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


Forgot your password?

Comment Article debunked here... (Score 5, Interesting) 305


The [lack of health benefits] claim is based on the fact that most of the risk reductions in the latter two tables are not statistically significant, except for women aged 65 and over. But there is a simple reason for this which some cynical people would call a trick. A relatively small sample has been taken and then split into different age groups, sexes and consumption levels to create dozens of even smaller samples. This, combined with the fact that there are relatively few never-drinkers to use as a reference, makes it very difficult to generate statistically significant results from any individual group.

If you combined the age groups, the reduction in mortality would reach significance. If you combined the genders, it would reach significance. If you combined the various different drinking levels and simply compared those who drank moderately with those who never drank, it would reach significance.

Comment Re:It has a combined address/search bar (Score 2) 688

You can search in the address bar.

Sorta - if your favorite/memory-muscle way of searching for stuff on websites is specifying the website first, then I'm fairly certain that searching for (e.g.) firefox will not give you what you'd get in the search bar in 29 - I'm seem to recall getting bitten by it in 29 way back when I couldn't figure out how to get the search bar to be visible (reset the UI was the solution) - it's certainly still broken in 31.

Comment Re:Too many puddings (Score 1) 225

Since the government provides their health insurance....

Actually the taxpayers pay for the NHS - where do you think the government steals the money from (when they're not running the country in deficit that is)? Ostensibly the item marked "National Insurance" on our payslips pays for (among other things) this.

Not that it actually gets ring-fenced, and most people recognise it for what it is - another form of income tax.

Comment Re:I question their research. (Score 1) 373

... normal office computers, not running data-centric applications, access just 9.58GB of unique data per day.

Round up to 10GB. So in 2 weeks (10 working days) that's an additional 100GB stored locally.

In 20 weeks you've filled up a 1TB drive.

What kind of office (aside from video production) works like that? The ones I know of, most of the machines are used to check email, do data entry on one or two database apps, surf, maybe create some documents or spreadsheets which are then stored on the file server. Other than the database apps, that's less than a couple of megabytes per person per day. And other than temp files, NONE of it should be stored on the local machine.

And if your average user is caching 10GB of temp files then you have a problem with your apps.

I rather suspect that "data" includes stuff like the binaries that make up the operating system and programs that are being used, and simply isn't just documents, temp files etc. that those programs are working with.

Comment Re:Masking tape (Score 1) 478

In the UK all BBC programmes are freeview and contain no commercials.

Of course all UK BBC channels have commercials. Just to other BBC content - most people consider this 'not advertising' for some reason however.

And I'm not just counting the adverts between the programmes advertising either other programmes on the same channel or stuff on other channels/media. 'Terrestrial' BBC News, for example is notorious for cross-advertising stuff.

Comment Re:HAHAHAA (Score 1) 1127

Except that's an advert for an event on the 18th Feb. TFA is dated 14th Feb, 4 days before the advertised event - is it not possible that the one attended by Mr Hindi was in fact a live shoot even before the 14th?

Not that I particularly agree with his attempts at what appear to be trespass/annoy on private property (is flying remote controlled aircraft like this over private property trespass?)

Comment What about the rest of the world? (Score 4, Insightful) 507

"...and their Internet allies simultaneously turn black with anti-censorship warnings that ask users to contact politicians about a vote in the U.S. Congress the next day on SOPA."

Are they going to geo-locate IP addresses so those of us that don't have a congress-critter to talk to don't see what, to us, is a pointless message?

Comment There's more than one (Score 1) 3

Comment Re:File a complaint, don't just talk (Score 1) 546

Instead I contacted my credit card, told them what happened, and they reversed the charge on the basis of the merchant not fulfilling contractual obligations (selling the product advertised).

Can you tell us who the credit card issuer was, because I'd like to research switching a card to them.

Any credit card issuer is obligated to refund under these circumstances for purchases between £100 and £30,000 in the UK.

Comment Re:Way to go - 'criminialise' your users! (Score 1) 660

Who are the customers of a site such as this; the users, or the advertisers?

Silly question. As with the likes of Y!Groups, the users are the product. The advertisers are the customers.

It's the only model that makes sense when the adverts are being relied upon to generate cash that is required to keep the site going.

Comment Re:I've lost my idenity, can I have a new one? (Score 2, Informative) 291

I don't recall telling banks in the UK any government-issued ID numbers, but I haven't opened a bank account there recently.

Money laundering requirements in the UK generally take the form of 2 or more pieces of documentation that prove both who you are, and where you live. (Drivers licence or passport for who you are, tax notices, benefits letters, utility bills for address.) Used in conjunction with data held by Experian/Equifax (which includes electoral information as backup for where you live.)

The closest you'll get to explicitly handing over a government issued ID number to a bank is if you open an ISA (Individual Savings Account - limited tax free savings,) and they ask you for your National Insurance number.


Climatic Research Unit Hacked, Files Leaked 882

huckamania was one of many readers to write with the news that the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Unit was hacked, and internal documents released. Some discussion and analysis of the leaked items can be found at Watts Up With That. The CRU has confirmed that a breach occurred, but not that all 61 MB of released material is genuine. Some of the emails would seem to raise concerns about the science as practiced — or at least beg an explanation. From the Watts Up link: "[The CRU] is widely recognized as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change. Consisting of a staff of around thirty research scientists and students, the Unit has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models. An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server. Here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today: 'We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.' The file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files. It contained data, code, and emails apparently from the CRU. If proved legitimate, these bombshells could spell trouble for the AGW crowd." Reader brandaman supplied the link to the archive of pilfered data. Reader aretae characterized the emails as revealing "...lots of intrigue, data manipulation, attempting to shut out opposing points of view out of scientific journals. Almost makes you think it's a religion. Anyone surprised?" And reader bugnuts adds, for context: "These emails are certainly taken out of context, whether they are legitimate or fraudulent, which adds to the confusion."

Comment Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book (Score 1) 584

Because "Driving without care or attention" has two possible problems.

1 - It is easier for a cop to say "I am fining you because you are talking on your cell while driving" as opposed to "I am fining you for driving without care or attention because you are talking on your cellphone while driving" and to make the point without wasting both parties time.

And by the power of "Slippery Slope," that could be argued (and is, hence the ridiculous state of affairs I allude to;) to apply to absolutely anything that could cause anyone to drive without "due care or attention," like drinking, smoking, talking to passengers...

Why have 100's of individual laws to cover every eventuality, when a carefully worded single law to cover them all would suffice? (Yes, I realise there's a problem with laws in other areas that are too general - I don't believe this to be the case with this one)

2 - "Driving without care or attention" leaves too much room for subjective argumentation - "But I can drive just as well while on the cell as when I am not!" and in (1) above it can become really problematic.

Take it to a judge then. The roadside is not the place for these sorts of arguments, in much the same way it isn't the place to argue whether you were driving 35 in a 30 zone or not.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"