Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:The problem is not the renewal ... (Score 1) 80

by CaptainDork (#49156809) Attached to: NSA Spying Wins Another Rubber Stamp

Good point, but ... ... Manning's shit was mostly political. For that reason, we can assign about a 50% priority to the stuff because there are at least two reactions to that: for or against.

Snowden's stuff is more provocative, and upsetting, but it's dated.

What we need is transparency. Looks like the only way that's going to happen is if Americans in the "know," step up.

Comment: Re: version control (Score 1) 341

by BronsCon (#49154987) Attached to: The Programmers Who Want To Get Rid of Software Estimates
And if I don't want to use a GUI? Seems your steps should still be applicable to the CLI. That being said, you're rewriting history when doing that, and that is considered a huge no-no when using Git, especially when you have a team of developers. You'll have a local branch without the commit you just skipped over, but everyone else will still have that commit in their history, meaning they'll all still have the "bad" code. It's probably fine if you're the sole developer, but it's generally not advised to assume that will always be the case. Methinks I'll not follow your advise on this.

Comment: Re:Climate change phobia (Score 1) 267

by lazarith (#49154629) Attached to: We Stopped At Two Nuclear Bombs; We Can Stop At Two Degrees.

While it is wonderful to see logical thought instead of fearmongering applied to climate change arguments, the chart in your first video is too simplistic.

For example, the Action-Yes boxes don't specify what kind of action (or address the possibility of geoengineering instead of creating regulations). Note that the "default" do-nothing system would include some forms of geoengineering, such as building sea walls and hurricane preparations, especially once the variability of the climate is established.

Another possibility is that (whether GCC=yes or GCC=no), the economic harm caused by enacting regulations may prevent society's progress sufficiently such that solutions to climate change are slower.

I'm imagining a future technology that could be a quick fix to climate change (eg: fusion energy combined with a device that uses the free energy to suck the CO2 out of the air). It is possible that increased regulations will delay this technology to the point that it is too late to use it, due to global instability.

There may be an argument that more money would be pumped into clean-tech using increased taxation in the "yes/action" column, but we've seen how well US politicians choose projects to invest in, at the expense of other potentially viable technology.

Having a weaker economy also weakens our nation's ability to deal with unseen catastrophies, such as meteor strikes. So, it is possible (maybe even just as likely), that action on climate change (in the form of regulation) could result in global catastrophe.

When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. -- Donald Douglas

Working...