Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:This is a bad idea. (Score 1) 137

Ok then, what do you suggest doing instead? Let's start by accepting the goals of protecting minors and encouraging compassion and empathy. (Maybe you don't agree with those goals, but that's irrelevant. Twitter has set them as goals, and it's their platform. Besides, most people outside the Slashdot bubble would agree with them.) So what do you recommend they should do to promote them?

Comment Re:The basic question is answered...but still... (Score 1) 464

Citation needed.

The latest IPCC report included predictions about future climate change for six different scenarios, ranging from "no further increase in atmospheric CO2" to "ongoing rapid global development, mainly powered by fossil fuels." The different scenarios led to radically different predictions, with the expected temperatures in 2100 differing by more than 3 degrees between the best case and worst case scenarios.

So please, don't go around spouting nonsense about, "relative to natural processes human contributions to greenhouse gases are a drop in the bucket." It's simply not true. If you don't know what you're talking about, either look up the facts (it would have taken you all of about three minutes), or else remain silent. But don't make things up and then spread disinformation online.

Comment Re:The basic question is answered...but still... (Score 1) 464

That's like saying, "It's settled science that diseases kill people, so we don't need any more scientists working to study diseases." The argument sounds totally ludicrous to anyone who hasn't already decided that climate science is worthless. It's not even that it's a bad argument, it simply doesn't make any sense at all. It simply provides a glaring illustration of the biases of the person trying to make it. If climate change is a serious problem, and human activity is responsible for it, then of course we need the clearest understanding we can get of what's happening and how our actions affect it. And no, economists and agronomists are not even vaguely qualified to answer those questions.

Comment Re:cellphones are bad enough (Score 1) 60

That's not what this article is talking about. These are fixed charging stations at Google's headquarters. Here's one of the companies they're working with. As they describe on their website, it's something where you drive up to the charger, stop your car, use your phone to monitor the progress of charging, etc.

Comment Re: Batteries just don't store enough energy... (Score 1) 344

I wonder if you could use lasers to beam energy up to it from the ground? You'd need good tracking, but that shouldn't be hard, and you'd need to be careful not to fry birds that got in the way, but that also seems manageable. The biggest problem might be dealing with clouds or rain.

Comment Disable automatic page reloading (Score 1) 1830

It's such a little thing to fix, and it drives me crazy. I'll be looking at the front page, reading a story, when... bang! The browser window goes blank, then reloads, jumps around a few times in the process, and after 5-10 seconds finally settles down somewhere that's different from where I was, so I have to scroll back to find the story I was reading. If I want to reload the page, I'll hit the reload button!

Do a web search for "prevent slashdot automatic reloading", and you'll find lots of pages with people complaining about this problem and suggesting not very satisfactory solutions to it. For example, https://webapps.stackexchange....

Comment Re:What could go wrong (Score 1) 405

It takes five minutes to run the numbers on that and find that it takes way more energy than could ever be considered reasonable.

Actually it doesn't. See, for example, this article from a few days ago: http://www.theatlantic.com/tec.... Heating the road can sometimes be much less expensive than traditional approaches with snowplows and chemicals.

Comment Re:What could go wrong (Score 1) 405

I just can't comprehend how this is even a proposal in the first place.

That was my first thought too. My second thought was, "Some people who know a lot more about this than I do clearly think it's a good idea, so perhaps they know things I don't." After thinking about it more, I came up with some potential advantages: installation is very easy (just huge sheets of panels lying flat on the ground), it allows huge solar installations (the cost of hooking up to the grid isn't proportional to the number of panels, so the bigger your installation, the cheaper it is), it requires no new land, they're going somewhere that's owned by the government (you might choose to put solar panels on your roof, but that's completely your choice, not something the government can force on you), and it's potentially easier to maintain them and keep them clean (think of the work required just to wash an equal number of solar panels mounted on poles or rooftops, compared to just driving a street sweeper down the road).

The obvious disadvantage is that they need to be super sturdy to handle thousands of cars driving over them every day. But if they've already solved this problem, who knows? It might be a good idea.

Comment He's using bad assumptions (Score 2) 303

He's totally wrong in assuming you need secrecy to maintain a conspiracy. Everyone knows that global warming is a hoax and that vaccines are harmful. They've both been revealed many times. You can find information about them all over the internet. But everyone keeps believing the conspirators lies anyway. You don't need secrecy, you just need most people to be really gullible and believe whatever they read, instead of questioning it and checking the facts. You know, the way any smart conspiracy theorist would do.

(In case you can't tell, yes I'm being sarcastic here. But I'm also being serious: you can't cite the difficulty of keeping a secret as an argument against a belief that, according to its adherents, isn't secret anymore.)

Comment Re:If AdBlocking is freedom-hating... (Score 1) 539

Obligatory xkcd reference: https://xkcd.com/1357

Really, freedom of speech does not mean anyone has to listen to what you say! And if you go out of your way to make your ads obnoxious, I have every right to block them. Because just as you have the right to speak, I have the right to ignore you.

Comment Re:Broadband definition... (Score 1) 522

Believe it or not, many words in English have multiple definitions. That even includes ones with precise technical definitions. Like "induction", which has a precise definition in physics, a completely different precise definition in mathematics, and still a different one in biology. Or "vector". Or "set". It's a living language, and meanings change all the time.

"Broadband internet" is a widely used term that refers to speed, not to a method of transmission. The FCC has even set a precise legal definition of it. Not that they invented the term. They just formalized a meaning that lots of people were already using. And that's what this article is about.

Comment Re:Completely fabricated nonsense (Score 1) 252

That certainly would suggest BS somewhere, but you need to look carefully to decide where. Suppose someone is pushing the narrative, "Scientists are faking the data for political reasons." What do you think that person will do? Whenever a correction causes the amount of warming to increase, they'll make a big deal about it and say, "See? There's another example of them faking the data!" And whenever a correction causes the amount of warming to decrease, they won't say a word about it because it doesn't fit with their narrative.

So if you want to apply that rule, you need to make sure you actually know every correction that's been applied, not just the ones someone with an agenda told you about.

Slashdot Top Deals

All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins