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


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment How are these articles picked? (Score 4, Informative) 166

If you told me I had to read an entire random article off Softpedia's news page, I'd be disappointed and sad. But if I had to, there's at least 3 more interesting articles than this one (I just checked) right now. If you told me "it has to be one that will generate some cheap fanboy rage", I guess this one would be closer to the top and maybe I might check it out.

But once I did I'd see it was complete nonsense garbage and start shopping for a new one. It's unreadable - I have no idea what they're even claiming in half their sentences - but at very least it's clear their conclusion is way out of step with the data they're reasoning from.

I still read Slashdot out of some weird old habit, but the interesting finds are getting few and far between. It has become an anti-aggregator, finding the least interesting, poorest-written articles on sites that I wouldn't bother going to.

Comment You have to understand the viral ecosystem here.. (Score 1) 148

People don't all independently come up with a plan of making up terrible password rules - it's just a difficult to extinguish meme propagated by clueless deal makers.

Many systems I've worked on have terrible password rules. Symbols and numbers, and requirements to change them all the time (thus guaranteeing they'll be written down)... but it was never really our decision. We had to follow the security document, and the security document had to have those rules, because we'd agreed to follow those rules in order to work with a certain client or vendor. Ever wonder why some system won't let you change your password more than once a day? It's dumb, right? It's just one of those things that makes it into someone's weird viral rules.

That client or vendor probably didn't want those rules either, but their security document said they could only use vendors and clients that agreed to those rules, and their security document said that because it was part of a deal with one of their clients.

And it's not just this. There's tons of companies out there trying to get in on this viral security racket. We'll work for you for free! And for extra security we'll do audits of all your vendors and/or clients... and then blackmail them all into buying our software, so that they can be assured they'll pass the security audit they now need to work with you (quite possibly something they need to survive). And maybe some of them, we'll offer a "free" deal with, as long as they set policies that will allow us to blackmail all their vendors. Some of them don't even bother to hide it, they just send you the audit notice, namecheck the client you'll lose, and a price.

Comment Google obviously could have made Android.. (Score 3, Insightful) 181

..without Java, easily, and I'm sure now they wish they had. They've learned their lesson, and everyone should learn the same lesson from this case: "avoid Oracle, avoid Java".

Oracle is a snake that will bite you as soon as it feels hungry or threatened in any way. Java is no longer a free standard with tools that'll bootstrap your project and help you inter-operate, now it's a Trojan horse that could spill open and burn your business, or at very least can be yanked out from under you at any time (if you aren't willing to pay up or hire good lawyers).

Comment Re: Was this before or after adjustments? (Score 1) 270

REal science is based on logical skepticism, not just crazy ass made up doubt. Not denial wrapped in skepticism.

Logic skepticism. There Is a reason why scientific experts i the field came to consensus regarding Global Warming.

There is a reason Countries that have the most economical impt still agree with Man Made GW.

When skepticism relies on an global conspiracy that involves thousands ,i f not 10's of thousands, or people, it's not real skepticism.


Comment Re: Was this before or after adjustments? (Score 1) 270

I'm not a climatologist.

Then shut up.

" However, I understand science and statistics "

The claim made by everyone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

As an example , in no way did they " adjust the data in order to reach your conclusion".

This also tell me you have no clue what you are talking about:
"The warming in the data is almost exclusively due to the adjustments supposedly to account for urban heat islands. However, without those adjustments, the temperatures are pretty flat."

Lets set your admitted ignorance aside ad go straight to the base science:

1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it passes right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

4) Greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actually address the facts of GW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?

So now you have to answer:

Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?

Slashdot Top Deals

"One day I woke up and discovered that I was in love with tripe." -- Tom Anderson