Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: They Offer "Corrections" On Youtube (Score 1) 37

by Greyfox (#48647231) Attached to: Google+ Will Make Your Videos Look Better
They always say my videos are shaky, and that's because my videos ARE shaky and are supposed to be. The camera's sitting on my head, not a stable platform. If I preview the corrections they suggest, they're moderately less shaky and are also blurry. I think I'll stick with the uncorrected video.

Comment: I'm Using C++ (Score 1) 366

by Greyfox (#48644185) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is an Open Source<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Up To the Job?
I'd been on Java for a while but started moving back toward C++ a couple years ago. Between boost, the Eigen math library and the new C++11 standard features, I haven't had to code my own utility libraries unless I want to. I've also started playing around with Qt as an easy-to-use and modern GUI library. The majority of my development has been on Linux, and these tools get me where I need to be.

i think you'll find you're wrong about the C standard library being "nothing compared to what's out there". If it seems that way, you probably haven't learned enough about the C standard library. The C standard library provides an API to all your system resources. You can take full control of the hardware with the library. Things you never thought to ask if you could do. Most programmers, in my experience, never get much past the system("rm ...") stage. I've been doing maintenance programming for 25 years now and every fucking C program I've ever had to maintain has had one of those somewhere in the code. It makes me wish I could reach back in time through my monitor to slap someone.

Comment: Re:No, They Haven't Called Me (Score 1) 234

by Greyfox (#48641579) Attached to: 65,000 Complaints Later, Microsoft Files Suit Against Tech Support Scammers
Or, you know, hypothetical kid could do it from his cell phone when it happens, which would be a number that's in my contacts list. That would probably also be the only way emergency personnel could get the number, since no one memorizes numbers anymore. They just select a person from their contacts list. Anyway, rejected calls go directly to voicemail, so I can decide later if they're important or not. I can also turn it off if I'm expecting a call that's from someone who's not in my contacts.

Comment: Re:But...but...but...she has a VAGINA!! (Score 1) 222

by lgw (#48641547) Attached to: Marissa Mayer's Reinvention of Yahoo! Stumbles

The value of Google passed the value of Russia (remember, these are just the publically traded companies - in the US that about half our economy, dunno for Russia). Russia has almost nothing going for it beyond oil, and the Saudis are using oil prices to fuck Iran sideways right now. The current governmental structure of both Russia and Iran are likely to collapse (Putin is pretty savvy - he may emerge as El Presidente for Life without the pretense of democracy he has now, but chaos one way or another). The ruble is almost certain to collapse, so no one's buying ruble-valued anything, (especially debt) and the risk of public companies in Russia getting either nationalized or simply destroyed by unrest is real.

Comment: No, They Haven't Called Me (Score 2, Informative) 234

by Greyfox (#48641029) Attached to: 65,000 Complaints Later, Microsoft Files Suit Against Tech Support Scammers
I run a call blocker on my android phone that only allows people in my contacts list through. Keeps the riffraff out -- an endless swarm of poor quality technical recruiters, phone soliciters, scammers and Comcast salespeople. Best $3 I ever spent.

Comment: Re:Sure... (Score 1) 328

by lgw (#48639971) Attached to: Schneier Explains How To Protect Yourself From Sony-Style Attacks (You Can't)

I predict that tomorrow, there will be weather! Yeah, that's not what people mean by predicting the weather. Sure: the 24-hour weather forecast is better than random guessing, but it's still not much better than looking at the sky, and a barometer. And the 5-day forecast? Accuracy isn't in it.

Comment: Re:Sure... (Score 1) 328

Well, let me know when we actually get to the weather-predicting stage. I look forward to that. But I think we'll get fusion first, and maybe spelling and calendar reform.

or we can act on the best information we have right now with a degree of tentativity reasonable for any such endeavor

Oh ho! A moderate. Are you sure you're on the right site? Surely you meant to say "global warming is a hoax!" or "repent your sins of carbon emission, no economic sacrifice is too great!"

Comment: Re:Sure... (Score 1) 328

With respect, the phlogiston theory worked apart from the oxidation of iron. Noticing this shortcoming was one of the things that led to the discovery of oxygen.

Exactly. And aether made a lot of sense. And Freud had to start somewhere. None of that was bad science, that's just what early science looks like. We've just since the late 90s had the technology to seriously contemplate climate modeling, and only really in the past 5-8 years has the vast parallelism needed to do it well been available from more than a couple of research computers.

Again, just as it's a mistake to call it "pseudoscience", it's a mistake to believe than any of these early models in the first generation of a new science are particularly worthwhile. Certainly Climate Science is a field that needs more funding and research for decades to come. But just as certainly, it's not a fucking unfallible font of religious truth, and people who act as if it is are as annoying as the SJWs.

Comment: Re:Sure... (Score 3, Insightful) 328

Look at the historical data.

It should jump out at you that the past 10k years of relative climate stability is an anomaly, and that rapid (on geological scales) swings in temperature and CO2 are the norm. That whole system is not well understood, though I believe solar variation is the leading hypothesis right now. On a scale beyond a century, there's just no reason to expect climate stability in the first place.

On a decade by decade scale, there's no evidence of warming in the 17 years of reliable satellite temperature data. The null hypothesis - that average temperatures aren't changing - has actually been the best predictor of climate data since the late 90s, odd as that may sound.

The simple fact is: the atmosphere and oceans are chaotic systems, with a variety of positive and negative feedback loops, quite difficult to model, and you can't talk about climate change in a scientific way without doing so. There are no obvious conclusions to draw, as the system we live in is simply too complex for hand-wavy, back-of-the-envelope calculations to be interesting. We may simply lack the technology today to do this science properly. That's not a reason to stop - we built the LHC, proof we can do some fucking impressive technological advancement to achieve a scientific goal. But it is a reason to avoid arrogance.

Climate science is at the phlogiston / aether / Freud stage right now. That's fine, every science must start that way, and the scientific method works given time. But for goodness sake the lay believers are very much like a religion right now, complete with a list of sins and a Hell to roast in, and that's taking it too far!

There must be more to life than having everything. -- Maurice Sendak

Working...