Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: "unique photo"? (Score 1) 6

by Bill Dog (#48642365) Attached to: What should I do with this catfisher?

If someone's grabbing images of a person off the web, they can just send one they haven't added to the profile. You would have to ask them to send you a photo of them holding up the front page of today's newspaper I guess. And then look closely for photoshopping. (Or them holding it up over their face! :)

I'd never heard that term, but I did see something on TV years ago about jr high or high screwl age girls playing pretend online with adult men, trying to string them along to get multiple faux romances going on at the same time, to enjoy the attention and for something to do/entertainment and to talk and laugh about with their friends. People are swell.

I would be interested to know what %-age of profiles you think/feel are non-legit.

Comment: Re:Why not just call them "non-believers"... (Score 1) 616

by 0111 1110 (#48640705) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

You are free to ignore whoever you wish to ignore. However I believe that the AGW crowd have a flawed understanding of what science actually consists of. I happen to believe that science requires comparing an idea against the real world. I "deny" that comparing ideas against a computer model is science.

This lack of confidence in computer models is I believe a fundamental distinction between those who believe that AGW is "undeniable" and those who believe the hypothesis should be questioned as much as any other unproven idea. Unproven, that is, by comparing the idea with meatspace observations rather than computer simulations that are intended to be 100% perfect replacements for the real world.

Has some warming occured in the last century based on temperature measurements? Yes. Probably. By a small amount. Less than 1 degree. Does that mean it will continue over the next century or accelerate? That is simply unknown at this time. The only way to know is to wait and take more measurements. Anything else is no better than guessing. It's certainly not how science is done. It is not a viable method to ascertain how closely your idea matches the reality out there in the complexity of the real world.

Comment: Re: Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 616

by 0111 1110 (#48640661) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

Or questioning climate science the same way people use to question that the world was round.

From the perspective of the scientific method there was nothing wrong with being skeptical of the earth being round. In fact it isn't round. It's not flat, but neither is it mathematically circular or spherical. Science is all about asking questions and being suspicious of any easy answers.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 616

by 0111 1110 (#48640641) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

It's about the idea that a "skeptic" leaves the door open to all possibilities, but "deniers" have already closed the door.

From what I have seen of the people who question that AGW is 100% proven and undeniably going to cause the end of all mammalian life in less than a century or so at least on slashdot you are beating on a strawman.

I do not consider AGW theory to be even remotely proven and yes I have looked at the so called "evidence". However I would never argue that AGW is impossible. That would be silly. The basic mechanism is sound, but it might take 10,000 years or 100,000 years or the small effect may be overwhelmed by other factors.

The climate of an entire planet is extremely complex and cannot be accurately 'modeled' with a naive computer program. Just like we cannot build a model of the universe in a computer and use it as a substitute for testing our hypothesis in meatspace to see what happens. Science is about testing hypothesis by actually trying stuff out to see what happens. Testing ideas against nature itself. Testing ideas against naive assumptions inherent to computer simulations is not science. When it comes to climate "science" this would mean waiting to see what happens.

At least so far the effect does not seem extraordinarily great. In a few hundred years we can again take measurements to see how things are going. Or however long it takes to see a noticeable and arguably dangerous warming effect. So far the rise has not been dangerous. There is nothing inherently bad about a rise of 1 degree over a century. Just as there is nothing inherently good about a drop of 1 degree over a century. Nor is a 100% perfectly stable temperature inherently good.

The theory is plausible. The effect is plausible. Now AGW just needs to be actually demonstrated in meatspace. It's just a matter of being patient. There is no shortcut when trying to test long term theories. You have to wait. Writing a computer program to accurately mimic a natural process is not a shortcut. At the very least first you would have to demonstrate that your model is 100% accurate and again that requires waiting many years to compare the model's predictions against observations.

Comment: Re:News at 11.. (Score 1) 616

by 0111 1110 (#48640589) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

Copyright infringement is theft because it denies a copyright owner the ability to sell the product for which they have the copyright

There is an easy solution. Take away this thing you refer to as "copyright". Afaik such a thing does not exist in nature. In fact it is highly unlikely that the thing an owner asserts the 'rights' to is not even original. It itself is derived from other people's ideas. You cannot own an idea. You cannot own information. Information just is. The best you can do is keep it secret. That is just the nature of reality.

Comment: Re:Neville Chamberlin was not available for commen (Score 2) 227

by Rei (#48630561) Attached to: "Team America" Gets Post-Hack Yanking At Alamo Drafthouse, Too

Germany was spending far more on their military during that time than Britain was. If Britain and France had stepped in earlier, Germany would have been totally unprepared and the war would have ended quickly. Not to mention all of the horrors of the Holocaust that would have been prevented.

If Britain and France had managed to delay the war to "prepare" even more, say a few years, the Luftwaffe would have been dominated by jets, German ballistic missiles would have been longer range and more precise, and they might even have become a nuclear power. I really don't think this is the analogy you're looking for.

Comment: Re:Never attribute to stupidity (Score 1) 571

by Rei (#48626209) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

Propaganda campaign by who? I think Singer needs to check his haughtiness at the door:

the ability to steal gossipy emails from a not-so-great protected computer network is not the same thing as being able to carry out physical, 9/11-style attacks in 18,000 locations simultaneously. I can't believe I'm saying this. I can't believe I have to say this."

Except, of course, for the fact that the prime suspect is the hand-picked hacker squad of the Hollywood-obsessed leader of a nuclear armed state with ICBMs, whose family's Hollywood obsession has gone to such extremes in the past as kidnapping filmmakers and forcing at them at gunpoint to make movies for them. I can't believe I'm saying this. I can't believe I have to say this.

Comment: Re:Hmm (Score 1) 81

by Rei (#48623175) Attached to: SpaceX To Attempt Falcon 9 Landing On Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship

That's not all that different from how he got started with Tesla. He had no intention of starting a car company (he already had SpaceX), he just wanted AC Propulsion to build him a copy of their t-zero - but they had no interest, even for a small fortune. But then they pointed him to this guy named Martin Eberhard who had this wild idea to commercialize the t-zero's tech base on a Lotus Elise body and was looking for funding... and thus Tesla was born.

Comment: Re:Pretty sad (Score 1) 155

by Rei (#48619997) Attached to: Dr. Dobb's 38-Year Run Comes To an End

g++ supports it with __restrict__. And if you're writing high performance code but not having support for the features of modern compilers, you're an idiot. In appropriate situations, the performance difference for using restrict or not is huge. Array-heavy tasks like image processing often get a 2-fold or more benefit with using restrict. There's very few places in the coding word where a single keyword can raise your performance that much.

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!