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

 



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

Comment: Re:And 4) (Score 1) 639 639

As it is, the changes that are happening now are far faster than any other changes in the climate humanity has faced, and that is what makes them dangerous.

While this may be true (and is probably true from recorded history data), it doesn't say anything about how fast they are happening compared with the last time the Planet turned extremely hot or extremely cold. It also doesn't consider the vast amount of unrecorded human history (from a climate/temperature point of view). For all we know, this is the Planet's normal climate trajectory, we just have such a small segment of data to look at, we can't see the forest from the trees.

Said another way, we are using an ridiculously small fraction of a percent of the Earth's climate data and using that to extrapolate (in both directions) when, in all reality, all of our data could represent a short anomaly period that over a more significant time period (based on Earth's time-scale) will normalize itself right out.

Comment: Re:What can we do vs What should we do? (Score 1) 639 639

Yes, I believe that humans have contributed in exacerbating an natural process of warming that would have occurred without our involvement. We have made it worse by a measurable percentage. Yes I think there are things we should do to reduce the damage we are doing.

If the warming process is natural then how can it be called damage ? A warmer planet may be detrimental to us and our survival as a species (but probably not, we are adaptable) but it does no damage to the planet itself since the planet was doing it anyway on its own. Unless, of course, you think the planet is harming itself. The planet is bigger than any one species, including our own, to say the planet is being damaged, destroyed, etc. when it is only certain species on the planet that are being affected is incorrect. Humans do not equal the Planet. They are separate and distinct things, what is good for one is not necessarily good for the other and vice-verse. You lose people when you make obviously contradictory statements like the one I pointed to above. You lose them to semantics. Once they see you glossed over and combined two separate and distinct things into one, they lose trust. They begin to wonder where else you glossed over and simplified in order to make your point or arrive at your conclusion. This is why every article on a scientific study/topic should include all of the assumptions that were made as a simple error there can invalidate an entire study.

Comment: Re:And 4) (Score 1) 639 639

I see where you're going with this, but really, it's just so much bullshit. The "proper" temperature of the Earth (if you can call it that) is the one that preserves the massive civilization that has sprung up around the world since 1850 or so.

Only form the perspective of one trying to save Humanity not one trying to save the Planet. Obviously, they are not the same. To one who really thinks it is humans who are destroying the Earth and wants to protect the Planet, then the Earth becoming uninhabitable by humans is an ideal outcome.

We live on Earth in a period where civilization has taken root, and we'd rather not see that destroyed.

Well then we picked a horrible spot to let our civilization take root, haven't we? The fact is the planet's climate will change to the extreme(s) (both warm and cold) over a long-enough time line, with or without humans. It has before and it will again. Trying to make enormous efforts, at enormous costs to attempt to slow down something that is inevitably going to happen is asinine. The time, effort and money would be better spent preparing for the inevitable so that our survival when it comes is better assured. We will have to do it anyway or die. Might as well start now and stop trying to kick the can down the road.

Comment: I think you need to review the law (Score 1) 510 510

It isn't illegal to withdraw money from the bank

Actually, withdrawing money from a bank can be illegal, if it is determined that you structured your withdrawals to avoid the reporting mandated by the government for large withdrawals (i.e. over $10K). Thank you War on Drugs for that bit.

nor to compensate someone in recognition of past harms

Compensating someone for past harms? No. Compensating someone for refusing to testify and/or cooperate with an active investigation? Yeah, that is probably illegal for both parties.

Comment: Re:Good model (Score 1) 183 183

It's patently absurd to give the federal government the keys to the kingdom, but it's also patently absurd to say that criminals should get away with it because they used encryption.

Only one is patently absurd. In the US, the decision was made at the beginning when the legal/justice system was designed. It was designed on the basis that: "it is far better that 1000 criminals go free than one innocent be wrongfully imprisoned". That concept is the corner stone of our system and spirit of it. If every "difficult balance" were viewed through this lens it would be crystal clear than the intent was that "is is far better that 1000 criminals go free than violate the rights of one innocent". Unfortunately, a lot of people are short-sighted (and I'd say spineless) and cannot accept that allowing criminals to go free is also a way of protecting the innocent. They can't see that many moves ahead and/or they fear the criminal more than the government and will sacrifice their protection from one to eliminate the other, never realizing that the government they so trust is made up of many criminals (or soon-to-be criminals).

Comment: Re:And I blame my parents (Score 5, Insightful) 734 734

WILL NOT stand by and allow someone to be punished for speaking something that I find offensive. I don't care if it offends you, it's not your right to avoid offense.

There is another distinction that you are missing. When it comes to bullying, the speech isn't necessarily "offensive", it isn't said with the intent to "offend" the victim. It is "harmful", it is said with the intent to cause "harm" to the victim. As with most legal cases, intent is important. If it can be proven a bully engaged in speech with the intent to cause harm then that bully could be prosecuted, not for his speech, but for his intent. If it the harm can also be proven, as in this case the suicide of the victim, then the charges/sentencing can be increased. They may have only intended to harm the victim however the death of the victim was the result, they are now liable (or partially liable) for contributing to that death.

