Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

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: Peer reviewed (Score 1) 329

by tanveer1979 (#48562731) Attached to: Warmer Pacific Ocean Could Release Millions of Tons of Methane

Any study is valid if its peer reviewed. So first of all you need to apply this filter. You are not qualified to believe in a study. So people like you and me look for peer reviewed studies.

Secondly, you have to understand that a study is one study.
So if 20 sites quote Study X
and 2 sites quote study Y
It does not mean there are 2 studies Y and 20 studies X

Many times, these denier sites all quote one study, and in the cacophony confusion arises.

So whenever you find something, see if you can follow the breadcrumbs to the source paper.
Find if its peer reviewed.

Then store it.

Collect a few such papers. You will realize that the papers supporting human cause will vastly outnumber those opposing it.

Comment: Science does not work like that (Score 4, Informative) 329

by tanveer1979 (#48562553) Attached to: Warmer Pacific Ocean Could Release Millions of Tons of Methane

Humans are 100% responsible is a claim which makes headlines.
But have you read actual research.

It says, there is enough evidence to prove that most of the warming can be linked to human activities.

Science looks at evidence, and then presents a hypothesis. This is how it has been in the scientific method. When an evidence is discounted science looks at new evidence.

Science is never always right. Scientists make mistakes. And that is why its science. For example, some hypothesis about climate change was proved wrong. Does it mean that entire climate change argument is wrong?
Scientists will update their models, gather more evidence and then present the findings again. Being wrong does not discredit science. It merely improves it.

The problem is, people view science as they have viewed faith. There is no room for error or mistakes. So any process which makes mistakes is ridiculed. IPCC has made mistakes, so have other climate scientists. Some evidence may not be relevant or nonferrous. But it does not matter. We just move on.

There are some things about climate we do not understand. That is also acceptable. Sure, faith based systems have all the answers, but that is not science. You first have to understand what is science, and once you do, you will figure it all out.

Do not fear science. Embibe it. Question. But not because somebody told you to, or some rich publication says so. Question on your own merit. If you do not believe something to be true, instead of ridiculing and pointing to some site on the internet which says its wrong, ask the question.

What site X says, is it true? If not, why? You will find answers to all of it if you start looking for it.

But if you let your faith cloud your judgement, you will never understand. If you want to understand, question. Now ridicule.

Comment: Re:How about a straight answer? (Score 5, Informative) 329

by tanveer1979 (#48561985) Attached to: Warmer Pacific Ocean Could Release Millions of Tons of Methane

The Cosmos season one Episode 13 explains it quite a bit. And earth is getting warmer since the industrial revolution in the absence of other factors. Most of the debate comes from industries who stand to loose from climate based taxes.

Think of it as the lead debacle.

Comment: Not really... (Score 1) 210

by tanveer1979 (#47896915) Attached to: SanDisk Releases 512GB SD Card

There is a target market for everything.

For example, a high end graphics card can be called overkill, until you bring in gaming.

So who shoots 70000 pics? Well for one, us timelapse folks. often to get a 30fps, a 10 minute time lapse means 600 seconds = 18000 frames.

This is just a 10 minute sequence.
Then there are the sports guys. Often each shot is a 80 frame sequence, then pick out the best. Again, one day means 15-20000 pics. Many shoot RAW+JPEG, so that is going to increase the space.

Last but not the least, 4K video is approaching 100mbps.

Comment: The mountain part is bullshit (Score 1) 204

It may be more efficient, but its not going to help at altitude.
Water boils at lower temperature at high altitude. eg. 85 degree C. This means many foods to not get cooked. So you need a "Pressure cooker".

This will help at low altitudes, and that too for some things. For other stuff, this will cause caking and crusing due to too much heat.

Comment: We are in a "Engineering" and "financial" bubble (Score 2) 154

by tanveer1979 (#47073171) Attached to: Agree or Disagree: We are in another tech bubble.

I have a different take on this.
AS the 20th century dawned, we had some machines, and some theories. Or machine making was limited by our knowledge of science.
Then came stuff like understanding the physical world. Our world. The science beneath it.

