Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Comment So does it still let you "always click to flash"? (Score 2) 81

So does it still let you "always click to flash"?

It'd be a real pain in the ass if, by watching one video, I have to always allow Facebook (major example) to run flash content, rather than just the specific flash content I authorize.

Also: where's the "click to run HTML5 video", please?

Comment Well, that's utter bullshit (Score 1) 473

Well, that's utter bullshit.

The very first link's very first sentence in the transcript:

"During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump suggested that he might favor creating a database for Muslims who enter the United States."

That's just adding religious affiliation to the already massive amount of information we collect about visitors entering the U.S., including their fingerprints and criminal records.

It's for visitors.

Slashdot editors: Please corrector your headline to add the word "Visitors" after the word "Muslim", and replace "Muslim-Americans" with "Muslim Visitors" in the first sentence of your summary.

Thanks.

Comment Re:Fake news (Score 1) 504

No, what you're saying is that people with no expertise in a field feel that they have an ability to critique a rather specialized field they have no expertise in.

It's a fallacious appeal to authority, full stop.

You are claiming authority without evidence when you argue, but when they argue under the same circumstances, you claim fallacy.

You are engaging in a variant of the false equivalence fallacy called the false inequivallence fallacy.

You right, because you're right, and they're wrong, because they disagree with you, even though you are not an acknowledged expert, nor are you citing sources who are acknowledged experts. Full stop.

Comment Re:Fake news (Score 1) 504

So what you're saying is that a lot of people who have no expertise in a given field believe that they're unrelated qualifications make them an expert.

No, what I'm saying is that their ability to think critically qualifies them generally to make judgements as to whether *your* qualifiecations in unrelated fields make *you* an expert.

And you have been found wanting.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 2) 504

Well, that all depends on what the rest of the world was doing. The US doesn't exist in a vacuum. If things get only a little bit worse in the US, but much worse in the global economy, then the president has done a good job.

That's not actually true, if the rest of the world's economy is an amplified following function of the U.S. economy. Which it is, since the U.S. dollar is the defacto world reserve currency. Yes, there are other reserve currencies, but as long as the vast majority of oil exchanges are denominated in U.S. dollars, it's the only commodity backed currency. That makes it the benchmark.

Comment Re:Fake news (Score 1) 504

I can speak to any story on AGW, where every pseudo-skeptic poster shows up en masse to attack climatologists, so yes, the Libertarians and Conservatives here are a significant fraction of the posters.

I'm pretty sure half the problems are:

* so many of the people on slashdot are STEM educated, and realize correlation is not causation, which damages the narrative
* the people speaking in favor of GW tend not to be accredited climatologists with PhDs
* the people speaking in favor of GW portray it as having solely AGW origins, rather than humans as a contributing factor
* presuming (as I do) that GW is real, but not solely attributable to AGW, no one is willing to give a percentage breakdown on cause

It doesn't help that there is a strong following of conspiracy theories on slashdot, and the disclosure of the emails talking about investigators specifically squelching debate reeks of conspiracy.

It doesn't help that the GW == (AGW & GW) proponents tend to be rabidly antinuclear, and can't solve some of the basic technical problems -- most of which, BTW, could be resolved by placing the panels in orbit, rather than on rooftops.

It doesn't help that a lot of us think "So what? We'll just science the shit out of it".

You don't really have to be a libertarian or a conservative or a "pseudo-skeptic" (whatever the hell that is) to jump down the throat of an AGW proponent who's not an accredited climatologist. In fact, in this forum, it's kind of considered your civic duty, like serving on a jury, or going out to vote.

Submission + - House Science Committee Tweets Climate-Change Denying Breitbart Article (businessinsider.com)

xtsigs writes: On Thursday, The House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology tweeted a misleading article published by Breitbart about the state of the global climate.

"Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists," the tweet read, citing an article from The Daily Mail. Apparently, the portions of our government responsible for overseeing public funding for science are getting their information from tabloids.

Senator Bernie Sanders responded to the tweet, asking, "Where'd you get your PhD? Trump University?"

Slashdot Top Deals

We are not a loved organization, but we are a respected one. -- John Fisher

Working...