Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: No it is not (Score 4, Informative) 351 351

We are all responsible for our own actions.

Certainly. But that doesn't mean our actions cannot be influenced by others, especially when those influences are subtle or act on the subconscious.

No need for 'regulation' or 'protection' of classes of people of any age.

Were you replying to someone else? I wasn't calling for state action or regulation.

Comment Re: No it is not (Score 5, Insightful) 351 351

Still, you only buy something if you believe it is worth the money. No ad holds a gun to your head and forces you to make a purchase. They only suggest that something is worth purchasing or that their brand is better than the competition... you ultimately make the decision what to buy, and most importantly, whether to buy it in the first place.

Modern advertising and PR learned quite a bit from the propaganda on both sides during WW2. It chooses music and images to elicit specific emotions such as feeling that something is missing in your life, or you're too fat, or that with this product people will like you. Have you noticed the recent uptick in television advertisements featuring veterans that have absolutely nothing to do with veterans?

"Oh thank God! She made it home in one piece, and her dog missed her so much. Now go buy whatever-the-fuck dogfood we're selling or you don't support our troops!"

Sure, there's no gun to your head. But the industry wouldn't spend billions of dollars doing it if it didn't increase sales. And every year they research new techniques to tug on your heartstrings or make you feel inadequate, and then they show you the product that will fill that void. Your mind is being programmed at every opportunity, and I believe you should have to opt in to it only if you want.

Comment Re:Well... (Score 1) 377 377

I'm gonna have to go against the chorus and lay the blame at your feet, honestly. You left a booby trap for whoever rebooted that server at any point in the future. Had you removed the hard drive or put the machine into a donation pile, I could understand.

Say you get hit by a bus the next week and they hire a new sysadmin. A few days later he's asked to setup a new service and decides to repurpose that unused server. He connects it to the network, boots it, installs updates and new software . . . and then gets pulled onto some other task that takes a day. That night disaster strikes. Is it his fault for not ensuring there were no dangerous cron jobs left on the machine?

Perhaps, but it's much easier to disarm bombs you've designed rather than force the job onto some poor, unsuspecting sap. :)

Comment Re:Sole provider? (Score 1) 250 250

But the reality is, most people do NOT have the luxury of having the time and resources to find the perfect job they love in order to work and make a living.

Certainly, but the author isn't asking what most people should do. He's been able to support his family for three years, and his wife has demonstrated the ability to learn Java and build enterprise software. I'm willing to bet she could transition to a related field (consulting, IT, a different language, etc.) quickly and with minimal additional training.

I see no point to rush immediately into the same type of job when a small investment could yield much better results for everyone.

Comment Sole provider? (Score 2) 250 250

What part of

She is starting to think about refreshing her coding skills and looking for a job. . . . However, she is not very eager to go back to coding.

makes you think she wants her husband to be the sole provider? Is there something wrong with wanting a rewarding career that you're passionate about?

Comment So the story is that . . . there is no story? (Score 1) 125 125

Let me see if I've got this straight. The Sunday Times found some evidence which they presented to the UK government, and the government anonymously verified said evidence, but the Times decided to print only the government statements without the evidence?

Would I be entirely off the mark in guessing that the "evidence" also came from an anonymous government source? Oh right, this reporter "is sorry to disappoint you again," but he "does not know."

It seems to me that the Department of Disinformation is having a difficult time hiring quality employees.

Comment Re:Global warming has continued unabated since 195 (Score 1) 298 298

While surface temperatures have slowed somewhat (though 2013 and 2014 saw them jump right back up), global warming itself--which includes ocean heat content, glacier and sea ice melting, and atmospheric temperatures in addition to surface temperatures--has not slowed. Their statements are consistent with this.

Comment Global warming has continued unabated since 1950 (Score 1) 298 298

As evidenced by satellite data, the Earth has experienced a positive energy imbalance since 1950, accumulating more heat than it radiates into space. This additional heat warms the land, melts the ice, increases the air temperature, and accumulates in the ocean.

The 2014 global land-ocean temperature index data produced by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies shows an average rise of 0.12C per decade from 1950 to 2014. In 2012 Nuccitelli et al combined the ocean heat content measurements (surface and subsurface) with the land, ice and atmospheric measurements, showing a global energy increase of 20×10J since 1960.

There is a myth that global warming stopped in 1998—often called a pause or hiatus—because the surface air temperature rose only 0.05C per decade from 1998 to 2012 while atmospheric CO2 levels continued to rise. This argument is flawed for several reasons.

The myth ignores the surface temperature data before 1998 and after 2012. This is an example of cherry-picking: choosing a subset of data to fit an argument while ignoring the data that contradict it. By taking the fifteen year period starting in 1996, one could claim that global warming has increased since the rise for that period was 0.14C per decade. It is only by considering the entire dataset that we see an accurate picture.

The myth ignores the natural variability in the Earth’s climate due to trade winds, sun intensity, and volcanos and assumes the data measures only AGW (anthropogenic global warming). This is an example of misrepresentation. For example, due to the El Niño Southern Oscillation cycle, 1998 saw a particularly strong El Niño warming while 2012 saw a weak La Niña. This caused a considerable ENSO cooling during that period that partially masked the warming trend from AGW.

The myth jumps to the conclusion that a short-term slowdown in the temperature rise will continue forever. There have been similar short-term pauses throughout the twentieth century, but each was followed by a larger short-term rise that offset it. The long-term record shows a clear warming trend of 0.12C per decade.

Finally, the myth focuses on the surface air temperatures and ignores the increasing ocean heat content, increasing sea level, and decreasing arctic sea ice mass—another example of cherry-picking. For example, the Nuccitelli data shows an energy increase of 6×10J since 1998. Taken together, these demonstrate the simple fact that the Earth is warming overall, matching the satellite data.

You can find more at Skeptical Science.

Comment Re:The fence's warehouse (Score 1) 205 205

No, a crack house in a mall would be immediately obvious as a mall only has a hundred or so stores. That's very easy to police.

It's more like a Public Storage with 180 million units containing 12 billion items where some percentage of them are illicit. Every so often the someone points out an infringing item and asks that it be removed. And every so often those items are not actually infringing.

Comment Re:Oh please U.S. Chamber of Commerce ? (Score 3, Informative) 81 81

The surface temperature is still warming, just less so. Instead, the energy is being absorbed by the oceans. A warmer ocean still melts sea ice and increases evaporation--another greenhouse gas. The energy imbalance is still there, and the heat must go somewhere. Just because WUWT ignores that basic fact of physics and the data from the oceans doesn't change it.

Real programmers don't bring brown-bag lunches. If the vending machine doesn't sell it, they don't eat it. Vending machines don't sell quiche.