Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The level of incompetence.. (Score 1) 178

To refute your points:

1. If the facility is flooded, the seeds will go above -18C which will ruin them.

2. They selected a geologically stable area.

3. While a few things may dig in permafrost, nothing is going to suddenly decide, "I'm going to dig a few hundred meters through permafrost because, well, I sense something is in that general direction." Also, permafrost is almost as hard as concrete, so not much would be gained by pouring it - and pouring concrete in -17C isn't a trivial task.

Comment Re:I can't figure out why investors allow it (Score 2) 198

Yet for some reason investors are happy to let that continue, rather than demanding their rightful share of all the profits.

They are happy as long as Apple's stock price keeps rising faster than the rest of the market. Once they no longer get 20% (or more) of a return on their Apple shares, then you will see them demand it be disbursed to their shareholders at an expedited rate.

Comment Re:Only thing stupid is your hot take (Score 1) 96

And a five year old phone works just fine as well. So?

No, it doesn't. My 4s started becoming unusable after 2 years. If I was using my running app, and stopped to take a picture, it swapped the running app out of memory. So, if I didn't reopen the running app before continuing, it stopped recording my run.

After an update a few weeks ago, I started to notice lag when I opened or swapped apps on my 5s. Again, after about 2 years. (I bought it just before the 6 came out.)

Apparently, Apple is writing their software to run on the newer hardware, and it just overloads the old hardware. So, should I just never update my software?

Comment Re:Why humanoid? (Score 1) 141

Except, now you have to design all of the arms/hands to have the durability to do all of those things. Right now, they can design the finger-joints to manipulate 5-10 pounds of pressure. If they also acted as "feet" (on Earth) they would have to be able to support the entire weight of the robot.

Also, you are assuming that we can make the arms as articulated as an octopus - without breaking wiring, hydraulic tubing, or whatever else we need to run through the arms to the "hands".

Comment Re: Rough edges visible miles away (Score 1) 92

Assuming this is talking about tickets and not boarding passes than I would say the time to retire paper ticketing infrastructure was a long time ago as its not useful and I can't think of really any reason why anyone anywhere needs to use.

While 88% of the US population has Internet, only 77% have broadband. Dial-up would make it hard to shop for, and purchase, plane tickets. Plus, 92% of the population has cell phones, only 77% have a smart phone - which makes it impossible to pull up your electronic documents. Reference

Just because you can't imagine why anyone would need it, doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons for it. You just need a bit more imagination. I mean, we didn't even get into foreign tourists who might not have a cell plan in the US. The elderly. The disabled (ex: blind). Or people who do not use technology for religious reasons (Amish). Or who live where there is no Internet or cell service - at all (Nowhere, Alaska).

Comment Re:Science versus politics (Score 1) 279

Point 1: Scott Adams pointed out that when asked the question "how much of global warming is caused by humans, and how much is natural" in debates and televised interviews, no scientist had an answer.

The answer is 50-70% according to this latest research.

Point 2: Another Scott Adams observation is about the models. Why is there more than 1 model? Shouldn't scientists agree on the best model and just use it? Shouldn't scientists agree on the best *data* and just use it?

Define "best model". For example, one model may be the best method for describing Europe and the Arctic. Another may be the best for describing ocean temperatures. One may be the best for the years 1998-2003, another 2004-20013. The truth is that there is no "one best" model. So, we run them all and plot all of their results and crunch the numbers to try and get the best answer we can.

Point 3: Also from Scott Adams is the observation that NO other complex model has ever had predictive value, and why should we believe that this one does? Why are you disregarding all the other, non-complex models?

The key word you use here is "complex". You see, any time you start adding adjectives, you are starting to cheat/hide/skew the system. For example: Define complex. Define the accuracy for predictive value. Also, why are you automatically disregarding other, less complex models from your consideration?

Point4: From my view, climate change is closely tied with the actions that "we must do to save ourselves!", and those actions are always a) part of the liberal agenda, b) involve reducing our standard of living, and c) negatively impact most people while further lining the pockets of the rich and powerful.

You have a number of ideas here. So, just because a certain group - in this case liberals - advocate a certain action doesn't mean they are wrong. If a member of the KKK said you should evacuate a building that is on fire, just because you don't like the person doesn't mean you shouldn't evacuate. As for (b) - yes, we are consuming too much, and need to knock it off if we want everyone to have a life that doesn't completely suck! Are you willing to air condition a 400 sq ft. home, so the difference in energy compared to what you consume now can air condition a 100 sq ft. room in Africa? No? Well, I don't care - it is your decision. However, a lot of people will think you are a jerk for consuming tens, if not hundreds, of times the resources of someone barely scraping by in some areas of the planet. Plus, the world can't sustain a high standard of living for everyone - at least, not without a LOT more preparation and engineering. For (c), I call bullshit. If you want to claim that, give me some numbers and scenarios. I doubt the executive at Exxon-Mobile are going to make more money by protecting the environment instead of taking actions to maximize their profits. (Or, for that matter, the local Jiffy Lube. They would save a fortune by burning the used oil, or dumping it in a stream.)

Okay, I ran out of motivation to refute all of your arguments. However, even if we aren't 100% responsible for global warming; and the uneaten food from your plate doesn't teleport to the people starving in Africa; and the electricity you don't use doesn't magically turn lights on in some cr*ppy hut somewhere; it doesn't mean we can't do a little bit more to help out other people in the world and help protect the environment.

Comment Re: Can someone explain in laymans terms how.... (Score 1) 334

Until recently, we were 100% sure the EM drive was impossible.

That's why this is so cool. If there IS something here - and we need more testing - then there are a lot of things we have to rethink. If it turns out to be true, and we aren't just missing something else going on, we will have to rewrite some chapters in our textbooks.

Comment Re:GigEconomyScam (Score 1) 726

It goes against gross because that is also their "salary". For a normal worker, they pay half of the SS tax on their wages and the company pays the other half. If you are self-employed, you pay both sides. Reference

This is why consultants are ridiculously expensive - they are very aware of their overhead for taxes, and have to compensate for it.

Comment Re:Ayn Rand Jihadism (Score 1) 386

Yes, the $1.5 trillion includes them all. However, it doesn't matter if it is city, county, or state - the people living in California have to pay ALL of it.

1: Agree
2: Not so much - see the cost overruns for pretty much every military procurement project, major software project, and infrastructure development program.

He isn't saying you shouldn't have ANY regulations, just too many. Also, you didn't address, or deny his point.

Again, you didn't address, or deny his point

Third time is the charm, I guess.


Comment Re: Top priority? Always? (Score 2) 146

Or, you know, it's just hard to secure things.

I'm not saying they couldn't do a better job, but there are a lot of competing requirements. For example, for medical information, how far do you lock it down? If there is someone crashing in a hospital, you have to be able to pull up their information - or they might die. For credit cards, not only are there a ton of retailers that have to access them, but they also have to handle companies with shared cards, different state and federal regulators, and a ton of different banks that have to be able to create, issue, and revoke $CREDIT_CARD_BRAND.

Oh, and let's not forget that there is a LOT of money available for that kind of information, so disgruntled employees are also a danger. Or even happy employees, that just want $METRIC_FRACK_TONS of money.

So, sure - they could probably do better; but it is not a simple problem.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Home life as we understand it is no more natural to us than a cage is to a cockatoo." -- George Bernard Shaw