Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Polls on the front page of Slashdot? Is the world coming to an end?! Nope; read more about it. ×

Comment: Re:Share your "encryption network" with Suckerberg (Score 1) 138

by grub (#49822071) Attached to: Facebook Now Supports PGP To Send You Encrypted Emails
Anyone who encrypts mail to me does it from their own machines. This is for Facebook mail to you. If a user grabs your keys they can also send you mail directly without going through Facebook.

Facebook lets you control your public keys as if it were any other information: public, friends only, etc.

Comment: It took mine. (Score 1) 138

by grub (#49821015) Attached to: Facebook Now Supports PGP To Send You Encrypted Emails
Just added my keys. Not that I care about the notifications that "Billy scored X on Y Game", but anything that obfuscates and encrypts data on the wire is a good thing. It's not just the NSA, how many of you use gmail? This will keep them from scanning your mail.

>In fact I may enable a bunch more useless notifications and set up a rule to delete them at my end as they arrive.

+ - Creationists Stuffing Google Ballot Box With Bogus Propaganda

Submitted by reallocate
reallocate writes: Looks like some Creationists are stuffing the Google ballot box (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/05/26/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs/). Ask it "What happened to the dinosaurs?" and you'll see links to Creationist sites pushed to the top. (And, right now, several hits to sites taking note of it.)

Google has a feedback link waiting for you to use it.

Comment: Re:How does one tell the difference? (Score 1) 103

It can be difficult to tell the difference between rocks that have been modified by people and rocks that have been shaped by natural processes. That being said, there are things to look for.

First is material. From the photographs in the linked article, it appears that the purported tool is made from some kind of fine-grained silicious material (high in silicon, rather than magnesium and iron, as evidenced by the color), whereas the surrounding rock appears to be basalt (mafic, therefor darker in color). If you work in an area, you get to know the geology of the region, and where rocks come from. Seeing rocks far from their sources often indicates human curation. That being said, it seems unlikely to me that anyone would bother to curate a general tool like the ones photographed, so that probably isn't going to be a huge factor in this case.

Second, after seeing hundreds or thousands of stone tools, you get good at identifying them. It is kind of like chicken sexing---it may be difficult to quantify *exactly* why something is a tool, but people get really good at it, none the less. Again, this isn't the whole story, but it gives you an idea about why one might pick up a rock in the field. People who have a lot of experience and training are more likely to recognize potential tools.

Third, there are morphological indications of human modification. Rocks that fall and break naturally tend to have random patterns of flaking, whereas intentionally modified rocks will show flaking that is concentrated in a particular place. This isn't foolproof (indeed, there were purported pre-Clovis tools found in California a few decades ago that, upon closer examination, turned out to be naturally formed), but, again, it is an indication.

Fourth, it is often possible to tell a tool from other contextual clues: is it near a hearth? a pile of animal bones? other easily identified tools? Again, given the age, this is unlikely to be useful in this context, but you asked a more general question, so this is part of a more general answer.

Finally, there are lab tests that can help. One can check for residue (i.e. blood or plant reside that might indicate use in preparing food), or microflaking that might indicate use, for example. These are things that you can't see in the field, and almost certainly can't see in a photograph that was taken in the field.

Comment: Re:Yeah good luck with that... (Score 1) 587

by the phantom (#49419965) Attached to: Hugo Awards Turn (Even More) Political
Yes, I read that too. I think that you are reading way too much into what is written there. It seems pretty clear to me that he is planning on casting his own ballot on the merits of the works nominated, but that he understands those that would vote against the sad puppy slate on the theory that intentionally disruptive behaviour should not be encouraged. Moreover, even if I granted your interpretation, that would be Scalzi pushing against a given slate, rather than pushing his own slate of nominees, which is what was claimed by ageoffri in the first post to which I replied.

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Working...