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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Submission Summary: 0 pending, 57 declined, 34 accepted (91 total, 37.36% accepted)

×

Submission + - Is the creative class engine sputtering? (salon.com)

Submitted by
Geoffrey.landis
Geoffrey.landis writes: "The "creative class" was supposed to be the new engine of the United States economy, but--according to Scott Timberg, writing in Salon-- that engine is sputtering. While a very few technologists have become very wealthy, for most creative workers, the rise of amateurs and enthusiasts means that few are actually making a living. The new economy is good for the elite who own the servers, but, for most, "the dream of a laptop-powered 'knowledge class' is dead," he says."
Space

Submission + - Neal Stephenson on "Innovation Starvation" (posterous.com)

Submitted by
Geoffrey.landis
Geoffrey.landis writes: "In an essay discussing the space program, author Neal Stephenson suggests that the decline of the space program "might be symptomatic of a general failure of our society to get big things done." He suggests that we may be suffering from innovation starvation:
"Innovation can’t happen without accepting the risk that it might fail. The vast and radical innovations of the mid-20th century took place in a world that, in retrospect, looks insanely dangerous and unstable.""

Submission + - Conservative means accepting science (businessweek.com) 1

Submitted by
Geoffrey.landis
Geoffrey.landis writes: "Recently, it has seemed that it is a requirements of being a conservative to deny the accuracy of climate science and cast aspersions on the motives of scientists, regardless of any evidence offered. So it's a little refreshing to see a Republican weighing in on the side of science, saying that conservatives should deal in facts, and "base policies on science, not sentiment.""

Submission + - Loan to Solyndra pushed by both sides (grist.org)

Submitted by
Geoffrey.landis
Geoffrey.landis writes: "I haven't been paying much attention to the bankruptcy of solar array manufacturer Solyndra-- they were pushing a technology I don't find terribly exciting. Still, it's interesting how the recent spin has called it as a failure of the Obama energy initiatives. In fact, as a recent timeline shows, the loan guarantees for renewable energy came from the Energy Policy Act of 2005-- and the particular loan to Solyndra was fast-tracked by the Bush administration, in an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy.

alternate URL: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/13/317594/timeline-bush-administration-solyndra-loan-guarantee/"

Submission + - What to Know if you're Filming the TSA (cnn.com)

Submitted by Geoffrey.landis
Geoffrey.landis writes: CNN posts a brief article "Shooting video at a TSA checkpoint? Here's what you should know, explaining your rights in shooting video of TSA screenings. First, she notes (from an article on the TSA blog last year) that the TSA doesn't forbid photography, as long as you don't film those monitors showing nude passengers:

"We don't prohibit public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping, or filming at screening locations. You can take pictures at our checkpoints as long as you're not interfering with the screening process or slowing things down. We also ask that you do not film or take pictures of our monitors."

--the article does go on to note that state laws or local ordinances may prohibit filming.

And then she posts advice from Ms. Smith's "Privacy and Security Fanatic," which is that

"if you do videotape TSA checkpoints, then you should have the TSA public affairs (TSA's Office of Strategic Communications) number plugged into your phone: (571) 227-2829. Another important phone number to have with you is the TSA's Office of Civil Rights at (571) 227-1917."

Ms. Smith goes on to tell some stories of people who have been challenged at airport screening stations for shooting video. Important note, it's probably wise not to take off your pants except your underwear while doing this.

So, go ahead, and video, but know your rights and "stay calm and polite at all times." You could be the next You-tube sensation.

Hardware

Submission + - Lawsuit shows Dell hid extent of computer flaws (nytimes.com)

Submitted by Geoffrey.landis
Geoffrey.landis writes: According to an article in the New York Times, documents revealed in a lawsuit against Dell show that the computer maker hid the extent of possible damages due to a faulty capacitor in the ocmputers it shipped from 2003 to 2005. Dell employees were told "Don’t bring this to customer’s attention proactively” and “emphasize uncertainty.”
"As it tried to deal with the mounting issues, Dell began ranking customers by importance, putting first those who might move their accounts to another PC maker, followed by those who might curtail sales and giving the lowest priority to those who were bothered but still willing to stick with Dell."

--in other words, the most loyal customers got shafted first.
Science

Submission + - US says Genes should not be patentable (nytimes.com)

Submitted by Geoffrey.landis
Geoffrey.landis writes: A friend-of-the-court brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice says that genes should not be patentable.

“We acknowledge that this conclusion is contrary to the longstanding practice of the Patent and Trademark Office, as well as the practice of the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies that have in the past sought and obtained patents for isolated genomic DNA,” they wrote.

The argument that genes in themselves (as opposed to, say, tests made from genetic information, or drugs that act on proteins made by genes) should be patentable is that "genes isolated from the body are chemicals that are different from those found in the body" and therefore are eligible for patents. This argument is, of course, completely silly, and apparently the U.S. government may now actually realize that.