Now, in case you are talking specifically about the offensive facebook post, then you must also look at it another way. The facebook post amounts to a confession, a confession of intentionally causing harm to the victim (bullying) as well as the acknowledgement that it led to the victim's suicide/death. Furthermore, it is a confession of no remorse for the effect that was caused by the bully. Even if she has no intent for her speech to lead to an acutal suicide, when she was faced with the fact that it did, she was not remorseful of her actions. Given these facts, she should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and given no leniency in sentencing.

Comment: Re:Sure, to lower paying jobs (Score 1) 674 674

I would just add, that minimum wage needs to provide a basic level of acceptable living without additional government assistance. This is where the problem lies. People who work full-time for minimum wage need gov't assistance to survive. Employers don't have to pay more because there are gov't assistance programs to cover the deficit. There is one, obvious solution, the government raises minimum wage so that those who earn it no longer need or qualify for gov't assistance and since it goes across the board, it won't make competition any harder. This, however, they will not do as it will lessen the power the gov't has over the people via the assistance programs. They cannot survive without them and will continue to elect whoever promises to keep them around and/or increase them.

Comment: Re:Fucking idiots (Score 1) 1532 1532

Actually, Romney already did what you're suggesting. It worked well in Massachusetts.

Do you line in MA? Are signed up for the MA subsidized Commonwealth care? Do you use their facilities and doctors on a regular basis? I would assume that the answer to at least the second two are "no" if you think "it worked well". It worked well on paper. For the people who actually needed it and rely on it, and I personally know a few, well, let's just say it sucks. The facilities suck, the doctors suck, the "insurance company" sucks. Nothing is done right or on time. It's like dealing with a group of completely incompetent and overworked people, you know, just like dealing with any government bureaucracy.

Comment: Re:Fire them. (Score 0) 252 252

Actually, they are violating their oath to uphold the constitution above all else which this program is clearly in violation of as, last I checked, the PATRIOT and subsequent acts were not (thankfully) constitutional amendments that could super-cede the 4th amendment and are, in effect, null-and-void in any area where they conflict with the 4th.

Comment: Re:So why is it used in Windows? (Score 2) 665 665

CTRL+ALT+DEL was already a well known, highest priority, key combination from before windows existed. Back when hardware had actual interrupt assignments, the keyboard was assigned the lowest interrupt (the user in front of the keyboard was considered the most important and had highest priority over all other sub-systems - yes lower numbers had higher priorities for those who don't remember). CTRL+ALT+DEL was designed to allow the user to forcibly (and controllably) reboot the system should some lower-priority sub-system be mis-behaving. The only time this did not work was when the CPU itself was frozen (divide by zero, anyone?). That is where the low-level, special-handling was originally designed - in hardware.

Comment: Re:"Broken campaign fincance": a Constititional ri (Score 2) 688 688

Where is the allowed acceptance of corporate campaign contributions covered in there? I don't see it. Notice my wording, running for and holding office is a choice, it's completely voluntary. By choosing to run for and, potentially, hold office you must agree to the rules. If those rules say you cannot accept compensation from for-profit corporations (as opposed to non-profit political organizations), then you cannot. Constitution not violated.

Comment: SFFS (Score 2) 238 238

If you don't want to do Version Control as others have suggested then I recommend Super Flexible File Synchronizer. It is a great product with lots of options in regards to what does and does not get sync'd. It is inexpensive to boot. http://www.superflexible.com/ftp.htm

Comment: Re:You still can't control recipient devices (Score 1) 183 183

If you don't trust the recipient, why would you send them encrypted messages? The point of this feature is to close the "I forgot to delete it" hole that exists and represents the "this message will self-destruct in xxx time" concept. Of course I understand you may be referring to the ISP installing or modifying the phone's software so as to get a copy of the plain-text and this is a valid, although unlikely, concern. The fix (and only fix) is to make sure the plain-text is also encrypted in some form so that only the true recipient can read/understand it. The stronger encryption protects it in transit, the weaker encryption protects it from those with access to the device.

Comment: Re:No so much (Score 1) 637 637

He knows he needs help, and he knows it's his right (as a human) to live

It's his right to live yes but that doesn't make it someone (or everyone) else's responsibility to help him do so. It's people's fear of death that causes the dissonance you speak of, not our upbringing that socialism is bad. I know I don't have a right to everyone else's money (or the doctor's services) even if I need them to live. But if I were facing death I might be tempted to claim I did because fear will cause all sorts of irrational thoughts and ideas.

This is the fundamental problem with a "right to healthcare". You are either claiming a right to other people's money or a right to other people's time or both. This, when considered fully, is tantamount to slavery. That is why we do not have a "right to healthcare".

Your good nature will bring you unbounded happiness.

Working...