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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Deny ALL Cookies (Score 1) 387

> Yes, I know you can put a god damn session id in the URL query string, but that's annoying, unreliable, and insecure. IF someone navigates your website for a bit, puts some stuff in the shopping cart, then just goes back to your homepage by stripping everything but the domain name off the URL...TADA!!! You've lost their session!!! Or if they jump to a different part of your website via a bookmark from a previous session...TADA!!!! You've lost their session. Or if they copy their URL and pass it to someone else/post it on a forum...TADA!!!! Someone else is now using their session (yes, you can "solve" that issue by linking the session by a secondary authentication variable like IP, but then you run the risk of having your website broken for anyone that moves between IP addresses).

It will be like experiencing 1997's web all over again!

Comment Re:Prediction: FF at 2% of the market by Dec 2016 (Score 1) 182

I'd wager that most of the firefox use now is by IT personnel who use it for its extensions, and Mozilla has been alienating us by breaking functionality at every step - breaking flash, breaking java, and of course, completely excluding code for low-bit cryptography, which forces us to use multiple browser versions to get to out of band management on older boxes and appliances. I can see disabling older crypo algorithms by default, but don't exclude it from the project.

Same with unsigned or self-signed extensions - is every IT shop going to make their extensions available on the Firefox extensions repo? hell no! We're not accepting Firefox updates any more thanks to the mess that this is going to introduce. Sure, disable unsigned extensions by default, but give us the option to enable installation of them again - even if the preference name needs to be created by the user, but at least make it available.

Mozilla, you're alienating what's left of your userbase... and with your retiring Thunderbird... what userbase are you going to have left?

Brilliant.. simply brilliant. Good job, Mozilla.

Comment Re:Government should not pick winners and losers. (Score 1) 298

No, I have never run the numbers, where I live there are 53 sunny days a year on average. My point was that this change in prices should not effect the building of a battery plant. This will cause more people to want to store there own power instead of buying it back at a higher price at night. The GP said the change would make the plant useless.

Comment Re:Government should not pick winners and losers. (Score 1) 298

Why, the current scheme is to sell you excess solar to the electric company on sunny days and buy it back when the sun doesn't shine. Yes some make a profit in doing that but the real profit is making electricity yourself, not paying 13+ cents a Kw/h. With a really good low loss battery you could be off the grid completely.

Comment Re:Responsible enough to carry a loaded weapon, (Score 2) 500

You have to figure that at least half of them had left their gun in their luggage before and nothing had come of it. Maybe they just assumed it was no big deal and were relying on general TSA incompetence to let the gun through again. Hell, for all we know less than 10% of the guns in carry ons were caught by the TSA. It would make sense given their bomb-detecing track record.

Comment Re:record-shattering recording instruments (Score 1) 507

As for my increasing the error bar to a full degree if not more, given that observational error was barely conceived of at the turn of the century(see N-Rays) and that global warming was not even something they conceived of, the idea that the people recording the temperatures would have applied rigorous data collection methods consistently is wildly optimistic. Thus, given the random nature of any such errors, your error bars would have to be relatively large.

Comment Re:record-shattering recording instruments (Score 1) 507

Modern day LiG mercury thermometers crafted to NIST specifications have an uncertainty rate of 0.2 degrees C. Which is awfully fucking close to my 0.5 degrees F isn't it? I suppose that the error bars should have been higher a hundred years ago even assuming perfect conditions? We can go with that if you want. Makes the AGW side's argument much worse of course. Had you bothered to look it up yourself you would have known this but you just had to wave your dick around.

Comment Re:record-shattering recording instruments (Score 1) 507

It's a simple matter of maths once you assume that the underlying premise is correct. Given that even if we cut all human emissions activity tomorrow according to the AGW proponents' own models it would take close to a century before the warming effect would stop increasing the temperature. Not return to normal, just stop increasing. And those were the old models that didn't take into account the effects they're saying the oceans are having on postponing the surface temperature increase. I imagine with those effects it would take significantly longer. So, basically you decided to dismiss the only options that would actually do anything to make yourself feel better about the situation. Possibly because you believe that the suggestions were either not serious(As, in fact, they are predicated on the AGW theory being correct), or made to make the environmentalists monsters for even considering the first one. The reasons are irrelevant. The Cold Equations of the matter reduce our options to those three.

Also, the law of large numbers assumes accurate recording and a repeat of the experiment in question. Attempting to apply it to temperature readings with equipment that may be miscalibrated, improperly treated, wrongly recorded, whose surrounding conditions may at any point change is a helluva stretch. Not without vastly expanding the error bars anyway which was my original point.

Comment Re:record-shattering recording instruments (Score 2, Insightful) 507

I'm curious how the data can be compared reliably seeing as even assuming that all the thermometers used at the turn of the century were perfectly crafted, properly calibrated, cared for properly, placed properly, and recorded properly they STILL would have had an error rate of +-0.5 degrees Fahrenheit. In reality you can almost certainly at the very least double the error rate. Which means that any trends prior to more accurate recording devices aren't possible to compare.

That being said, even assuming arguendo that CO2 driven AGW is occuring, the solutions still have jack all to do with renewable energy. There are three possible solutions to the problem of large impact AGW, they are slaughter 90+% of the human race, try to chemically engineer the weather with various geoengineering attempts, or figure out a way to sequester carbon on a VERY large scale. Any other options are the fucking definition of whistling in the dark.

Slashdot Top Deals

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. - Voltaire