Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Who cares what governments think? (Score 2) 270

I hadn't thought of it that way. Heaven is a communist dictatorship. And presumably you can't get pregnant in Heaven (since you have to die to get in), so if there is sex then it would be purely for pleasure and not procreation.

It looks like there might be a lot of fundamentalists who are in for a bit of a shock when they die. That is, unless they find that there is no afterlife and so they would be in for no shock at all.

Comment Re:First and second reactions (Score 1) 101

It certainly does seem unreasonable. I have done searches on people's names before, and quite often I find results for people of that name who are not the same as the one I am looking for. For example, what if I had searched for the judge's name? Am I am criminal looking to defraud him, or am I looking for a cartoon to have a laugh at made by as different person (presumably). A name is simply not a unique identifier.

I can easily imagine that Google will succeed in fighting this warrant.

Comment I hope they can be disabled (Score 4, Insightful) 61

Generally speaking, the first thing that I do when I watch any Youtube video is to turn off annotations and change the speed to 125%. For some slow talkers, I change the speed to 150%. This is to try to get close to the speed that I would have read the same information had the video just be a textual website.

As for the annotations, 99% of them are useless, annoying popups that distract me from the video. I can't imagine that the end screens and cards would be any more relevant.

Comment Re:I smell a rat...or alternative facts (Score 1) 279

Are you saying that the article is wrong and that there hasn't just been a study about Arctic ice loss by Qinghua Ding of the University of California (and others) published in the journal Nature Climate Change? Because that is what the article is about. Why would you not believe that? Surely that is not something that really needs to be proven.

If you want the proof of what the study talked about then you should grab a copy of the journal because that is where you will find it (quite correctly). This was the point of my original post to which you replied. Since you didn't seem to understand the difference between a study and news of a study then I don't think you will be able to comprehend the science behind the study, so maybe it is not worth bothering to get the journal.

Maybe next time, try to read the entire first sentence before replying.

Comment Re:I smell a rat...or alternative facts (Score 1) 279

I never said all the climate scientists in the world are lying; just a large number of them.

So the rest of the scientists have to be complicit by remaining silent. The more likely answer is that you are wrong. You can't get enough information just by looking at the temperature graphs to falsify all the research done in this field.

Saying that we are in a "warming period" is meaningless. That is just saying that it is getting warmer because it is getting warmer. Why is it a warming period? There must be some physics behind it. Is it because of all the greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere is trapping the heat? If not, what is the mechanism that is causing the temperature increase, and how do you explain that the rate of increase is far in excess of what normally happens with natural variation?

The scientists who you deride show their workings, give tables of data and publish their formulas. All you can do is to tell us to just look at the temperature graph for the last century. If you want to prove the scientists to be wrong and corrupt then you have to provide some actual proof. And while you are proving that the science is wrong, you also need to prove your assertion that the scientists are willfully corrupt and are deliberately lying in order to receive grant money.

Comment Re:Fake data = fake study (Score 1) 279

You are going to need some actual proof if you want to claim that the data is fake. The fact that you don't like the word trick is simply not enough. For a conspiracy as massive as what you suggest, you should easily be able to find dozens, if not hundreds, of disillusioned scientists who came into the profession thinking that they were saving the world. These people would be able to furnish actual proof massive levels of fraud. So where are they?

Instead, we have the same level of paranoid ravings as that associated with the faked moon landing and Elvis still being alive. It would be less laughable if it wasn't for the fact that deniers scorn the early temperature records as being unreliable and that scientists don't take the urban heat island effect into account, while simultaneously claiming that any adjustments made to old data to correct for errors are actually attempts to fake the data. You can't have it both ways.

Comment Re: I smell a rat...or alternative facts (Score 1) 279

Even if you eliminate the human element completely, then the same end result will still occur, although it may take longer to get to that point.

That is an unsupported supposition. As we keep pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the temperature keeps on rising. Even if we reduce it, we only slow the rate of increase. It will continue this way until we can eventually get our emissions under the level that can be dissipated and absorbed naturally.

On the other hand, the natural swing found by the study will most likely swing back to become cooler again. It will not result in the same runaway warming that we are causing. There are other long term changes happening too, but they are much slower than we are experiencing now and will therefore be more manageable by humans, animals and plants alike.

