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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: The science is not settled (Score 1) 369

We are "AN APE" a particular type of APE.

Assuming there is more than one human in the world, we are "apes" not a [single] "ape."

We are not several species of APE.

Never said we were. But the entire human species includes more than one exemplar of "ape." I was using the plural in that case to refer to individuals (and because it was grammatically more convenient), not to imply that humans are more than one species. Sorry for the confusion.

Comment The downside (Score 4, Insightful) 47

The downside here is that means you can't just get rid of CPU intensive ads by disabling Flash.

Like the HTML5 video tag, that was supposed to free us from evil Flash, but just brought forth the unblockable autoplaying autoloading multimegabyte video ad, this isn't as great a piece of news as it might seem...

Comment Re:Education is getting better (Score 1) 194

Sets. Venn Diagrams. We always called it "New Math" but maybe it had some other term at that point.

Well, set theory and stuff like Venn diagrams were part of some New Math curricula beginning in the 1960s, but mostly at the primary (or maybe middle-school) level. They were intended to teach things like Boolean algebra, which would be relevant to new trends (at that time) in computer programming. Again, the emphasis was on getting students up-to-speed to participate in the Space Race, etc.

And I also should note that Venn diagrams were in fact meant to be visual aids to support the new abstract concepts (like Boolean algebra and set theoretical relationships), kind of like the visualizations you're arguing for in Common Core.

Anyhow, they certainly weren't supposed to displace algebra and geometry in high-school curricula. If your school did that, they were doing the "New Math" wrong.

Comment Re:If it's "settled", it ISN'T "science" (Score 0) 369

That's true... but what I've noticed is that far too often, the people who call themselves climate skeptics aren't skeptical at all; they are absolutely credulous-- to anything they hear that denies the reality of global warming. Garbage articles that could be debunked in two minutes of thinking get picked up and passed along with notes of "see? it's all a HOAX!"

Most people who are worried about climate change are absolutely credulous-- the read garbage articles that could be debunked in two minutes of thinking and they pass it along.

You can tell that most people aren't looking at the science because of how cleanly opinion is divided along political lines. I'll bet I can guess which political side you favor, too.

Comment Re:Own opinions, not ignore facts. Mars ice caps m (Score 1) 369

Based on experiments (with gas in tubes and lights shining through them), a doubling of CO2 will result in a ~0.9 degree increase. This is not controversial, and even skeptical climatologists accept it. It's also not very scary.

The reason some climatologists predict a 6-12 degree warming is because of feedbacks (warming melts ice leaving dark earth behind, and dark earth absorbs more heat, etc). These feedbacks are significantly more controversial, but also more scary.

Comment Re: The science is not settled (Score 1) 369

Your point would be so much better expressed if you understood the difference between having a common ancestor and evolving from

Well, you're both a little wrong. Humans ARE apes. Specifically, we belong to the taxonomic classification that includes all Great Apes. Strictly speaking non-human apes and human apes both descended from apes. And even if you use the common meaning the the word "ape" to mean only non-human apes, humans still descended from apes, just not the extant species of modern non-human apes. (If GP had said humans descended from monkeys, on the other hand, you'd have a valid point.)

Comment Re:First.... (Score 2) 159

LOL ... are you expecting a rational reconciliation between the fact that you can't undermine security and enhance security at the same time?

For you and I, that would be cognitive dissonance. For people who think they can pass laws around technical problems, the wishful thinking just keeps going.

Not understanding the technology makes it far easier to pass terrible laws about the technology and then fail to understand why those laws don't work.

But, part of the problem is they fall short on some basic security things ... and that stuff probably does need some fixing.

Comment Re:No problem (Score 1) 506

Or just block the ad-blocker blocker script. Just like one can do for most of these sites trying to block ad blockers.

I don't agree with this strategy. As far as I'm concerned, ad blockers are fine -- there's no moral obligation to download ads. But when a site publicly declares it won't give you content without ads and puts in place a script to deny access to people who use ad blockers, I think you should respect that. Go somewhere else. Read other stuff. It's one thing to say "I'm going to only download part of the content sent by a site" (effectively what ad blockers do). If it's a publicly accessible website, that's your choice. But it's a different thing to circumvent or disable measures that are designed to prevent your viewing -- that's stepping over a moral line and taking content that the owner says you're NOT welcome to take.

Slashdot Top Deals

Business will be either better or worse. -- Calvin Coolidge