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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for (Score 1) 309

by jedidiah (#48942767) Attached to: Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change

A lot of this really just boils down to 60s ideas of environmentalism and reducing pollution. It's just that the modern spin ads an extra level of extreme hysterics to the situation that are likely to alienate people and trigger skepticism.

Although you are probably right. If you ask all of the apathetic types just going along or even the true blue tree huggers to really sacrifice, you will probably get a much different answer.

That's probably why you have this whole subject wrapped in hysteria to begin with. Someone thinks they need to generate a sense of urgency by any means necessary.

Comment: Re:A good thing. (Score 1) 264

by Grishnakh (#48942501) Attached to: Microsoft To Invest In Rogue Android Startup Cyanogen

That's not even the biggest problem with Google and Android; the biggest problem is the complete lack of support Android devices get after they're a few months old, which makes them security nightmares. Cyanogen promises to fix that, but it's only going to work if they have better device coverage than they have now.

Comment: Re:A good thing. (Score 2) 264

by Grishnakh (#48942477) Attached to: Microsoft To Invest In Rogue Android Startup Cyanogen

That makes no sense at all. Cyanogen is a bit player; how many people do you know who are running it? (If you do know any, exclude all the tech-heads and answer again.) MS doesn't care about destroying something that's barely larger than a hobby project.

MS *does* care about hurting Google and improving the marketshare for Windows Phone, or somehow improving their own presence in the mobile arena. So any actions here are going to be towards that end.

Perhaps they see any move to help Cyanogen as something which will help destabilize Android in general. Or, more likely, they see it as something that can use to get a big foothold into the Android space, and then use it to take it over from Google. Embrace, extend, extinguish.

Comment: Re:No shit (Score 1) 100

by Grishnakh (#48941847) Attached to: Wi-Fi Issues Continue For OS X Users Despite Updates

There's also code besides the driver code; the Broadcom chips themselves have CPU cores (not sure what kind exactly) running their own firmware, which of course is loaded by the driver. This code is completely closed-source and secret. (The driver code is partially open; you can see their open-source Linux code in the kernel tree; it's "brcmfmac" and "brcmsmac")

I wonder if Apple's recent updates updated the firmware blobs for the Broadcom chips? This could also explain the problems.

Comment: Re:No shit (Score 3, Informative) 100

by Grishnakh (#48941815) Attached to: Wi-Fi Issues Continue For OS X Users Despite Updates

I've worked with the Broadcom driver source code; it's crap. It doesn't surprise me they're having problems. What's funny is (now that I think about it and remember this from a prior job) Apple is easily Broadcom's biggest wifi customer; you'd think they could do a better job with their software for them, but apparently not.

Comment: Re:Hello, the 1980s are calling, they caught your (Score 1) 190

by Bob9113 (#48940873) Attached to: New Study Says Governments Should Ditch Reliance On Biofuels

So you're saying you have no basis for your belief that algal microbiofuel is energy efficient. Pretty much what I figured. Lots of semi-literate technobabble about the components, but you don't know shit about the efficiency, which is the entire focus of this article.

I haven't looked at any of the research since 2009, when I looked into setting up an algae system with a friend who ran his family's vehicles on biodiesel and was buying from a company 20 miles away. We figured we could take all the hipster business on the South end of San Jose. We decided not to do it because it was only cost effective with government subsidies, because the energy conversion was so awful. Which is to say; I don't have any of the materials anymore and don't really care if you want to keep being ignorant, so I'm not going to go find them for you. If you want to not be wrong, you should do the research.

Comment: Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score 1) 448

by Gr8Apes (#48940753) Attached to: The Gap Between What The Public Thinks And What Scientists Know
You know, I actually read your linked retraction. The thing that stood out were the following quotes:

The paper, from a research group led by Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen, France, and published in 2012, showed “no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data,”

"The publication of his team's study was greeted by a storm of protest from scientists, and both the EFSA and Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment In Berlin slammed the paper for providing inadequate data to support its conclusions."

which in no way indicates that he was discredited. The retraction occurred in Nov 2013, the paper was published in 2012. There's also no mention of no one else failing to reproduce the results, which would be difficult to do since the paper was published in 2012, and the test ran 2 years. It sounds more like political and financial pressure than science. True science would run additional studies to support or discredit those published results. Your postings are reek of shill quality, I wonder how you're getting modded up so much.

I tend to agree that we should proceed with GMO very very carefully, and that Monsanto probably should be banned from the field. Why? Because they have shown that they're purely driven by greed and are thus unsuitable stewards for what's going to affect us potentially forever. That's the problem with GMO, it's not a 1 time item.

When it is incorrect, it is, at least *authoritatively* incorrect. -- Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy

Working...