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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:radical new technology (Score 1) 153

there was never enough data to confirm or deny the theory

I remember watching a documentary about about B&W striped wet suits where the guy got a whole lot of reef sharks into a feeding frenzy and then just jumped in with them, sure enough the sharks scattered out of sight. However they were common reef sharks that are pretty much harmless, I've yet to see it tested with great whites.

Comment Re:Fire water? (Score 3, Interesting) 237

Of course, the environmental activists don't want you to know that.

So name one, point to an environmentalist that is claiming the phenomena is always a result of fracking.

As an environmentalist since the 70's I want people to know they are pumping an unknown substance into the ground because they claim it's more effective than using plain old water (ie: it's more profitable). I want people to know that the US congress refuses to force frackers to reveal the recipe for their fluid.

Also as a pragmatic environmentalist I can see that burning gas (or uranium) is a lesser evil than burning coal but it seems to me (in the US at least) that greed and the regulatory blindness it creates will destroy the overall social benefit from these natural resources, just as it has in Nigeria and dozens of other resource rich hell holes around the globe.

Disclaimer: As someone who has a BSc and a lifelong passion for science I'm well aware that dissolved methane in tap water is more often a natural phenomena than a man made one. I am not responsible for other people making outrageous claims under the banner of "environmentalism", nor will I defend them if the science does not stack up.

Comment Re:One micrometer (Score 3, Interesting) 111

Coincidentally, there was a Brian Cox doco on last night that mentioned the world's smallest insect, a wasp that measures 0.4mm, my 54yo eyes couldn't detect them but he described them as "very fine specs of dust". So a rough estimate says a young pair of eyes could pick out a group of less than 500 individuals. According to the same doco, if you exclude viruses from the tree of life then there is roughly 22 orders of magnitude between the largest trees and the smallest microbes. Basically the megavirus and wasp's sizes are less than three orders of magnitude apart, which is quite incredible since I'm used to thinking of viruses as basically large molecules (IIRC the smallest known viruses are composed of a mere 10,000 atoms).

Comment Re:OMG 9 hour... (Score 4, Insightful) 176

basically a global EMP

I was starting to think I was on the wrong website, I had to read down this far before someone finally understands the threat is more than a just a mess of power line knocked down in a storm. Sure humans were built to survive without electricity, but not in the vast numbers created by our invention of civilization. The numbers supported by a civilization are directly related to its technology level. Without electricity we will be metaphorically back in the 1920's with 7X the number of people on our little rock requiring food and shelter.

If the damage takes too long to fix civil war and mass migration is a likely outcome, which will be hard to believe for people who think that drought has nothing to do with the Syrian war.

Comment Re:Make a deadline for additions (Score 2) 221

I disagree.

Irrelevant, you have no idea what the GP's source tree and processes look like. Also you appear to be talking about delivering a build to the testers rather than the end customer. If not then how do you handle a change that you know will take at least a month to test after it is added to the build?

Best if those costs are shown up-front and in their face, rather than hidden at the expense of team morale and product quality.

This^ is the actual solution, it's called "managing up" in buzzword bingo but we all know it as "office politics". As a "boomer" with 20+yrs as a corporate data plumber, I'm still learning how to do it right.

Comment Re:Absolutely Nothing (Score 1) 221

in order to establish relationships

This is what they have been interested in, the structure and financing of political groups (all of them not just the violent ones). Who talks to who, the chain of command, financial backers, internal factions, etc. Metadata maps an opponents organization and it's structural weaknesses in a way that simply reading emails cannot. Less powerful versions of these tools were very useful in the dismantling the IRA and have their roots in WW2 and people like Turing (who was himself brutally oppressed by modern standards).

Disclaimer: I fully realize they are tools of oppression but you can't just undiscovered logistics anymore than you can undiscover atomic theory.. The practical questions are: who is being oppressed, in what way are they being oppressed, and for what reason?

Comment Re:Actually Protest This Shit (Score 1) 181

If your mom or wife is killed in a terrorist attack, you'd be screaming about how the government isn't doing enough to protect its citizens.

IIRC, more than a few of the relatives of 9/11 victims formed a group call "Not in our name" to protest against the war. Having said that, I think it's amazing how quickly the US forgot about Nixon's plumbers, government snooping on its people has been going on non-stop since Roman times.

Comment Re:FUD (Score 1) 57

Richard Linzen's "Iris" hypothesis has be weighed by Science and found wanting. Nothing in Science prevents scientists from researching the Iris idea further but the vast majority won't because they have already debunked it to their own satisfaction and found something more interesting.

In less kind words Linzen's book is like the popular "Chariots of gods" from the 70's in that it attempts to baffle lay-people with speculative bullshit that just "sounds right".

Comment Re:another variable in climate modelling (Score 1) 57

the source of the clouds could be a natural reaction to the increased CO2

It could be but it isn't. Water vapour from the troposphere does not generally get into the stratosphere let alone the mesosphere unless put there by a tall volcanic plume or a machine. Once the water is up that high it doesn't fall back down easily, rather it is slowly broken down by radiation and the hydrogen tends to leak off into space.

Yet in years past they were predicting increases cloud cover at all altitudes

Umm, no the prediction was more water vapour and less cloud in the troposphere, there has been very little done in the way of research into clouds in the mesosphere so any prediction there was likely just speculation. The prediction for the change in tropospheric cloud cover was very uncertain, climate scientists will tell you that ALL clouds are poorly understood and of the various types ultra high level cloud is the most mysterious. The predicted increase in vapour itself was made with a very high level of confidence due to the well understood physics involved. Also note that CO2 has a cooling effect in the stratosphere and above, which was a prediction of models in the 80's and has since been observed via satellite. (google "stratospheric cooling")

Why "less cloud" I'm not sure but water vapour has increased by ~4% since 1980 and cloud cover has very slightly decreased since 2000 (although it's debatable that there has been any change at all). The odd thing about water vapour is that it is almost exclusively found in the troposphere and the troposphere is always very close to chemically saturated* with it, the only way to change it is by changing either the pressure or temperature of the troposphere.

chemically saturated* - google: "dew point" and realize the altitude at where it occurs is always below the troposphere/stratosphere boundary which makes for extremely dry upper layers of the atmosphere.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't compare floating point numbers solely for equality.

Working...