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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Bias: but for them - not me! (Score 1) 445

by g0bshiTe (#48876345) Attached to: Science By Democracy Doesn't Work
So in 60 years the temperature will rise by what, .6 degrees?

Data shows that over the last 100 years the average temps haven't risen much over 1.5 degrees F. That's 100 years!

Data models are predicting warming trends based on CO2 levels being CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So then we have the untested unproven theory there, climate is warming. Now we have the data while it shows a warming trend it doesn't show the dire trend as it's preached.

Does this mean it should be ignored? Hell no, we should be proactive in this.

The major question is will our fuel supplies run out prior to significant levels of CO2 in the atmosphere to raise global temps more than a tenth of a degree per decade.

Comment: Re:Science by democracy doesn't work? (Score 1) 445

by g0bshiTe (#48876257) Attached to: Science By Democracy Doesn't Work
When a hypothesis has been made, tested and results either support or refute the hypothesis.

In terms of climate consider a single week let's say second week of December. Now measuring the temp all that week and other variables is that enough data to form a hypothesis about climate for the entire year?

Seems ridiculous but when you consider climate as a whole you have to consider the immense spans of time we are dealing with, we aren't talking a few hundred years we are talking eons.

While current data may show a warming trend we don't have data far back enough to prove it's warming due to whatever reason and not part of natural climate change.

I do realize we can measure CO2 levels etc. Even these have been significantly higher and lower throughout history.

Comment: Re:Science by democracy doesn't work? (Score 1) 445

by g0bshiTe (#48876207) Attached to: Science By Democracy Doesn't Work
You do realize the policy will not be about reducing or even limiting CO2 emissions.

The large producers of CO2 will keep churning away what it will do is stop the smaller producers by raising the bar they have to meet.

Policy is like when corps get fines, take the EPA Company X gets caught illegally dumping waste they have to pay cleanup and then some fees to the EPA, in reality what they pay for this is probably far less than what it would cost them to do it properly, this scenario only takes into account they've been doing the same thing all along and only been caught the once meaning they could have dumped several hundred tons of waste and only gotten caught dumping a small percentage of that.

There are no consequences just slaps on the wrist with a finger wave and a stern "Well don't do that again".

Comment: I don't think it means what he thinks it means... (Score 2) 307

by g0bshiTe (#48876127) Attached to: Blackberry CEO: Net Neutrality Means Mandating Cross-Platform Apps
If an app developer chooses to devote their resources into certain platforms I can understand which would include not devoting resources into platforms that won't pay off.

Imagine if his same logic is applied to software. Should Outlook be ported for both Apple, Linux, and any other OS out there simply because it's fair?

Here's a tip, if developers aren't adopting your platform it may be due to something besides neutrality. Could your business model suck? Could they perceive your platform as not having as large a user base?

Instead of crying that things should be made even look at your business model and business strategy.

Here's a novel thought, contact those developers on other platforms and ask them what your company could do to encourage them and possibly other developers to also develop on your platform.

If you ask me the "Crackberry" fad has entered winter.

The herd instinct among economists makes sheep look like independent thinkers.

Working...