Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:Programmed behaviour is programmed behaviour. (Score 4, Insightful) 202

Computers follow rules. Humans (a.k.a every other asshole on the road) do not.

This is a no win situation. If you program a car to drive safely and follow rules, then it won't be safe on roads because of all the assholes who don't. If you program the car to behave more like an asshole ( a human driver), then it won't be safe since there's a good chance it will make the wrong call. If you program the car to just account for assholes but still drive safely, then it will basically choke in situations like a four way stop in southern California where every other asshole will just muscle or roll their way through the stop.

The long pole in the tent isn't developing an AI capable of driving. It's developing an AI that can deal with assholes.

Comment Re:So it's not unlimited, then... (Score 4, Insightful) 301

I'm starting to get tired of this mentality from service providers that, just because someone is using their services in ways they didn't expect, they're somehow 'abusing' the service. If you advertise the service as unlimited, it should be unlimited. You shouldn't care that I'm using it to torrent or do whatever.

If you can't provide a truly unlimited service, don't advertise it

I believe that these "unlimited plans" were making the assumption that people aren't assholes. That's a terrible assumption to make.

Most user's aren't going to run torrents on their phones. In fact, I'm almost certain that type of use case wasn't even considered when they decided on the "unlimited plan" idea. They were probably only looking at the "average" use case with some deviation boundaries. But then along comes the spider that is Joe/Jane Torrent, who blows all usage estimation out of the water and screws over everyone else in an area by using his/her phone as an internet hub.

Companies should know better by now. Offer an "unlimited" anything and there will always be some part of the population who will use it in ways that will demonstrate just how stupid that idea was.

Comment Re:Use RTGs for ion propulsion then comm. (Score 1) 77

Very Kerbal. Much wow.

The problem with RTGs is that the contain the word "nuclear" in their description. This induces hysterics in the idiotic population that a mishap will result in an Earth Shattering Kaboom(tm).

I blame Marvin the Martion for this.

Comment Re:So now we have a new paradox... (Score 3, Insightful) 168

You don't understand the concept and made ASSumptions based on a generalized analogy that isn't even wholly correct, then proclaim that he's an idiot.

Are you running for office?

Regardless, how about a different analogy that might might make this more clear.

You have an egg. You drop it. The egg hits the floor. It vanishes. Do you still have an egg? Nope.

You have an egg. You drop it. The egg splatters on the floor. Do you still have an egg? Yep.

The former is how black holes were thought to work. The problem is that if black holes really worked that way it would cause some rather odd things to occur. We haven't observed these really odd things, which implies that black holes don't operate that way.

The latter is how they operate according to the new work. The egg may not be in the same form, but it didn't "vanish". You didn't "lose" anything. It's just in a different form. Sure, it may not be anything more than a mess on your floor. It may not be useful for anything other than a Fido snack. But it doesn't change the fact that the egg is still there.

Comment Re:We already have a great tool (Score 1) 127

Plants... they consume CO2, which seems to be the big issue in climate change.

How about projects to plant more plants in cities globally? Like forcing coal-powered power plants to surround their plant with plants? Plan to plant more plants in your plants.


That will jack shit because you and others like you have absolutely no concept of scale. If you completely covered every square meter of earth the densest fast growing trees, you wouldn't even come close to counteracting a single year's worth of carbon emissions. And I don't mean just the land. I mean even square meter of surface area. We're burning through the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of years worth of ancient global forests, grasslands, etc. every year. No amount of greenery is going to counteract that.

Worse, it doesn't even fix the problem even IF it were possible to plant enough. It just kicks the can down the road. Any plants or trees you plant eventually die. When they die, the decompose releasing methane, CO2, and a host of other carbon based compounds. The carbon doesn't just magically vanish. It goes right back into the global carbon cycle.

And that's the problem with these so-called geoengineering "solutions". They're not solutions. They're hacks. Even if they could work on a global scale they treat the symptoms, and not the problems. Worse, it's likely any such hacks will cause other issues.

Sorry, but we're long passed the point of possibly fixing the problem. And geohacking so we can keep taking hits of the fossil fuel crack pipe is dangerous as well as stupid. We need to come up with plans for adaptation, reduction in fossil fuel usage, and sustainability.

Comment Re:there is no climate change ? who said that? (Score 1) 185

"there is no climate change" - I wonder how many deniers or skeptics argue that?- only a tiny %age at a guess. I'd say the evidence for climate change since the last Ice Age indicates that non-anthropogenic GW one of the stronger puzzles that needs to be worked on, even if Mann and Smith are trying to downplay the variability seen.

If you ignore the past 120+ years or so of climate research, then yes it is a puzzle. However, since Arrhenius first proposed his global climate model in the late 1800's science has come quite a long way in this matter. There are many research papers on this very topic, and even whole textbooks.

But if you don't want to bother with dedicated research on the topic (or if you doubt it), brush up on some physics, chemistry, and math and rediscover what all these scientist have researched over the past century.

Comment Re:A mini ice age? Really? (Score 1) 185

This is why no-one trusts the media. I doubt even the most fervent anti-CC campaigner believes this to be true. And while I don't think climate change itself is a hoax, I'm far less convinced that it's a death sentence (e.g. as far as I know we've had higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past without all life dying).

