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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Fascinating (Score 1) 14

by jellomizer (#49623255) Attached to: Extreme Exoplanet Volcanism Possibly Detected On 55 Cancri E

I am going to nitpick... Because Science coverage has been abused by the word Theory.

These are not Theories, but Hypothesis, once you are able to test these idea, then you get the Theory out of it.

Global Warming is a Theory. There have been mountains of test to show its validity.
Health Problems with GMO is a Hypothesis, it is a guess that needs further investigation.

Comment: Re:All aboard the FAIL train (Score 1) 525

by Shakrai (#49622777) Attached to: Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina Announces Bid For White House

Please explain how civil strife in nation-states like Syria where there is little American much like the Secretary of State's influence are Hillary Clinton's fault.

Please explain how you can be so fucking obtuse as to wave away the example of Libya (which she enthusiastically supported) and her vote in favor of the Iraq War AUMF.

On second thought, don't bother. You have nothing interesting to say and are conveniently ignoring the points that don't line up with your world view.

Comment: Re:let me weigh in on this (Score 1) 75

It's only outdated if you don't want a dedicated device for time. Some of us do want or need such a device, preferably one that doesn't need to be recharged every 24 hours, do a bunch of shit we don't care about, and occupy half of our lower arms. A nice looking watch is also a fashion statement; I'm not talking Rolex level (although you can certainly do that), just something that looks halfway decent and goes with most of your wardrobe.

There's still a market for dedicated devices. What does a smartwatch give me? Don't need it for fitness, it will never compete with a decent runner's watch for durability and ease of use. Don't want it for time, my real watch is less cumbersome and has a battery life measured in years. Can't do anything productive (e-mails, shopping lists, etc.) with it that I can't do better with my smartphone. Directions? That might be an argument, but again, how is the watch better than my phone? I've gotten around foreign cities where I don't speak the local language using my phone and Google Maps. Where's the game changer in doing the same with my watch?

Comment: Re:Make them drink it ... (Score 1) 213

Have you seen the nasty things salt does to metals and plants? Yet you happily eat that every day.

Because people have eaten salt for millennia without negative effects.

How long have people been drinking benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene? Not to mention the substances that we don't know about that are in fracking fluid because they're "trade secrets".

http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

Comment: Quick summary of the papers involved here. (Score 2) 213

The summary conflates two papers, a review paper in Science which summarizes the state of knowledge about fracking the Marcellus Shale (Vidic et al. 2013), and a study of an individual incident published this month in PNAS in which researcher purport to have found a single instance of minor contamination from a fracking well (Llewellyn et al. 2015). Neither paper is particularly damning or inflammatory, so at first blush it's not immediately obvious why the fracking PR flacks have gone to DEFCON 3 on this. The key is to read the review paper first. This is almost always the best way to start because review papers are supposed to give a full and balanced overview of the current state of scientific knowledge on a topic. TL;DR, I know, but stick with me for a few paragraphs and I think I can make the problem clear.

Vidic paints a rather favorable picture of the fracking industry's response to problems that have arisen during the fracking boom in the Marcellus shale. It absolves them of any responsibility for the infamous "burning tapwater" we've all seen in Youtube videos. It states they have been quick to respond to wastewater leaks and well blowouts before contamination could spread. It says the industry has redesigned wells in response to concerns that they might leak fracking water as they pass through the aquifer. And it says that fracking water that returns to the surface ("flowback") is treated and re-used for more fracking -- an expensive environmental "best practice".

Vidic does raise some important concerns, however, and the most important is this. At present recycling flowback into more fracking water is practical because production is booming. But at some point production will level off and begin to decline, and when that happens the industry will be producing more flowback than it can use economically. In Texas, where fracking was pioneered, flowback was disposed of in deep wells -- a process not without its drawbacks, but better than leaving the contaminated water on the surface. Pennsylvania doesn't have enough disposal capacity to handle today's flowback, which helps make recycling fracking water attractive at the present time.

We now have enough context to understand Llewellyn, and why Llewellyn is so upsetting to the industry. Llewellyn's paper documents a single instance of minor contamination which matched the chemical fingerprint of flowback from a nearby well. This contamination was well below a level that would be cause for any concern. Llewellyn concludes the most likely cause was a small spill from the flowback holding pit, although it can't rule out the possibility that the contamination occurred inside the well. Taken with the picture Vidic paints of an industry that is generally on top of stuff like this, the occurrence of a single mishap with negligible consequences is hardly damning. So why has the fracking industry unleashed its flying PR monkeys on this?