Comment Re:I smell a rat...or alternative facts (Score 5, Insightful) 279

The article doesn't need to prove anything, other than cite the study, because it isn't science. It is just news about the science. I am sure that the study itself, which was made by scientists and published in a scientific journal, would actually show their workings; otherwise they would not get published. But the fact that we haven't seen the study is not itself evidence that the figures were based on "no science what-so-ever".

If you walk into a room with your eyes closed, you cannot definitively say that there isn't a red ball in the room. All you can say is that you can't see a red ball. Similarly, if you haven't read the paper, you can't say that the percentages are unproven. All you can say is that you haven't seen the proof.

Should the original poster have read the study before discussing the percentages? If this were an academic discussion or an official policy document then absolutely. But this is just a forum on the internet, occupied by deniers who make no effort to prove their own claims. Regurgitating figures from the article is a step up for a lot of people around here who never get past reading the headlines.

Comment Re:Climate "science" has never been consistent. (Score 2) 279

Care to specify which sentences, or are you going to just continue to vaguely decry it as lies without actually addressing anything head on?

Ah, but that would be feeding the trolls. But if you look at the one bit of evidence that was provided (the link to Wikipedia article on global cooling), you find that this is the second sentence:

This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

This directly contradicts the timeline presented that the science lacked consistency. The other massive claim is that there has been no real action to cut down on emissions. This ignores that we are moving to energy efficient products (even to the extent of banning the non-efficient versions). It ignores the construction of renewable and low emission power plants and the phasing out of old, dirty plants. It is such a stupid claim, and an obvious troll.

The rest is just the usual denier bullshit that has been addressed time and time again.

Comment Re: I smell a rat...or alternative facts (Score 1) 279

At least knowing it's due to naturally occurring phenomenon will allow us to avoid harmful carbon taxes that won't actually do anything to solve the problem.

Except that is not what this study found. Since man-made warming plays the larger role, it seems that carbon taxes will do something to solve the problem. And I think that you will find that the effect of carbon taxes on the environmental would not be described as harmful.

Of course, if all you are interested in is the economy, then it will survive and grow just like it has despite the abolition of slavery, etc.

Comment Re:I smell a rat...or alternative facts (Score 1) 279

Are you seriously saying that you can determine the cause of the warming just by looking at the temperature graphs alone? How is that supposed to work?

And how can you possibly have so much certainty as to be able to make the utterly fantastic leap that all the climate scientists in the world are lying just to make a buck. Don't tell me that you can also see psychological insights in temperature graphs too. I can't wait until you start solving crimes by barometric pressure readings.

Comment Re:I smell a rat...or alternative facts (Score 4, Informative) 279

Guestimation of ranges based on no science what-so-ever. Good one.

What? It's based on the study that is being discussed here. Based on the article, I don't have enough details about the study to find how they came up with those figures, but neither do you have enough information to say that it was based on "no science what-so-ever".

Comment Re:piece of shit machines (Score 4, Informative) 242

The return rate for Linux-based netbooks was significantly higher that Windows ones. I don't think that it can be said that people found that they didn't need Windows. Also, it was Vista that didn't work well on netbooks. They fixed this with the Windows 7 Starter Edition, which finallly replaced XP on netbooks.

Netbooks still exist in the form of... netbooks. The Lenovo Ideapad 100S or the HP Stream 11 spring to mind as examples of this format. The specs tend to be 11" screen, 2GB RAM & 32GB SSD & full Windows 10. I've had a few different varieties of this sort of thing, and they do a reasonable job even though I'm not a big fan of Windows 10.

Comment Re:Microsoft, can you fix Linux? (Score 1) 159

I never thought I'd say this, but Microsoft may be the only organization out there that can save Linux from itself.

I think that Linux is doing well enough without Microsoft making their own distribution. Yes, Linux has had some problems with some aspects, but so has Microsoft. Just look at the changes that it made with Windows 8 and how they have had to backtrack some of their ideas with Windows 10. I am also wary about the direction that MacOS is going too, so there is no knight in shining armour out there to save the day for us.

But it is still possible for most people to find a distro or OS that suits their needs. If you have found that FreeBSD is right for you then good for you. I don't see Microsoft wanting to own their own alternative to Windows any time soon. Even their Linux subsystem was based on an existing distribution.

Slashdot Top Deals

Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty. -- Plato

Working...