Apparently you've never seen the bags of crazy at WUWT and CA, or even read the comments on a climate science story here on Slashdot. Chemistry? Thermodynamics? Pssh. Much more plausible to believe a global conspiracy on the order of the Illuminati. :P

At any rate, no respectable climate scientist has said that climate change will end all life. Again, that's something the crazies (such as those at WUWT) fabricated out of nothing. There will be negative consequences to be sure. But I've never seen a single sane scientist claim that climate change will kill all humans, let alone all life.

Comment Re:Fat Shaming (Score 1) 206

...and yet many companies use United Healthcare, which has this neat little program where nicotine users (cigs, dip, vape, whatever) get to pay an extra $70/mo. for their health insurance, and if your spouse smokes? That'll be $140/mo that you get pay, please.

Oh, you don't partake and claim yourself exempt? You get random annual bodily-fluid testing where you get to prove that you're nicotine-free.

Did I mention that if caught smoking when you said you didn't? You get fired for-cause.

You've got two people who want you to lend them $1000. One is an alcoholic gambling addict, the other is a responsible adult with a long stable work history and no debt. Which do you lend money to?

This isn't rocket science here. Insurance companies aren't non-profit charities. Their ability to stay afloat relies on their ability to accurately assess risk and charge accordingly. If you engage in high risk behaviors (smoking, excessive drinking, weighing 400 lbs and eating nothing but cheeseburgers and donuts while snorting lines of coke off a hooker's ass, etc.), then an insurance company is going to adjust your rates higher than someone who leads a healthy lifestyle.

And if you lie and say your the pinnacle of health when in fact your one deep fried cheese stick from a coronary, I'm not sure why you seem to think that's any different than lying in any other aspect of your job. Your dishonest and selfish behavior just cost the company $150,000 for your triple bypass, raising the rates the company has to pay and thus your co-workers have to pay.

Comment Re:Talking points? (Score 1) 528

The only person who has a remote chance of caring about us is Trump.

Trump doesn't give one shit about people, and all you need to do is look at his history.

I am well aware of that... but he also has nothing to gain by screwing us at this point. He is now old, very wealthy, and has nothing else to do but take the country in a new direction.

Bullshit. People like Trump want one thing and one thing only: MORE. They don't care about you. They don't care about the US, the world, terrorists, or any of the crap. They are amoral, borderline sociopaths who'd just as soon wipe an entire third world country off the map just so they can make 10 cents on the dollar for some useless piece of electronic garbage.

Yeah, I'm tired of the same old same old crap in Washington as well, but I'm not about to hand over the reigns of a world super power to asshole blowhard with the science understanding of a 2 year old. That's not different. That's just plain fucking stupid.

He also isn't owned by lobbyists or 30 years of political connections the way Bush and Clinton are.

Oh, but he wants to be. Nothing pleases a someone like Trump than having his ass kissed, cock sucked, and pockets lined by the world elite. He's leading the republican polls, and he's already got people with knee-pads and wallets just begging for the chance.

If Bush or Clinton are elected, exactly nothing will change. If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always gotten.

Which is a hell of a lot better than giving a racist asshole the keys to the kingdom. The whole point of an election is to make things better, not worse. Also, considering that Trump has pissed off just about everyone on both sides of the aisle, exactly how does that improve the situation in Washington?

At least Trump will kick over the table and say, "new direction".

No, he will say "BEND OVER BITCHES" and proceed to screw us over through idiocy and malice, because that's what he does.

Will it turn out well?

Absolutely not. He's already expressed his almost laughable grasp of complex subjects and has outright lied on multiple occasions. Worse, he doesn't even apologize when caught. He just doubles down. Why do people think American politics is a joke in the rest of the world? Because idiots like Trump actually can lead in the polls. I'm sure they'd be laughing if they weren't terrified that someone like Trump has a finger on the button.

Hard to say, we won't really know without trying, but at some point we either try something new, or accept the current situation forever.

Really? Have you even WATCHED what the hell this douchebag has been saying and doing since he began his campaign?

Look, I understand your desire to try something different. I share the same desire. But Trump is by leaps and bounds the WORST candidate on the list.

Comment Re:Improving data [Re:The Gods] (Score 4, Insightful) 385

I'm not sure what your point is. The way science works is that scientists are constantly improving their work. You would be more worried if they didn't upgrade their data analysis methods from time to time.

There's a vast difference between improving your analysis and dropping data you don't like.

There's also a vast difference between ignorant and being willfully ignorant. There is a full detailed scientific explanation of WHY the change was made. It has nothing to do with "Oh we don't like it".

Grow up.

Comment Re:400 years away? (Score 1) 195

If it's been 400 years since the Maunder Minimum, and assuming we peak on temperature right now, wouldn't that mean the new minimum is still a problem for our [great-]+grandchildren?

No, because solar variation even during the minimum wouldn't even be close to enough to offset the additional warming we've introduced. Even if our temperature peaked right now, we're at about .8C above the 20th century average. A Maunder Minimum type event would drop that by about .2C. So even if this was as warm as it gets (which it isn't) then global average temperature would still be about .6C above the 20th century average.

Comment Re:"more media hype than science" - LOL (Score 1) 195

I would just like climatologists to admit that most of their prior models have had their faults and this one may as well...

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say you don't really ever read research papers. Because if you did, you'd know that just about every piece of research includes a section for ERROR ANALYSIS. In other words, scientists know there are errors and they analyze them to describe what they are, how they're bounded, etc.

The way to make a small fortune in the commodities market is to start with a large fortune.