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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The basic question is answered...but still... (Score 1) 455

No, we're all too focused on "Who's fault is it?" and nobody has properly considered "What do we do about it?"

We know exactly what to do about it: move to less convenient fuels (excuse me, "renewables") , adopt less comfortable living conditions (aka "reduce energy consumption"), reduce the amount of disposable consumer goods in our lives, etc. And those of us in the developed world have to cut enough from our carbon budgets to make allowances for the populations of the developing nations who want to better their standards of living, a move that is guaranteed to build resentment on both sides of the equation.

What you're missing here (either honestly or deliberately) is that the problem is ongoing, and that because it's caused by economic activity, the people who are profiting from it want to continue to profit from it, and they are actively working to derail efforts to correct or even acknowledge the problem.

And those of us in the developed world are not too excited about fixing it. The benefit we get from fossil fueled energy is great and immediate; the impact we feel from CO2 emissions is so low we have to be 40 years old before we have enough experience to notice the impact on our own lives. Rising water levels on a few tropical islands is a long way from stepping on a gas pedal in North Dakota.

So yeah, we need to do both: stop the people who are encouraging the growth of the problem, and we have to accept some sacrifices as a result. Neither is fun, so ... you first.

Comment Re:The basic question is answered...but still... (Score 1) 455

Every single argument I've ever heard from the "deniers" is based on either a real lack of understanding of science, or they've assumed an argumentative position based on their political leanings. They don't understand the difference between weather and climate. They don't understand trends or statistical sampling. They don't understand the difference between tolerances and allowances, accuracy and precision, or how averages are computed. They don't understand how data from ice cores is calibrated and tested. They don't understand how geologic climate data works. They make faulty assumptions about CO2 data collection methods.

And you know what? That's OK. Not everyone can be expected to learn all that. But if they can't, then they at least need the honesty to either try to learn from people who do understand, or at least refrain from echoing arguments made by others - because those others aren't making those arguments out of pure stupidity. They are making them to advance their political agenda, or to at least delay someone else's agenda.

In any collection of people, there will be some "deniers" who will not listen to reason, meaning we will never see unanimity. The trick is recognizing when enough rational people have accepted the arguments. Once the percentage of "deniers" drops far enough below the population of rational people, it's time to stop trying to convince everyone and moving on to accomplish tasks. We have to know when the delays have run their course, because nothing will ever get done if we wait for every last denier to come into accordance.

As far as your argument goes, there are 50 years of science, 150 years of direct climate measurements, thousands of years of indirect climate measurements, and geological evidence going back much further. I think climate science is a lot further along than still trying to establish first principles.

Comment Re:And the announcement will be (Score 2) 98

For an announcement, yes. But this was an announcement for an announcement, like a trailer, so the reveal is probably bigger. And no spoilers please. Clearly the NSF and DOE want the VIP's at LIGO in LA, WA and MIT want to keep the PC on the QT, 'cause if it leaks to CNN and MSNBC the UK and EU might cut the GWIC budget PDQ for AIGO and GEO and the VC's would go MIA. And then we'd all be put on KP.

Comment Re: I am not a physicist but... (Score 4, Informative) 305

Flint is an issue with switching from a good water system to a more acidic and known polluted one to save a few bucks. That's coupled with STOPPING procedures which helped prevent lead-leeching/corrosion in pipes, DENYING the issue despite people with rashes, hair loss, and other extreme symptoms, and then VICTIM BLAMING and COVER UPS (hey, it's better, we tested it... in homes that have already added filters) when many cases started to surface. At the same time people and their children were being poisoned by lead - and the gov't was denying it - they added extra water coolers of nice clean water in the offices of those same government officials.

But hey, keep telling yourself how bad other countries are, and how yours is so much better. When the "best country in the world" is also a polluted, dry desert rock with a bunch of sick jobless people you can pat yourselves on the back that China is so much worse.

