Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Threatpost, professional, processes (Score 1) 115

by Ol Olsoc (#48641371) Attached to: Hackers Used Nasty "SMB Worm" Attack Toolkit Against Sony

Blah, blah, blah... you still didn't address the main point: *Why* users shared their local drives instead of using the central server (or ask for administrative privileges on their computers, or you find they are using something like dropbox, etc.). I've more than 20 years in this industry and every single time I've seen an environment like that has been because of incompetent IT.

Some folk think that having to log in or run as anything but administrator, or have any restrictions on their activity at all is killing their productivity. They want Thumb drives, they want dropbox, they want to set up their own email server on their machine. They want to have an open ftp on their machine

Perhaps in your 20 years of experience, you have found a way to allow people to do whatever they want, while providing proper security? You should write a book.

Comment: Re:Threatpost, professional, processes (Score 2) 115

by Ol Olsoc (#48641357) Attached to: Hackers Used Nasty "SMB Worm" Attack Toolkit Against Sony

You were doing it wrong, then, and probably the company employees hate you.

The first thing you should have done is understanding why computers/lans were configured that way.

Yes, it's true that unprotected sex with strangers without a condom feels better, but that doesn't mean you can protect them from STD's or pregnancy without them changing any of their habits.

Same goes for computer users. Folks who look at productivity as not having to log in, or if you make them, want to use a password of "Password1", or their child's name or just the really quick to log in 1234567, or set up a dropbox, or really want to use thumbdrives, because "it's so quick and convenient, and those nice people at the trade show gave me one for everyone in my group!" are going to be an issue.

Having a few people hate you might be an indicator that you are doing your job.

Comment: Re:No, They Haven't Called Me (Score 2) 77

Until a local hospital calls you to let you know your kids got a broken leg...

I've seen people drive themselves to distraction with your logic. They start sweating when their phone gets to one bar, and refuse to go anywhere with no cell service. Or drive through long highway tunnels. And yet....... somehow we've been able to survive all this time without everyone having instant access to us.

Talk about your first world problems.

Comment: Re:Perspective (Score 3, Interesting) 65

by Ol Olsoc (#48639039) Attached to: NASA Video Shows What It's Like To Reenter the Earth's Atmosphere

For those like me, who just watched the video and didn't understand the point of view 'til quite late on, the camera is pointing back along the direction of flight.

Also, for some reason the video has strange out-of-focus side-pieces that are distracting and annoying. The view itself is gorgeous and amazing.

The sidebars are an effect of the smarphone's ascendence . Since asshats like to take vertical movies with their phones, they have to add shit along the sides to put them in a normal aspect ratio. Its usually blurred out repeats from the main video.. Since the camera video was square, they added the sidebars. I'd rather just see the original video than the presumably "keel" stuff.

But not to take away from it, it is pretty great stuff

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 584

by Ol Olsoc (#48638951) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

I suspect that since the vested interests are choosing the political attack route, they probably do know it is credible, they just don't care.

The problem is who are the vested interests? The AGW scientists attack anything skeptical of AGW, and prevent everything being published. What science do you consider credible when it cannot be published in the journals?

Much of the money comes form "Dark sources", like DonorsTrust, and DonorsCapital, meaning they won't tell us, Kind of like legal money laundering. Koch Industries and ExxonMobil money has in large part gone away. It might not be unlikely that they have gone to the untraceable route.

Whic is all very convenient, doing this in secret. How many scientific reports have you see that have no names, because the scientists are too big of pussies to put their name on it?

http://www.scientificamerican....

Regardless, some reseach has shown that from 2003 to 2010:

DonersTrust / DonorsCapital 14%

Sciafe Affiliated Foundations 7%

Lyle and Harry Bradley Foundation 5 %

Koch Affiliated Foundations 5 %

Howard Charitible Foundation 4% John William Pope Foundation 4%

John William Pope Foundation 4%

Searle Freedom Trust 4%

John Templeton Foundation 4%

Dunn's Foundation for the Advancement of Right Thinking 2%

SMith Richardson Foundation 2%

Vanguard CharitableEndowment Program 2%

THe Kovener Foundation 2%

Annenberg Foundation 2%

Lilly Endowmwnt Inc 2%

Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation 2%

Exxon Mobiil Foundation 1%

Brady Education Foundation 1%

The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation 1%

Coors Affiliated Foundation 1%

Lakeside Foundation 1%

Herrick Foundation 1%

A number of others at less than 1 percent

The source of this information

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-k...

Unfortunately, there will be less and less information as these defenders of freedom move to untraceable donorship, which is almost always a sure sign of standing by your principles.