Because the fracking industry apparently has made no plans for when the day comes it can no longer recycle all the flowback it uses, and it doesn't want the public to think about that.

It would be sensible for them to prepare for the flowback problem now on the upswing of the boom, for the same reason the industry has been able to be so responsive to date: these are good times for the industry in the Marcellus Shale. They're flush. Although preparing for the problem now would be expensive, it wouldn't slow the boom appreciably, and it would add jobs. But... if the industry can kick the flowback can far enough down the road, we'll have to ask it to fix the problem while production and probably the regional economy is in decline. Doing something about the problem then will cost jobs and require money nobody will have.

  So if the industry isn't forced to do something about the looming problem soon, it will become politically if not financially impossible to make them do that ever. That's why the industry is allergic to the very mention that surface contamination from flowback is even possible. In the scheme of things the Llwewllyn incident is negligible, but when fracking starts producing more waste than the industry can use surface contamination is going to become a lot more common and a lot worse.

Vidic raises some other serious long term concerns. Nobody knows where most of the fracking water used goes. The geology of the area is complex enough, but it is further complicated by many old gas and oil wells, quite a few of which are not fully documented. Contamination of the aquifer is a quite plausible possibility that needs further scientific study -- study that has been hindered by lack of research funding and industry transparency. More research might lay this concern to bed; or it may require changes in the industry's operation. We don't know. But we do know that some day we'll have a wastewater problem, and if we wait to address that it will be politically impossible to do anything about.

CITATIONS

Vidic, R. D., et al. "Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality." Science 340.6134 (2013): 1235009.

Garth T. Llewellyn, Frank Dorman, J. L. Westland, D. Yoxtheimer, Paul Grieve, Todd Sowers, E. Humston-Fulmer, and Susan L. Brantley. "Evaluating a groundwater supply contamination incident attributed to Marcellus Shale gas development." PNAS 2015 ; published ahead of print May 4, 2015,

Comment: Re:this already exists (Score 2) 149

by Dunbal (#49622267) Attached to: USBKill Transforms a Thumb Drive Into an "Anti-Forensic" Device
If they have a tactical team breaking into your house you are pretty much fucked on circumstantial evidence anyway... It might mean the difference between 5 years in prison and life in prison though. "We're sure he had 'x' on his hard drive" is a lot weaker than "we found 'x' on his hard drive"...

Comment: So Is Mac OS X. (Score 3, Informative) 47

by tlambert (#49621669) Attached to: The BBC Looks At Rollover Bugs, Past and Approaching

So Is Mac OS X.

I converted time_t to 64 bits on 64 bit systems (which include the most recent iPhones) as part of the changes for 64 bit binary support on the G5 when I wrote the 64 bit binary loader support into exec/fork/spawn, and again as part of UNIX Conformance. It's basically been fixed since Tiger.

Comment: Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative. (Score 1) 319

The one arena that is is not contentious in is in the climatology community. Yes, there are a very small number of skeptics, but then again there are a small number of skeptics in the biology community who insist on some variant of Creationism (or Intelligent Design, as they like to market it these days). But all in all, the contention among scientists is over degree, and not over whether or not human-caused CO2 emissions are radically altering global climate.

Comment: Re:Lives be damned (Score 1) 213

Well great. I wager I can produce really cheap toys by manufacturing out of substandard materials. Sure, the materials might be toxic, might even be highly flammable, but hey, all that fucking counts is profits! We should just let companies fuck everything and everyone up because MONEY!!!! We should let them lie and distort and attack anyone who questions because MONEY!!!! Fuck every single human being on earth, because MONEY!!!!

Comment: Re:News? (Score 2) 318

by jellomizer (#49621245) Attached to: The Programming Talent Myth

I think it is in terms of observations.
The Rock Stars, the company will go out of its way to try to keep them
The under performers, will just stay at the same place as they have a hard time getting a job elsewhere.
So the organization has the long timers as the Rock Stars or the Under performers.
The middle people will often stay there for a few years and move on. So they are in flux, and that makes it hard for our observations to see the middle ground, as the majority.

How can you do 'New Math' problems with an 'Old Math' mind? -- Charles Schulz

Working...