The first step to addressing a problem is to stop denying it exists. Part of that means you start to realize that "but hey... look over there" is a method to distract from the problems "over here"

Comment Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy (Score 1) 548

Your post is an example of the same SJW lynch mob nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about. Environmental engineering of roads to reduce crashes is the most effective and intelligent action to take. It reduces accidents and lowers the need for prosecution in the first place. The surroundings of a street have more impact on driving behaviour and outcomes than any presence of police patrols, speed cameras or signage.

Then, using your logic, we should remove paving of roads. That would definitely cause people to slow down! Societies have rules, plain and simple. If a society agrees that people shouldn't steal then they pass laws and enforce those laws to discourage the behavior. If a society says that you shouldn't drive faster than x on a given stretch of road, then why would it not enforce those laws to discourage the behavior?

Comment Re: Hipster software is the real problem. (Score 1) 82

Even if GitHub goes down, you can point your repos to a different origin, and continue on as normal, so it still has value. But yeah, I just run my own repos for personal projects. Businesses seem to love paying people for stuff though.

I've used git and hg. I honestly can't see much difference between the two, but I've probably not dipped too deeply into their featuresets.

Comment Re:You CAN'T have ads without tracking. (Score 1) 354

It could very easily happen, by enforcing blocking rules that restrict or eliminate third party content.

That won't work. Even if you don't communicate directly with the third party, you don't have any way to prevent the content provider (who is also the ad provider from your point of view) from passing the information along.

We seem to have latched onto this "third party content" as The Problem, where it's really just a hack du jour for easily spotting a problem. But the only reason a content provider is putting <script src="somewhere else"> into their pages is because it still gets them paid by the "somewhere else." If you hit their own server instead of the third party, they can still forward any requests behind the scenes to anyone, and you won't even know it's happening, but all the same information will be there.

If you eliminate "third party content" you're just going to turn second parties into proxies. And they'll really do it, too. Why wouldn't they?

Comment You CAN'T have ads without tracking. (Score 2) 354

That's never going to happen, so people who think that a compromise might some day be reached, need to let go of that.

Some of the things on the list are extremely easy because the browser itself is ultimately in control. If you don't want animation, for example, then your browser can elect to not animate things. Same for playing sound, executing Javascript, 10kb limit, etc. You're going to get your wish on all of that stuff, assuming you haven't already gotten it already.

But tracking isn't going to go away. Your computer is initiating a conversation with someone else's computer, and there's only one thing you can do to prevent someone else's computer from remembering that it happened: have there be nothing to remember, because nothing happened. i.e. don't request the ad.

If you get the ad, then you get tracking, period. There is no possible compromise between the two sides on this, and everyone who thinks they can have ads but no tracking, is kidding themselves.

Either the ad industry is going to persuade us that tracking isn't all that bad, or the users are going to persuade the media that ads aren't all that necessary. No middle ground exists on this.

Submission + - What behavior constitute a permanent ban?

phorm writes: With issues like "GamerGate" etc often painting a poor pictures of Gamers or Geeks on general, what can be done to address some of the real issues behind hostility online? Or, to perhaps better phrase it, how can we get rid of the few but highly visible persons behind these issues.
Many vendors purport to be dealing with issues, but the reality is that they still seem to want to keep the trolls "in the game", if perhaps a bit less disruptive. At the same time, they're often quite quick to jump on those they suspect are involved in fraud, etc, so it seems reasonable to think that they have means to ban and to some extent track those that are involved in activities that affect the bottom line.

So the big question is: when does "bad behavior" become bannable behavior? Is it only when money is involved? There's also cases where botting, hacking, etc have also resulted in a permanent ban. Beyond that, it seems that only extremely bad publicity can lead to a permanent ban.

However, we have a huge problem in many games with those whose sole purpose is to troll others. Throwing games, cursing out other players for no reason, playing random noise through the mic, there are some people who live simply exist to screw with others. It shouldn't be that hard to identify them, so why can't we have legitimate consequences to deal with them?

Slashdot Top Deals

The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made. -- Jean Giraudoux