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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:If it's "settled", it ISN'T "science" (Score 2) 393

The people saying "global warming" are all paid to say "global warming" to get/keep Government funding, so that government can dictate to everyone (except rich n powerful) that we need to give up every technology that makes the world run.

The fact is, ever number has been fudged to get the results they are wanting, to prove what they need to prove, to keep getting funding to support something that has no basis except "consensus"

When every major prediction has failed, the the consensus cannot be right. I remember all those predictions of "worse hurricanes" followed by "almost no hurricanes", and "Polar Ice caps disappearing" only to have "polar Ice caps expanding (which is now the new "proof" of global warming), on down the line.

not to mention the Greening of Africa, when it was supposed to be getting drier and more desert like: http://news.nationalgeographic...

The problem isn't Global warming, it is that EVERYTHING is blamed on it. Ice growing or shrinking .. GLOBAL WARMING, more snow GLOBAL WARMING, more rain and greening in Africa GLOBAL WARMING!

In fact, global warming may in fact be good for the planet, even if it isn't good for Humans. ;)

Comment Re: Cool (Score 1) 163

My objection is that they are assumed "law" but never having been through the Legislature, cannot be "law" ... by definition. So the assumption should be "these aren't laws, more like guidelines".

The problem isn't executive orders, it is that they aren't really laws, but are still treated as laws.

Comment Re:First.... (Score 2) 163

LOL ... are you expecting a rational reconciliation between the fact that you can't undermine security and enhance security at the same time?

For you and I, that would be cognitive dissonance. For people who think they can pass laws around technical problems, the wishful thinking just keeps going.

Not understanding the technology makes it far easier to pass terrible laws about the technology and then fail to understand why those laws don't work.

But, part of the problem is they fall short on some basic security things ... and that stuff probably does need some fixing.

Comment Re:$1 / week (Score 1) 517

And the people who subscribe to a news paper will read it every day, probably read all of it, and do so religiously. Those people are looking to have the newspaper as a fairly significant chunk of their day.

Now, who goes to Wired every day and reads every article? And how many other websites do you think people will be willing to pay for? The subscription fatigue will kick in really quickly.

I wouldn't pay for wired, and I'm not turning off my security and privacy for them ... so if next time someone posts a story on Slashdot, and it points to Wired ... I will simply not read the story.

There's simply a very finite amount of money people will allocate for this kind of thing ... and if Wired discovers nobody cares, that will be their own damned problem.

Comment Re:Asinine (Score 1) 119

"it's well beyond the point where we should care about them."

That's entirely beside the point.

No, that's exactly the point.

The law does not allow you (or any other hacktivist) to go break into the FBI just because you're angry.

The law doesn't allow thw FBI to do blanket surveillance without a warrant or commit perjury either, and yet ...

Let's reframe the argument... People in prison are murderers, rapists, thieves, and drug dealers. They're well past the point where we should care about them, so it's fine when facilities aren't maintained and inmates are abused, right?

Random bullshit strawman, no thanks.

You're advocating a brutal world of vigilantism and rule of force, rather than rule of law.

If the FBI et al don't follow the law, don't pretend like they should be shielded by it. Rule of law being something we have to adhere to but they can ignore? Hell no.

I don't think anybody has claimed that the government agencies are perfectly innocent, but today they are the victim

Again, an expectation of sympathy, why again? Collectively, the FBI doesn't give a shit about the law or your privacy, but we're supposed to respect theirs?

Look, I'm in no way associated with this stuff. I think the guys who do it are poking the bear, and will likely find that can sting a little. I'm not suggesting anybody run out and do this shit.

But I am saying the collective anger at the entire agency is not happening in a vacuum. If they're going to ignore the law and trample on our rights, going all boo hoo about theirs is hypocrisy.

I think the people doing this should reasonably expect a lot of law enforcement resources to be expended. But I simply can't muster up sympathy for the collective tragedy of FBI agents, who collectively don't give a fuck about the laws or our rights.

This "it's OK, we're law enforcement, we're the good guys" is just not something I can believe any more.

So, no, I don't care. I'm beyond caring. Because they stopped holding up their end years ago.

Comment Re:The science is not settled (Score 0) 393

Here are some things science is settled on:

The earth being round.

The earth is not round http://www.scientificamerican....

The earth orbiting the sun.

Technically, the earth does not orbit the sun. It orbits the central mass of the solar system.
http://www.realclearscience.co...

Science IS settled on a lot of issues. AGW is a new one, but something we can do something about (well, 10 years ago).

Just because there is a preponderance of evidence that our explanation of an observed phenomenon is correct, it does not mean the science is settled. It means that we have a good explanation. If a better explanation comes along and it fills in areas where the first did not, we adjust our understanding of the universe and the accepted scientific belief is changed.

Ill add that if you are getting your science from grade school or the news outlets, then you need to realize that you are not reading the science and are instead reading an opinion.

Comment Re:Oops (Score 1) 517

Why the hell would we let all the damned tracking shit run in the first place?

OK, so your little monkey brain doesn't see it (not "your" little monkey brain, per se) ... they still get the tracking and analytics data.

What the hell is the point of that? They still know that "little monkey brain x visited this site" ... I'm not giving them that information, that's why I run the ad blocker in the first place.

Letting the scripts run defeats the entire purpose.

Comment Re:If it's "settled", it ISN'T "science" (Score 1) 393

Gravity, from our understanding of Newton's laws, we now know Newton was wrong (technically) but close enough (approximately correct). We know this because Einstein's models are more accurate (and yet .. still not correct). The problem with science is that it evolves as we gain understanding. AGW has so many different variables in it, that it is bound to be wrong, and we can't even tell how wrong it is.

This is why people use terms like "consensus" instead of "proven", because quite frankly it is still hypothesis and not even a very good one.

Comment Re:Ignore the hype, pay attention to the science (Score 4, Insightful) 393

Obligatory PHD Comics: The Science News Cycle.

At their most specific, the scientists might say that Climate Change means we'll be more likely to get stronger storms more often, but the media reports it as "Scientists say Current Storm X is directly caused by Climate Change!!!"

Comment Re:If it's "settled", it ISN'T "science" (Score 0, Troll) 393

When the answer to "it is settled" is based on "consensus" and not actual facts, then there is a problem. Once upon a time, Piltdown Man was "consensus" (and considered fact) science. The problem is that Science isn't consensus, it is fact based.

Now, go and look at the Actual facts on AGW propopents, and you'll find all sorts of arbitrary and politically motivated "adjustments" to climate models whenever they break. Like the 15 years of "no global warming" (and counting) and the whole slew of predictions gone wrong. With a track record of failures why should we believe the GW proponents?

IMHO the Science isn't settled, because science isn't consensus.

Comment Re:Oh god no ... (Score 1) 530

t sounds like you are really making the point that "stupid people gonna be stupid" no matter what paint (or not paint) is on the road.

Pretty much, yes.

I'm saying the level of dangerous stupidity I see with the lines in place tells me removing the lines is going to have FAR more unintended consequences.

The people who are too damned stupid to know what side of the road to drive on or what lane they're in are far too numerous ... giving them no indication of where they are is only going to make it worse.

Swerving into on-coming traffic is something which a lot of people already do.

So, yes, the idiots I already see in the world aren't going to be any less idiots with this. Which makes me think while this will slow a few people, it will cause a whole host of other problems. They'll likely cause more new problems than they fix.

Slashdot Top Deals

Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.

Working...