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


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: Re:Let's see (Score 1) 273

by sjames (#49368603) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient

The person who provided citations to back my position. You would read it if you wanted to be educated. Clearly you are quite happy being a braying ass (how ironic).

But I have to ask, are you paid to spout drivel on /.? Surely nobody could actually believe that runoff from paved surfaces explains flooding on a clear day?!?

Either way, it hardly matters. You have proven yourself ineducable. You have your fingers jammed in your ears all the way up to your metacarpals and you're screaming LA LA LA at the top of your lungs. probably crying tears of desperation wondering how long until you have to gouge your eyes out in order to keep believing.

I have no more time for that crap.

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 275

by AK Marc (#49368373) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

. And you aren't thinking clearly, you are defending a politician.

You are lying again. Attacking people emotionally attacking politicians is not "defending" the politician.

Who cares if it was illegal?

All the Hillary haters, evidently. They keep calling it "illegal" not "wrong" or "bad"

keeping a private email server [is] against the law

Apparently you care about the legality. Then lie about it a few posts later, like we can't see what you just wrote.

Comment: Re:So she can do to the US... (Score 1) 290

by AK Marc (#49368075) Attached to: Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina Near Launching Presidential Bid

Take Social Security for example. Rather than do something minimal like removing the income cap for taxation, or raising the tax by 2% to cover the long term demographic driven shortfall, they want to burn the whole thing down. We would be better off lower the retirement age than raising it, but the debate has already been pulled so far to the right you can't even talk about improving social security, you can only argue about how big the cuts *MUST* be to save the program.

Of course, you can shut them up with a "what do you do about the old person targeted by scammers who steal all her savings, so she's left penniless at 80, with no means of income or self support? She'll lose her home, and die starving on the streets if nothing is done. What would you have done? Yes, but what if the donations don't cover that? Is there any safety net at all?

That usually gets them on a 6 hour rant about personal responsibility, and some blaming the victim and such. But never an answer.

Comment: Re:So she can do to the US... (Score 1) 290

by AK Marc (#49368051) Attached to: Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina Near Launching Presidential Bid

In my mind 'getting government to operate withing budget' == Fiscal Conservative,

I'm a rabid left-wing radical, and apparently a fiscal conservative as well.

That's the problem with the current definitions. Everyone labels with the intent of shaming, not describing. I want a small government that does nothing but protect the rights of people from anyone who would impinge on them, from private or governmental sources.

A Libertarian wants a government that doesn't defend rights, but defends contracts. If property has rights, and people only have rights assigned to them by their property, then you are libertarian. If you believe people have rights, and property is one of the lowest rights in the hierarchy, then you are liberal. If you believe money has rights, and people don't, then you are a conservative.

Comment: Re:Game Over (Score 1) 273

by HiThere (#49368037) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient

I think you underestimate the effects, though causal proof is going to be lacking. (Can't prove, e.g., that this prediction isn't caused by overfishins.) Fish are dying out. So are all sea animals that depend on a calcium skeleton. This is because increased carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water makes it more energetically expensive to extract calcium for the skeleton from the sea water. So I'm also talking about corals. Jellyfish will do well. So will some small animal (you need a magnifying glass, but not a microscope) that use silicon skeletons. Sharks and rays may do alright, but may need to adapt their diet.

On land many plants will not be able to be grown where they have traditionally been grown, but others will do ok. Many plants will become lower in protein and higher in starches as carbohydrates become energetically easier to build. diseases never before heard of will spread from the tropics. Etc.
(N.B.: Some of these predictions are sure things, because they are already happening.) Weather patterns will become more irregular, causing both more dorughts and more floods, longer heat waves and longer cold spells...and in these last two longer often translates into more extreme. Lots of other effects, mainly small, mainly difficult to causally tie to climate change (i.e., global warming). But whose probability of occurance can be reasonably be believed to be increased by global warming. (Do note that this included cold spells.)

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 275

by AK Marc (#49368017) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail
Nobody was saying we (or they) should be doing what the others are doing. But that the global definition of "center" puts the US firmly in the "right" category. That was all, not that we should be more or less like someone else.

That the US is likely not in much better shape, it's not like we have found the magic answer.

Comment: Re:Let's see (Score 1) 273

by HiThere (#49367971) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient

I believe his claim is that pumping out the aquifers is causing land subsidence. This is a VERY reasonable claim. Pumping out oil caued much of Southern California to experience subsidence several decades ago, and aquifers, being closer to the surface, could be expected to have more dramatic (though more focused) effects. And I believe that there are many other cases where that is not in dispute. IIUC it's causing subsidence in California's San Joaquin Valley. Which, in turn, renders the San Joaquin Valley more threatened by sea level rise. I really doubt that the Tethy's Sea will reappear, however, unless much of Antarctica melts.

+ - An Illustrated History of "iPhone Killers"

Submitted by schnell
schnell (163007) writes "In June 2007, the original iPhone — with 2G-only connectivity, no native apps and $499 on-contract pricing for a 4 GB model — launched exclusively on AT&T in the US. At the time, the US smartphone marketplace was dominated by BlackBerry and Windows Mobile, with Palm and Symbian as afterthoughts and Android still in prototype — leaving the industry to wonder whether Apple's phone venture was a legitimate contender or a flash in the pan. Since then, dozens of phones have been lauded as "iPhone killers," and Yahoo! has a collection of sixteen of the most notable. These putative assassins range from the original Motorola Droid to the LG Voyager with the Palm Pre and the BlackBerry Storm in between. In retrospect, did any of these devices really have a chance? And what would a real iPhone killer require?"

Professional wrestling: ballet for the common man.