What science do you consider credible when it cannot be published in the journals?

Perhaps it might be better explained what I do not consider credible

http://retractionwatch.com/201...

or this: http://retractionwatch.com/201...

This one was pretty egregious on many levels.

Anyhow, before you put Retrsction watch on your hitlist of liberal organizations, they also hae published retractions of pro AGW papers.

Part of self policing and transparency, rather different than what has become "secret contributors" of the Deniers movement.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 584

by Ol Olsoc (#48636865) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

Dr. Sagan clearly believed that the "extraordinary claims" of climate science were backed up by extraordinary evidence.

It was. Sad to say, the people we are arguing with won't accept any evidence, extraordinary or not. They get their science education from politicians - and the owners and handlers of the politicians - who are the most scrupulously honest and trustworthy people. If a politician tells you something, you can take it to the bank.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 584

by Ol Olsoc (#48636831) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

Why do not the people who have a vested interest in AGW not being true fund the research to prove it,

I'm sorry, but you have it exactly backwards. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. AWG proponents have made some huge claims that simply have not even come close to happening.

Cite the extraordinary claims, and why they are extraordinary.

Now give me the citations of the peer accepted research that proves that there is either no greenhouse effect, or that it fails.

I'll wait....... I'll check in on this thread. Be aware I'll be skeptical of your next claims that the scientists are scared, or that their opionions are squeezed. Under your "rules," that is an extraordinary claim, so you will be asked to give the legal citations. You're asking scientists to prove a negative. You really have no idea of how science works.

Consider this an exercise in you learning how. Which of course you won't, but hey, accept or deny the challenge.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 584

by Ol Olsoc (#48636787) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'
Sory dear fellow, if you have the claim, it is not up to everyone else to disprove it. It is up to you to prove it. You are trying to take the political route, the "Have you quit beating your wife yet?" approach.

That is not at all how science works. Otherwise, nothing is ever proven until it gets 100 percent acceptance. And thet will never happen.

There are still people who believe the world is flat, people that believe that crystals have special powers. If scientists have to drop everything to prove things to people who won't ever accept their science anyhow, nothing will ever get done. Because the next person says "I don't believe it." So it will start all over again. Science doesn't need to disprove Crystal powers, or the very basic fundamental principle that the so called Greenhouse gases have an effect upon energy retention in the atmosphere.

If someone thinks it doesn't, they have two tasks. Show how something other than greenhouse gases retain the energy in the atmosphere, and why if the greenhouse effect exists, it stops at some point.

I eagerly await the refutation of the Greenhouse effect, or at least the keys to why it eventually fails.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 584

by Ol Olsoc (#48634033) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

It's rather arrogant to assume that all skeptics of global warming have a political/economic agenda. Many do, certainly. But I'm sure there are also plenty of legitimate scientists who would also question the conclusions and data, many of whom are no-doubt cowered into silence by the fervent majority.

You tip your hand with your "fervent" and other emotionally laden terms.

Having worked with scientists most of my career, none of them come close to your conception of them as cowards. Most of them do consider AGW correct on the face of the data.

But here's the rub. Why do not the people who have a vested interest in AGW not being true fund the research to prove it, instead of using political means? Certainly enough money has gone to lobbyists and politicians that would fund the research that would once and for all prove them right?

The scientist that proves that AGW is a lot of HooHaw (technical term) will win a Nobel prize. It should be simple to do really, and the Koch Brothers should be able to provide for his or her future so they don't have to worry one iota about the mean scientists at Universities "cowing" them. Simply shifting that money should do the trick.

As far as it goes, I would love the proof of AGW as Hoohaw. It would mean a whole lot economically. But the credible science says otherwise. I suspect that since the vested interests are choosing the political attack route, they probably do know it is credible, they just don't care.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score -1) 584

by Ol Olsoc (#48633885) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

"the denier ignores [science] entirely"

Do such people actually exist? (e.g., "scientist X, Y, Z don't have credibility with me" is not "ignoring science entirely".)

Oh, your cut and paste to completely change what he wrote is just genius. The Koch brothers called to offer you a job as their cheif propaganda minister.

He didn't say they ignore science completely. Not even close. He wrote "the science". Among scientifically literate people "the science" refers to the science related to the topic you are talking about. Not what you moved words around to attempt to have him say they ignore all science.

It's like saying "The science is sound regarding vinegar and baking soda". Not that everything is proven because of what happens when you mix the two.

Regardless, thanks for the perfect example of cherry picking.

Physician: One upon whom we set our hopes when ill and our dogs when well. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...