Submission + - A New Species of Patent Troll (wsj.com)

Submitted by Geoffrey.landis
Geoffrey.landis writes: From the Wall Street Journal, there's an article warning that there's a new species of patent troll out there. These sue companies that sell products with an expired patent number on them. That's right, it's against the law to sell a product that's marked with an expired patent number. The potential fine? $500. Per violation-- and some of the companies have patent numbers on old plastic molds that have made literally billions of copies. Using whistle-blower laws, "anyone can file a claim on behalf of the government, and plaintiffs must split any fine award evenly with it."
You've been warned.
Science

Submission + - E=mc^2 is a liberal conspiracy (talkingpointsmemo.com)

Submitted by Geoffrey.landis
Geoffrey.landis writes: "Conservapedia," was founded to be a conservative-tilted alternative to Wikipedia.
From the article: "To many conservatives, almost everything is a secret liberal plot: from fluoride in the water to medicare reimbursements for end-of-life planning with your doctor to efforts to teach evolution in schools. But Conservapedia founder and Eagle Forum University instructor Andy Schlafly — Phyllis Schlafly's son — has found one more liberal plot: the theory of relativity."
Yes, that's right: relativity is apparently a liberal plot. No doubt, the atomic bomb is a hoax, just like the moon landing and global warming.

Submission + - Man buys the police website to complain (usatoday.com)

Submitted by Geoffrey.landis
Geoffrey.landis writes: When a Tennessee police department let its website expire, the site was purchased by a man who uses it to complain about the traffic cameras that gave him a $90 speeding ticket.
The bluffcitypd.com site now shows a cartoon police badge clutching a handful of money and smiling.
Also reported in other places, such as the Chicago Tribune and USA Today

Submission + - George W. Bush embraces alternative energy (star-telegram.com) 1

Submitted by Geoffrey.landis
Geoffrey.landis writes: It's hard to believe, but former Texas oilman George W. Bush just came out in favor of alternate energy sources. At the American Wind Energy Association conference in Dallas, Bush said: "It's in our economic interests that we diversify away from oil. It's in our environmental interest. And, finally, it's in our national security interest." More details are on the green blog:

He had said in a State of the Union address that America was addicted to oil. "If you’re a guy from Texas and you say America is addicted to oil, it's a surprising moment," Mr. Bush said... These days, the former president said, "The overall trend in my judgment is that new technologies will find new ways to power our lives. I fully believe that hybrid plug-ins will be a transition to electric cars," he said, and that new ways to generate electricity will be needed.

In a time when climate-warming-deniers are screaming that shifting to alternate energy sources is going to destroy America's economy, it's amazing to see the former number-one Republican actually say that moving to alternate energy is in our economic interest, and new ways to generate electricity are needed Now if we could only get the ones who are still in power to understand this...

Science

Submission + - Why do people believe weird things (newscientist.com)

Submitted by Geoffrey.landis
Geoffrey.landis writes: New Scientist asks, why do people discredit science, and instead believe weird conspiracy theories? The belief that vaccines don't stop diseases; AIDS is not caused by a virus, and a dozen or more theories that ignore the clear evidence of science are believed by millions. Richard Littlemore, pointing out how corporations manufacture doubt, suggests that maybe it has something to do with the multi-million-dollar advertising campaigns to discredit science. It worked for the tobacco industry... for a while, anyway. In 1972, Tobacco Institute vice-president Fred Panzer outlined his industry's "brilliantly executed" defence strategy. A key tactic was "creating doubt about the health charge without actually denying it" while "encouraging objective scientific research." In this case "objective," meant "supporting the belief that tobacco is harmless." And the tactic has been picked up by a host of other corporations, each with their own billion-dollar profits to defend by "creating doubt."

Debora MacKenzie, on the other hand, asking "Why sensible people reject the truth?" points out that although many denialist movements originate as cynical efforts by corporations to cast doubt on findings that threaten their bottom line,, the people who subscribe to denialism utilize what she calls "everyday reasoning" (which can rather fail in dealing with scientific evidence). But it is, she suggest, a sense of loss of control that really matters. Many people prefer to reject expert evidence in favour of alternative explanations that promise to hand control back to them, even if those explanations are not supported by evidence

"This is not necessarily malicious, or even explicitly anti-science. Indeed, the alternative explanations are usually portrayed as scientific. Nor is it willfully dishonest. It only requires people to think the way most people do: in terms of anecdote, emotion and cognitive short cuts. Denialist explanations may be couched in sciency language, but they rest on anecdotal evidence and the emotional appeal of regaining control."

And then again, skeptic Michael Shermer suggests that it's simple: denial is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the commitment to the belief takes precedence over the evidence.
The Almighty Buck

Submission + - Tracking your net worth, and posting it to the web (nytimes.com)

Submitted by Geoffrey.landis
Geoffrey.landis writes: Wow, it's obsessive enough to use software tools to track your finances and calculate your day-to-day net worth-- but posting the results, and sharing your real-time net worth with the world? Now, that's serious. What? Privacy? Why, is that important to some people?

Submission + - Where do you get lithium (nytimes.com)

Submitted by Geoffrey.landis
Geoffrey.landis writes: So, lithium batteries for electric cars are going to need a lot of lithium. The New York Times looks at the mining companies that address the question, where we gonna get all the lithium from?

Slashdot Top Deals

Receiving a million dollars tax free will make you feel better than being flat broke and having a stomach ache. -- Dolph Sharp, "I'm O.K., You're Not So Hot"

Close