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


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: DST is too predictable (Score 1) 277 277

Let's start DST on a Sunday in March determined by (year % 4) + 1. Of course starting on a Sunday is also predictable, so we might go with day in March determined by (year % 31) + 1. Or maybe just go with a Julian day of the year - (year % 365) + 1. Or we could go with the Sunday closest to a full moon in March, but what if there's a "blue moon" that month? Anyway, this doesn't have to be boring, we could make it nearly impossible for the average person to predict!

Comment: Let's get all the cards on the table (Score 1) 394 394

I often see postings by climate deniers, skeptics, critics, whatever you want to call them claiming that the 97% of scientists who supposedly believe in AGW do so because their pay is based on them supporting it. Somebody should put together the stats on who is funding the scientists in the field, whether they are pro or con on the issue and what are the terms of their "contract". Do they have a grant to specifically study the issue of AGW, are they just studying climate in general, or are they just on salary and don't have a grant to do anything in particular? Also, where are the people located? Are they mostly in the US, or spread out among many countries?

I want more info than just a single "97%" statistic.

Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition. - Isaac Asimov