Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment The Horse's Mouth (Score 1) 1143

EPA page on wood stoves.

The certification rules only apply to new stoves. There's even a tax break if you replace your stove this year, and it's been in place for the past two years. The EPA is exploring ways to help people change out their old wood stoves—those things are not healthy.

Some cities have rules that restrict the use of wood-burning stoves when air pollution is high.

And that's about it. As one store page I found puts it: "When the EPA first started looking at woodstove particulate emissions, the front pages were emblazoned with headlines screaming, WOOD STOVES TO BE OUTLAWED!! When the regulations which specifically allow wood burning were subsequently passed, the story got maybe one paragraph on page 23."—The Chimney Sweep Online

Please, folks, stop posting scare stories. The Washington Times, where this piece of crankery comes from, is paid to scare you—by the Unification Church yet. So is Fox News. Just 'cause these guys want you scared doesn't mean you have to go along with the program.

Comment Re:Some bits of the retraction are quoted here (Score 1) 326

Correction, the second link was supposed to be:

The major issue here is how Apple's suppliers are treating their employees (execrably), not whether or not Daisey is a saint.

Comment Some bits of the retraction are quoted here (Score 1) 326

I can understand why the professional reporters are horrified. But I keep remembering something a poet once said:

The case was defended on the squarest, most idealistic, and most foolish level imaginable, and on the other side the dirt was so filthy that the defense refused to believe it existed, or, as in my case and probably in others, actually believed it.--Kenneth Rexroth, An Autobiographical Novel, p. 199.

Which is more important: the working conditions of thousands or their sensationalization by one man?

Comment Re:Shed the guilt, fast! (Score 1) 326

facts matter in the world of nerds, regardless of who they favor.

Which facts, though? The facts about Apple's manufacturers or the facts about Daisey? I think the story about how the employees are mistreated is a more interesting and important story than Daisey sensationalizing that mistreatment.

Your choice of facts does not speak well of you.

Comment You've been played by Apple and Foxconn (Score 3, Interesting) 326

At the very bottom of the story on the retraction, there is a link to a sourced New York Times story, which is nearly as damning as the retracted one. This is called "burying the lede," and it is biased reporting.

Reportedly, the TAL correction also confirmed most of what Daisey claimed; he wasn't there, but the stories turn out to be true after all. The TAL broadcast will be available for download on Sunday

Here's the link to the NYT story:

This is were the TAL correction will be available:

A bug in the hand is better than one as yet undetected.