Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Reminds me of the space pen myth (Score 1) 202

White paper bags made of recycled material tend to be fairly flimsy due to the amount of bleach used

This reminds me of the space pen myth (the "NASA spent millions developing a pen that would work in zero G while Russia used a pencil" one), except this time it's Apple spending millions developing a strong bleached paper bag while everyone else uses unbleached brown paper.

Comment Re:This explains it all (Score 1) 395

I can't speak for all manufacturers, but Google doesn't seem to care if you flash a Nexus, my brother got a warrenty replacement on his rooted N5, all we did was re-flash the recovery images. I bet OnePlus and FairPhone, who also ship with unlocked bootloaders, wouldn't mind either.

Comment Re:Trademarks are about brand confusion not owners (Score 1) 111

McAfee should not have a problem registering a trademark for his company under his name or with his name in it so long as it has nothing to do with anti-virus software.

The "McAfee" trademark is registered under various categories including the "Scientific and technological services" category (code 042), so trying to register "John McAfee Global Technologies Inc" is very likely going to conflict with that.

Comment Re:Joy (Score 1) 211

If we double the price of coal (or coal burning plants) and we sell at the same commission-permitted margin, we make twice the real income!

Actually yes, how about we do double the price of coal and other fossil fuels and see how much the % of energy generated from solar and wind changes?

But then there is the pesky problem of the fact that we have a lot of coal, enough to fuel the US for what, a few centuries at least? Hard to create the illusion of scarcity in that kind of marketplace.

The world coal association claims "There are an estimated 892 billion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide. This means that there is enough coal to last us around 110 years at current rates of production".

Notice that important stipulation at the bottom there? at current rates of production? Do you know what happens to that when you add a modest year on year increase in consumption? Please do explain how we can continue to sustain growing energy needs using fossil fuels.

Portraying greedy energy companies as being knee jerk opposed to solar or wind is absurd.

What do you mean "knee jerk"? This has been going on for decades, have you not been paying attention for the last 20 years?

Comment Re:Joy (Score 1) 211

Making money off climate change? How's this for making money - fossil fuel companies receive $14.5 billion in government subsidies every single day (IMF figure). Gee, I wonder who has more financial interest in pushing the climate change debate in a certain direction...

Comment Re:Cannot happen in earth, period. (Score 4, Informative) 211

On the other hand climate change likely had a large part in the biggest mass extinction's in earth's history. Do you really think we should be playing Russian Roulette with the Earth's climate? Not to mention a) causing millions of deaths from pollution every year, b) funnelling money in to unstable middle eastern regimes and c) using up a resource at an increasing rate that we know is finite and will run out in the future.

Comment Re:Wording of the bet (Score 1) 303

Your specific question was about Venus, which I found the answer for (and nothing of interest to dispute it).

The answer you regurgitated made the bold claim that because Earth and Venus happen to share a ratio when you plug a single figure into the equation that proves it to all experts. If you want to use that answer you're going to have to defend it.

The original link was about Jupiter, which confirms the same basic physical equations. So that's 3.

I've checked the figures, your link claims a temperature of 400K at 11 atm, yet the Galileo Probe reported 426K at 23 atm, so something doesn't match up there if there's such a simple ratio. The original article is behind a paywall so who knows what stipulations the temperature data had, or if they're even repeated accurately.

But there are a limited number of planets we can get this kind of data on, only one sun, and everything you're arguing is based on a sample size of ... let's see... 1.

So your answer is that, because we only have one planet to test on, we should try large scale experimental geo-engineering on it that 90+% of scientists think will be bad for it? Are you insane?

It's shown to be completely irrelevant to the calculation of temperature at specific pressure, which also has been measured, and fits the equations of Mr. Huffman.

Those calculations were based on the total power incident from the Sun, but by choosing to compare atmospheres at 1atm he's using an altitude on Venus of 50km. The cloud cover on Venus starts at 60-70km altitude, so the power incident reaching 50km will be affected by the cloud's albedo so you have to take it into account. Not to mention the obvious fact that if that radiation is measured being reflected away from Venus it means it can't physically be adding to the energy of the atmosphere.

Comment Re:Wording of the bet (Score 1) 303

But the correlation in recent times between CO2 concentration and temperature changes just doesn't track very well.

Source for the figures you're basing that on?

Any "expert", upon seeing this amazing result, should quickly have realized it means both atmospheres must absorb the same fraction of the incident solar radiation, and be warmed only by that fraction.

Ah good, I see you're still pasting the same copypasta as before.

Now then, here's the thing...

Yes, given a sample size of 2 we've found a case where we have found a simple ratio that happens to match. Now, how does that prove there is a strong correlation between the single variable it's based on? Given a sample size of 2?

Next up the original author of that paragraph may not feel the need to even "consider albedo", but albedo is not some theoretical atmospheric model, it is an actual, measurable value. The total amount of electromagnetic radiation being scattered away from Venus has been measured to be 75%. The total amount of electromagnetic radiation being scattered away from Earth has been measured to be 30%. The fact that this radiation has been scattered away into space means that it, by definition, cannot be being absorbed by the atmosphere.

Now I can't see any answer to that in the post you're sourcing from, so you might have to actually answer that one yourself

Slashdot Top Deals

Little known fact about Middle Earth: The Hobbits had a very sophisticated computer network! It was a Tolkien Ring...

Working...