Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Landline (Score 1) 229

by Chrisq (#48665615) Attached to: The Slow Death of Voice Mail

My landline doesn't have text - how are you going to get my information or money for your service?

From what I see in the responses - If I don't have text, than the place you work for is useless to me.

If your landline doesn't do text to speech and you don't have a mobile number or email address you are probably too small a demographic to worry about

Comment: Re:As with all space missions: (Score 1) 200

by Ihlosi (#48658665) Attached to: NASA Study Proposes Airships, Cloud Cities For Venus Exploration
In learning school, the people of my tribe were taught that molecules ARE matter.

Atomic nuclei are matter. Disassembling and reassembling atomic nuclei, however, is an entirely different beast (several orders of magnitude difference in energy) than disassembling and reassembling molecules.

Comment: Re:Incidentally... (Score 1) 83

by Chrisq (#48650785) Attached to: How a Massachusetts Man Invented the Global Ice Market

The harvesting and storage of naturally occurring ice was so successful that, for a somewhat surprising amount of time, it made manufactured ice uneconomic and, for an even longer period, on-site refrigeration hardware a very niche item(even after ice manufactured on large scale ammonia based systems replaced harvested ice, it still fed the same local market of that natural ice deliveries had)..

I don't know if it was the same in the USA but my dad tells me that dry ice was used for quite a long time after electric refrigerators were available because the electric supply was unreliable. Mind you he did live in Wales!

Comment: Re:keep on calculating [Don't speculate, calculate (Score 1) 716

by KeensMustard (#48643283) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'
Sure. Once you've done the numbers to support your hypothesis then get back to us. At the moment, to be honest, it sounds like more wild speculation. Let's say your hypothesis is correct and undersea volcanoes have reduced the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Wouldn't this act in such a way as to increase the sensitivity of the climate to anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 716

Funny, because the science that I learned about in college was ALL ABOUT being constantly questioned.

Presumably they mentioned at your place of learning that to question science you need to use science, not superstition: e.g. "I don't trust this science because that scientists has a beard and he might be a hippy"

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 716

When climate alarmists stop pretending that the dispute is over the degree of human influence on climate, and how much different countries should spend to mitigate anthropogenic climate change (or other kinds!), they might start to get traction with skeptics. Also when they start acting like the situation is as bad as they claim it is.

Funny how the view of 'the dispute' is so inconsistent. You say the dispute is not about the science, yet there are denialists posting in this very thread who say that it IS: this guy , or this guy or this guy. You guys need to sit down and nut and what it is, exactly, that you have against the more commonly held position on climate. At the moment, you look like clowns.

I know that when I used an electric sous vide cooker to make pork chops for dinner last night, it was worse for the climate than if I ate raw vegetables, and better than if I grilled a slab of steak over a bonfire. I know that living in the suburbs emits more greenhouse gases than living in a tiny apartment in a big city. I am thoroughly unconvinced that forcing most people to live like the alarmists claim we should (but usually don't live themselves) will yield the claimed benefits, or be worth the costs even if the benefits would be as claimed.

If I wanted to classify your position I would call it "superstition". It is, essentially a belief that climate change is about good people and bad people. Various (curiously unnamed) people you claim are "alarmists" and are hyprocritical, and therefore the scientific basis of their position is wrong. One would think that if the science of mitigation were actually wrong, if the economic model was wrong, that you could find and demonstrate those flaws, rather than engage in bone pointing ceremonies.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 716

Not only the data and the conclusions, the models themselves. If you use a model to analyze the data and draw some conclusions from it and this model is unable to predict phenomena correctly you can certainly become skeptic about the conclusions you drawn from it.

What phenomena?

Recently, many models were put exactly in that position.

Which models?

Calling everyone a denier because he/she express some doubts about the conclusions of a model without any decent prediction capability is certainly an abuse of language and even bullying toward legitimate skepticism.

That is not the denier position. The denier position is that a (pre-supposed) lack of correlation between model predictions and observed climate means that we can continue dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and nothing significant will happen. The deniers would have us accept their predictions about climate sensitivity whilst simultaneously claiming that science is insufficient to make predictions. The denier claim (that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will not cause significant warming) is something that ought to be handled with healthy scepticism.

Because what a lack of correlation actually means is that we can't predict what will happen if we continue our buildup of atmospheric CO2. We know there will be some effect (by thermodynamics) but can't predict the scope of it. The only logical conclusion is that to avoid potential disaster we need to stop doing that. Right Now.

If the model deniers are right and there is no correlation then what they are really saying is that we must take immediate action to mitigate the risk of disastrous warming.

Comment: Re:As with all space missions: (Score 1) 200

by Ihlosi (#48635763) Attached to: NASA Study Proposes Airships, Cloud Cities For Venus Exploration
I love the space elevator/beanstalk idea, but we're several human generations away from the first full-scale model.

Which is why we should stop dreaming about it and stark working on things that are feasible with our technology. Mass drivers, launch loops, laser propulsion, you name it.

Venus won't be of much use until we can disassemble and reassemble matter itself.

Actually, we don't need anything that exotic (matter generation) for starters. We need a universal chemical synthesizer, which can assemble chosen molecules from a set of given input compounds. Basically a very flexible chemical plant. It doesn't need to create matter, just rearrange given molecules into new molecules.

Comment: Re:Only bad for pulling untrusted content. (Score 1) 148

by digitig (#48632441) Attached to: Critical Git Security Vulnerability Announced
I agree that no content from a public repo can be trusted, but at the moment I only use Git to pull from trusted private repos (which is probably a significant use case for people who are using Git in the workplace). That means yes, I need to update my Git client, but I don't need to sweat that I might already have been compromised by this vulnerability.

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford