Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Lab Measurement (Score 1) 316

Telling you to go measure something has nothing to do with faith. You lack an education. I'd be more than happy to explain to you in as much detail as you like the evidence and history of the science of Global Warming. I've read most of the original research papers, the IPCC, and any published contrarian works (Spencer, Curry, and that IRIS guy spring to mind).

Calling the opposition zealots works for everything but science. In science empirical evidence is the only thing that matters. If you are not arguing against science with measurement (i.e. more science) your argument is invalid. Empiricism is the opposite of faith.

Comment CC0 (Score 1) 62

Yes, copyright protection only exists for large corporations, and even at that it's still hardly workable. Since the "John Doe" subpoenas haven't found much favor in the courts it's hardly even worth trying to identify individuals. Personally, and speaking as a content creator, everything I do I CC0 because people are going to steal it if they want to, and I may as well benefit from any potentially wider distribution.

Comment Lab Measurement (Score 1) 316

Not to judge, but it is somewhat funny that you're presenting this as a "Gotcha!" If you would stop pretending your ignorance is just as good as anyone else's knowledge then this will suddenly become a real discussion.

So to answer your question, there are obviously things that happen on Earth which can't be easily replicated in a lab, but the problem is that the H2O-CO2 feedback ls so strong that we need a very large negative feedback to cancel it out. Some massive misunderstanding of the water cycle is pretty much all that would have saved us due to that, but as it happens we've looked at every known atmospheric phenomenon and ruled out any large negative feedbacks.

Global warming is the default, natural reaction of an increase of atmospheric carbon, and we've spent the last 121 years trying to disprove it. We actually thought we had disproved it right up until the mid-1950s. Unfortunately for us all, this really is settled science. What will happen as a result of AGW is a more open question, especially as this will depend on what we choose to do about it, but you really can prove AGW in your basement. Tyndall did it in 1859, you should be able to significantly improve on his results.

Comment Re:Use the tags, Luke (Score 1) 225

And the problem with that is, that on Chromium on Linux, if you double-click on the URL to highlight it, and then right-click to open in a new tab, then it appends 'Reply to this' with percent encoding to the end of the link, which does not result in a valid HTML document. Additionally, as I said, this is not a luddite forum. If you can't manage a minimal level of markup, kindly fuck off.

Comment Wikipedia, not Facebook (Score 1) 82

Or they can learn how to plant trees, purify water, and generate electricity. Do you know how I know that you've never lived without clean water and electricity? Because you seem to think that you can live without these things and not have that be a bigger priority than Facebook.

I did at one point live in some jungle shack that had a pathetic wifi signal, sometimes dropping to tens of bytes per second. It did have electricity of some sort, and as for water, well, there was definitely a tap, but whether you considered the output water was a matter of opinion. When you have shitty Internet, you make the most of it -- I downloaded programming documentation. Facebook would be a non-starter, it's just too bandwidth-heavy even if it were in some sense useful.

Comment Intolerance (Score 1) 126

You seem to be one of my fellow citizens, which means you're probably a pretty good person. Posting a message this results in nothing good, and I don't believe that you would say such a thing if we were in company together. I'm pretty concerned at this point that we're going to reach levels of partisanship that will result in civil war, and I don't think that's a thing any good citizen could desire. Please consider carefully what you write.

Comment Housework (Score 1) 202

As it happens, the US government collects statistics by gender of how much time is spent on which activities in the home. The relevant table is on page 9. I'll reproduce the relevant bits on housework here.

Hours per day, Average
Total: 1.84
Men: 1.43
Women: 2.23

Average percent engaged in the activity per day
Total: 76.4
Men: 67.0
Women: 85.2

Average hours per day for persons who engaged in the activity
Total: 2.41
Men: 2.13
Women: 2.61

I end up with the majority of the cooking and cleaning tasks; the girlfriend's ability to cook is pretty minimal. We're working on it. Anyway, for the average person it's not anything like a full-time job, but 2-3 hours per day, six days per week is definitely one of the larger components of human activity -- looks like the list goes sleeping, leisure, working, housework, eating.

Comment Re:Not about the free market (Score 1) 920

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that a "truly free" market has a well-known definition. The ideal free market would be characterized by perfect competition, which requires perfect information and no externalities. I think you have a point there somewhere, but you should probably revise your argument.

Comment Re:Death To All Jews (Score 1) 920

Muhammad was a political leader as well as a religious leader. He and his successors conquered a fair amount of territory. On what sort of basis could you say that Mecca and Medina are not the "Muslim homeland"? It's the birthplace of the community of Islam. Muslims pray towards Mecca five times a day, and yeah maybe "homeland" isn't a great word for that, but to say that it's not tied to a particular place is a bizarre contradiction of fact.

Comment Voting Methods (Score 1) 243

Choosing in the affirmative is a ranking only in the degenerate sense of the term. In the same sense you could say that a dictatorship is a voting system of one. If that is the only choice you want to make, that's fine, but that's not an argument against trying to capture more information from voters.

The Electoral College doesn't need to change. Please don't argue against positions I haven't taken. I am not a Democrat and do not see this as a partisan issue, and the DNC is likely to view this idea as an existential threat.

Multiple-choice methods of voting have nothing to do with any particular form of government. They are associated with larger numbers of political parties simply in reflection of the fact that people have a broad range of political views. The idea that there should be only two political parties is clearly nonsense, and you yourself can point to many factions and divisions not only within the major political parties but in all walks of life. We have the voting method that we have simply because there wasn't another to choose from in 1780. The fundamental goal of election science is to represent voter preference in as fair and accurate a manner as possible. Unfortunately, it's been mathematically proven that there is no perfect voting method, but the one that we have is one of the worst, and various groups in various countries have been campaigning to end it for years.

Please stop talking about Trump. I have not based any part of my argument on his election. You may not have looked into election science very deeply, but this has been the only political issue I have cared about for just about the last two decades. I think that all options this cycle were bad, and that that represents a failure of our system, but that's also not what's driving my concerns.

America has made itself impenetrable to everything but information warfare, and is an information war there can be no higher target than a major political party headquarters, especially during an election cycle. It takes minimal skill and technology to attempt to hack someone. There is minimal risk of detection. And now someone has shown that it is possible, and that there is very little to fear in the way of repercussions. Getting hacked is going to be massively destabilizing for any organization of any kind, political or not, and I do not see a particularly good reason to let hackers of whatever stripe hijack American politics at their whim.

The nation is in unmatched turmoil because our leaders have to keep splitting us apart with social wedge issues in order to make sure that we vote for the right teams. We are not on opposite teams, we are both citizens who want to make our country better. Across the US people have more in common with each other than that divides them, because that's what it means to be a citizen of a country. We're allowing ourselves to be split into warring camps, but it doesn't have to be that way. This is a way to resolve it. It's not a perfect solution, but I do see this as a vital existential issue for our democracy, and an extremely urgent one. But, all that said, I'm not necessarily enjoying feeling compelled to try to talk the entire country into going with me on this one, and I would be grateful for a better opposing argument, so rest assured that I am giving your opinions their due consideration.

Please also excuse any lack of copyediting in the above, I'm running late for an appointment.

Slashdot Top Deals

How many hardware guys does it take to change a light bulb? "Well the diagnostics say it's fine buddy, so it's a software problem."