Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Separate from the rebranding of covid.gov... (Score 5, Insightful) 213

...an article worth considering from Princeton University's Zeynep Tufekci:

We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives

Since scientists began playing around with dangerous pathogens in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics, depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western scientists quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling feathers.

Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic, they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology â" research that, if conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world â" no fewer than 77 Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the organization.

So the Wuhan research was totally safe, and the pandemic was definitely caused by natural transmission â" it certainly seemed like consensus.

We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratoryâ(TM)s research, the details that have since emerged show that safety precautions might have been terrifyingly lax.

Full article

Comment The Web3 Fraud (Score 4, Insightful) 65

What is .xyz?

Hype.

"So why this hype? Because the cryptocurrency space, at heart, is simply a giant ponzi scheme where the only way early participants make money is if there are further suckers entering the space. The only âoeutilityâ for a cryptocurrency (outside criminal transactions and financial frauds) is what someone else will pay for it and anything to pretend a possible real-word utility exists to help find new suckers."

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usenix.org%2Fpublica...

Comment Nice job slipping pro-CCP propaganda into the summ (Score 5, Insightful) 156

These abuses are not âoeallegedâ; they are happening, and they are not based on dubious âoeresearchesâ [sic]:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.propublica.org%2Fart...

There is a genocide happening in Xinjiang; one that is erasing an entire culture, language, religion, and history of a people.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Fintera...

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Fintera...

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com...

Comment It does NOT mean it is live and transmissible (Score 5, Informative) 95

From: Dr. Tara C. Smith

I've also seen this misrepresented already. "SARS-CoV-2 RNA was identified on a variety of surfaces in cabins of both symptomatic & asymptomatic infected passengers up to 17 days after cabins were vacated on the DP but before disinfection procedures had been conducted"

Say it with me: *viral RNA doesn't necessarily mean live virus was present.* Now you're going to see "coronavirus can live on surfaces for 17 days!" over and over, but we don't know that based on this study and for those using live virus, it's much shorter.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Faetiology%2F...

Comment Much simpler explanation (Score 3, Insightful) 161

When Kwast says things like, "The technology is on the engineering benches today. But most Americans and most members of Congress have not had time to really look deeply at what is going on here. But I've had the benefit of 33 years of studying and becoming friends with these scientists. This technology can be built today with technology that is not developmental to deliver any human being from any place on planet Earth to any other place in less than an hour," the only thing he can be talking about that has a connection to reality is something like what SpaceX proposes with Starship:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dzq...

Comment Re:That, and 90% from 10 rivers in Asia and Africa (Score 2) 97

It's not supposed to be "impressive", and if the amount of plastic in the oceans has certain environmental consequences, the Earth doesn't do per capita calculations when deciding environmental impacts.

But yes, by all means: let's keep focusing on straws and bags, ignoring China and India on greenhouse gas emissions -- because they are "developing", or they have more people -- and rejecting nuclear power.

Comment That, and 90% from 10 rivers in Asia and Africa (Score 3, Informative) 97

By analyzing the waste found in the rivers and surrounding landscape, researchers were able to estimate that just 10 river systems carry 90% of the plastic that ends up in the ocean.

Eight of them are in Asia: the Yangtze; Indus; Yellow; Hai He; Ganges; Pearl; Amur; Mekong; and two in Africa â" the Nile and the Niger.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.weforum.org%2Fagenda...

Comment Re:What about ... (Score 1) 170

Serious? No. I don't seriously expect really safe speed limits to be set up by any democracy that has so many motorists in it. But I do think that's what we ought to do. As a civilisation, we are killing our own children at an appalling rate, just so that motorists can catch up to the back of the next long line of stationary traffic a few seconds faster. In town, slow down.

Look at the scenario you described. A car doing the speed limit towards a marked crosswalk... it's such a familiar scenario that we forget to be horrified. Think about what we're doing here. We have footpaths across the street specifically for people to walk across. And then we have motorists driving straight at those footpaths, at such speed that it would literally be a crime to go any faster at all, at such speed that they couldn't possibly stop should anyone suddenly walk out on the path. These motorists expect everyone else in the world to pay attention, to stay out of their way. God forbid they themselves should slow down! They're 'doing the limit' and that makes it OK.

That limit is obviously much too high. It should come down. Twenty is plenty.

Then let's redesign those footpaths. At the moment there are raised paths either side of the street, and when the path runs across the middle of the street it is lowered. For the convenience of motorists, of course; otherwise they might have to slow down. Well, let them slow down! The path across the street is a pedestrian walkway just like the paths either side, so let's have it at the same height, for the convenience of people using wheelchairs, people pushing infants in prams, people with mobility issues. We'll put a gentle slope to either side of the path so that it isn't a nasty bump for motor traffic. Well, I mean - so that it isn't a nasty bump if the motor traffic is moving at a safe speed.

Slashdot Top Deals

I just need enough to tide me over until I need more. -- Bill Hoest

Working...