those paying for certain "filters".

Comment Re:not surprised (Score 1) 67

If they stripped 90% of the crap out of the car and focused on the drivetrain it would be a different story. But it seems that they have fallen into an "experience" trap, and have driven away a large segment of the population that could care less about an technology based everything.

I'd say a $100K price tag is what drove away a large segment of the population, which is why they're looking to sell a stripped-down $35K model. Given the insane popularity of the "gadget" market today, people love technology based everything.

Comment Re:Interesting, but... (Score 1) 175

...that will never work. That would cost more to manufacture, and you would sell less bottles as you would squeeze more out of each. I cannot see how the manufacturers would be interested in that.

Of course it can work.

It's called collusion, and the entire manufacturing industry will likely squeeze at least a 100% profit out of the additional cost.

They said it would be better at reducing waste. No one promised cheaper.

Comment Re:its in public (Score 1) 124

People give a shit about privacy. They just don't understand it and (more importantly) how and when its being compromised.

The biggest issue is a disconnect between where privacy is compromised and where its expected to be compromised. If I post a picture of my dog to Facebook and share it with my friends, I expect that only my friends will be able to see it. That's seems like a pretty reasonable assumption.

However, because its on FB's server, I no longer have control over the picture and that's the tricky part that many people fail to understand because there isn't really a real-world equivalent to hosting a picture on someone else' server -- at least not without invoking some heavily constructed scenarios that would be just as hard for an average person to understand as the actual problem.

At the end of the day, ignorance is ignorance whether its intentional or not, but in the unintentional case we have at least the possibility of informing people and reducing the amount of ignorance toward the issue. Unfortunately we've been pretty unsuccessful in that context as well since for the most part, all of this privacy invasion has been fairly subtle and unintrusive to the average person so its hard to convince them that there is even a problem that they're ignorant of, never mind correcting that ignorance.

People will gladly give up privacy in exchange for a "free" price tag. The top 10 worst passwords consumers use today have not changed in decades, regardless of the obvious rise in hacking and identity theft, caused by using shitty passwords. The fitness guru who gets offended when a website drops a cookie wears a fitness tracker 24/7. The consumer shocked by the invasive nature of targeted ads owns an always-on listening device in their home, because "convenience". The social media addict who streams and tweets their entire vacation wonders how the criminal knew they weren't home. The user who's laptop hard drive failed three times still doesn't back their data up to the server.

Ignorance is ignorance, but we seem to be beyond that. We're now in a state of willful ignorance. Also known as not giving a shit, which tends to reinforce my original point.

As far as informing people, damn near everything comes with a EULA today, and yet no one actually reads them.

In the end, I'm certain that people will complain about no one warning them about the consequences of not giving a shit. All I can say is 1984 was written over half a century ago.

Slashdot Top Deals

We were so poor we couldn't afford a watchdog. If we heard a noise at night, we'd bark ourselves. -- Crazy Jimmy