Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:not in my state (Score 2) 412

I don't think at all that man hasn't affected the climate in a way that tends to disturb equilibrium.

I'm not convinced, however, that a single global average temperature is a meaningful metric. Since climate is varied enough across the globe, that single metric seems to lose too much information. Far too much information averaged together.

For instance - yes the average has increased, but is that more or less important than the change in range of max to min temperatures? How does that vary with geolocation? If we know some areas are going to get better climates, why not start putting infrastructure there now to mitigate the "horrors of mass migration" in a few decades?

That's what bugs me about the "global" number - the effects are not equally distributed, so averaging everything together into that one number, while perhaps helpful in some broad sense, doesn't correlate directly enough with useful actions (especially because in general it affects probabilities or trends, not "concrete" events for enough people to understand).

Comment Re: "Ghandi" quote updated (Score 2) 412

Changes in tax codes and more importantly, zoning laws are probably required. Trouble is, they are linked in an environmentally-unfriendly way: in the area in which I live, I've seen at least 100 acres of easily observable (i.e. next to a road) land converted from forest to either shopping centers or stupidly expensive residential ("starting from the $800s") in the past year.

There are also at least another 600 acres of mixed farm/forest for sale zoned residential/"big box commercial" within 15 miles of road I drive once a week.

Farmland isn't particularly cooling, but converting it to shopping centers isn't going to make it better. Chopping forests is worse.

So forget about all the nonsense about driving a greener car, or changing incandescent to CFL to LED - until communities start realizing that turning farms and forests into paved areas is bad for the environment in a way that is worse than the property and sales tax incomes they are going to get, things aren't going to change. It's even worse because land development is typically seen as "bringing jobs" and progress. But it's got to be done wisely...Turn scrubland into things you need, not arable land or forests.

You want real change? Get on your community zoning boards. It doesn't even take magic technology!

Comment Re:Skin color is not diversity (Score 2) 414

The wording of this post made me realize something - what we need isn't "more diversity" - what we need is "less systemic discrimination". Those are subtly different things. You can have zero systemic discrimination and still have relatively homogenous-in-some-attribute populations in particular vocations or geographic areas. Conversely, you can have heterogenous populations and still have massive systemic discrimination.

Comment Re:SJW (Score 1) 287

I guess I don't consider throwing out evidence to be "punishment".

But what I see here is a bunch of comments saying "yeah, but that doesn't actually happen...". Of course, that's the point of the discussion. But saying "Our current stuff is abused, but you can't put in place other protections because they will just be abused as well" is just specious - it doesn't help anything.

All the rebuttals have been "but nobody will actually punish illegally gathered evidence" is silly, because that's just stating "if you have a system that says you must punish those gathering evidence illegally, people won't follow that system" which is essentially a lawless society in the first place. That's what you've got to fix - make punishment of illegal search and seizure automatic not optional - don't give a judge or executive the option to waive it.

Comment Re:SJW (Score 1) 287

I think you missed where I suggested that you punish those who abuse search and seizure to prevent the rampant scenario you suggested?

My assertion is that "punishing" society with incorrect verdicts is not the correct way to handle search and seizure abuses - the better way for society as a whole is to punish those abusing search and seizure.

Comment Re:SJW (Score 1) 287

Right - but what should happen in cases like this shouldn't be that the evidence gets thrown out. The evidence should get used, because it's evidence, and the people who didn't follow procedure should be fined / fired / imprisoned for violating procedure.

Letting obvious criminals go or not letting innocents go free because evidence was obtained slightly off doesn't serve justice in any sense of the word, because it causes harm to society with an incorrect verdict and doesn't really cause people to follow the correct procedures.

Comment Re:I believe it (Score 1) 618

It's very very difficult to overcome the western idea that "you've got to have something to trade" in this situation - people don't see trading their stuff (tax dollars) for lack of destitution as "getting something" - that is - paying less for something in the long run is rarely seen as a "something" to get. Or alternatively, paying a little for something now rather than a lot for it later is also not seen as as a good "trade".

There's also the problem that even for people who do think that trading a little resources now for a more stable society is good, they don't trust the organizations who are collecting those resources under the auspices of a more stable society. While it might indeed save money in the long run, most people have never seen that benefit - it goes somewhere else. Essentially the productivity gains go to more services, rather than just keeping the existing services at lower cost.

Comment Re:"Hate speech" (Score 1) 119

What concerns me most about all this isn't that there is hate speech, or that people find certain things offensive. What concerns me is that more and more, people are no longer being taught to ignore baiting remarks (which is pretty much what anything on Yahoo discussion boards is going to be), but instead to suppress anything that anyone can find offensive.

Does their filtering system allow honest discussion of controversial topics? If it does, then no big deal. But if it simply suppresses any of a particular set of opinions, then that is terrible.

The growing inability of individuals to filter out conversational flak and instead turning to authorities to suppress conversation which is uncomfortable is terrible.

There are lots of topics and opinions which make me uncomfortable, but that doesn't make them wrong necessarily - it just means I'm uncomfortable.

You can't even really change the criteria from "does it make someone uncomfortable" to "is it done only for the purpose for making people uncomfortable" - because sometimes the only way to actually right some wrongs is to make people uncomfortable.

Comment Re: Widely used != popular (Score 1) 241

Pray tell, how is a JS IDE supposed to know that in the implementation for

foo( bar )

You changed the expectation of bar being a string to being an object containing a property that is a string?

I admit my original post was incorrect - in this case the function signature didn't change, but it would have if JS had types. Maybe I need to start looking more earnestly at Typescript.

Comment Re: Widely used != popular (Score 1) 241

Coding in C is no more difficult than coding in js or any other language once you know what you're doing, it's just the extra build step in the test-debug cycle that chews up the development time.

It feels like I have spent more time in JS debugging weird things because I typo'd a variable or changed a method signature in one place but not the passed in objects in all usages than I have ever spent waiting on C compiles. And that's 2 years of JS and 15 of C.

This is probably because you can do other things while waiting on a compile, but debugging is kind of a blocking task.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome Klapka Jerome