For example, how do people get sick. How does a semiconductor work. This went on till the late 1970s or so, and after that came the engineering boom. The ideas from the last 50 years were put into practice, and we are witnessing the results today.

A combination of advertising, marketing and engineering meant, there is a lot of money to be made, so our efforts to go "fundamental" have weakened. In todays world of MBA and business, every decision is based on "How will it impact our financial quarter".

In the past this mentality was seen mostly in private corporations, but now this is being seen also in universities and research institutions. Often, instead of research, engineering is done because it can reap quicker rewards.

If you look at our sciences, eg metallurgy, chemistry etc., they are languishing because not enough talent is going into them now. It requires a lot less effort(no disrespect to programmers here) to create an android game which can real good rewards.

OTOH, in basic science you may have to slog for 15-20 years before any tangible results. As a result, we are creating a bigger and bigger castle on the same foundation. its going to hold, but one day its going to get to the breaking point.

Human civilization, has reached a point where short term reward reaping has become the primary focus right from the point we get into formal education. In most countries people choose their college major based on job opportunities. It used to happen earlier, but it happens a lot more.

One day our house of cards will grow too big to stand on its on. The higher we go, the faster we fall. Its time to build up the foundation again.

Comment: This will blow your mind really... (Score 1) 183

by tanveer1979 (#46812793) Attached to: The Ethical Dilemmas Today's Programmers Face

A programmer is instructed to develop a software which generates a random sales tax registration number. This software will be used for random raids.
The officer in charge gives him a small slip with few numbers, and verbally instructs that these numbers should never be generated.
So how do you deal with corruption like this
1. Option 1 - Blow the whistle - No proof. They may come after your family
2. Option 2 - Comply
3. Option 3 - Make software so that first 3 months the numbers never come, but after 3 months the probability of the said number increases by 10X :) Evil ethical developer eh?

Comment: Lemme try and explain (Score 4, Informative) 703

I come from a farming family, we do produce lots of crops including wheat.
If temperatures go warmer by a degree. It won't matter. Really it won't.
however, as temperatures change, rainfall patterns change.
For example, we get rain from westerlies in Northwest India from Dec-End feb.
So wheat gets water at times of growth, and while harvesting end march - late april there is hardly any rain.

Over the past 10 years it has changed. It can rain heavily in march-april also, which will destroy almost ripe wheat crop.
Heck, westerlies are active into may now.

Such change in rainfall patterns can destroy crops.

Another example, the himalayas got a lot of snow this year. Much more than normal. Good thing. But all of it started in feb in some regions, which will result in poor apple crop this time in some regions.

Any climate change which alters patterns(not necessarily warming or cooling, but change) has the potential to destroy agricultural yields. So climate change is a bad thing in general for agriculture unless it happens over millenia.
I would not mind climate change if it happened gradually like in olden times. We would adapt. But rapid change in rainfall patters over 3 decades. Everything goes for a toss.

Comment: Most miss the point (Score 1) 162

by tanveer1979 (#45962247) Attached to: Why the World Needs OpenStreetMap

I have a lot of friends who proudly contribute to google maps. Whenever I try push them towards OSM, the response is. Its not good enough. roads are missing. POIs are less.
Its like a big whoosh.
OSM is user generated. More users will mean better maps. Looks at Europe. We did a trip in norway, and we could navigate perfectly just with OSM. Why? Because of local participation.
Secondly, we have lost a lot of battles. Today facebook decides what content to show. Want your status update to be seen? Well pay money. The corporations have one agenda. Gamify and monetize. We need to get out and reclaim whatever we can.
And OSM is just one of the pieces of the puzzle. If more and more people started contributing, there is no reason for OSM to be inferior. For example, the Indian city of Chennai is as well mapped as google.
More users means more developers come and develop better routing algorithms. Better POI searches. Better map features.
So if you don't like OSM in your area, Fix it. Its not too difficult. To get something, if you expect some corporation to come and do it for you, remember they will do it in a way it benefits them. To get what you want, you have to make an effort.

To communicate is the beginning of understanding. -- AT&T