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


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

Comment Re:Is this the same "One Decade" we were promised. (Score 1) 291

From 1997 to 1998 there is no warming..

Year to year warming is dominated by statistical noise, which is what I suspect you are trying to say when you say that there was no warming between 1997 and 1998; however for what it is worth 1998 was significantly warmer than 1997, so by your definition there is "warming".

The 'warming' in 2016 is insignificant. It is as straight of a horizontal line between the two points as you can make on a graph

If you choose two points you will always get a straight line. If the end point is 2016 and the start point is any prior year in the instrumental record, the slope will be upward.

If the temperature doesn't reach 1998 or 2016 levels until the next El Nino, then there will still have been no warming.

This is what logicians call "equivocation", which is making up your own definition of a term to make your argument true. What most people understand "global warming" to be is an underlying upward trend in temperature created by increases in greenhouse gases. This is overlaid on both year-to-year variability and of course ENSO. Comparing an El Niño year to a La Niña or non-ENSO year is an apples-to-oranges comparison. If you want to compare individual years to determine whether there's an underlying warming trend, then you need to compare El Niño years to prior El Niño years, etc. Or you an take a moving average with a window that's large enough to average out any ENSO events.

If you take a ten year moving average, in the last 40 years that ten year average has dropped three times: in 1975, 1993, and 2008; remained the same as the prior year once: in 2000; and has increased 36 times. If there were no underlying warming trend then the ten year moving average would be equally likely to go up or down in successive years; in fact it's ten times more likely to go up than down. 2008 by the way was an anomaly in not only was it an unusually strong La Niña, it was a rare ten year period with *four* La Niña years in it. If you take a twenty year moving average the last time that average went down was 1965.

Comment No, its about the Trinity ... (Score 1) 66

This is the holy trinity of computers:

* Hardware + Software + User Experience

Great Hardware enables great software.
Great Software empowers the user experience.
Great user experiences has people loving computers.

Crappy hardware can only make for poor software.
Poor software makes for laggy user experience.
Laggy user experience has people hating computers.

If you're frame rate (or UI) is not targeting at least 60+ Hz, you're doing it wrong. Only amateurs target 30 Hz.

Comment Re:Hardware is so much better? (Score 2) 66

I think you're suffering from a bit of rose-colored nostalgia.

I remember cars not starting on winter mornings because they were temperamental as hell, and breaking down much more often, requiring costly servicing or repairs. By contrast, today's cars run far more reliably than they used to. I've heard people complain about all the electronics packed into them, but it's all those electronics, among other factors, that keeps the car running in good condition and warns you when anything goes wrong. Many modern cars can last 250K miles if you take good care of them, which used to be almost unheard of several decades ago, when 100K miles was often pushing things.

I'm not quite as certain modern electronic hardware fails quite as frequently as you think either. Many of my current electronics (like my current computers) are five or six years old and running just fine - I'm betting they'll both last quite a few more years, easy. My last TV lasted a dozen years, and my microwave lasted over twenty years. I guess we'll have to see if my new ones do as well, but they're doing fine so far after several years.

You can greatly improve your chances finding quality hardware by doing a bit of due diligence beforehand to find which devices are the most reliable (and avoiding the temptation to rush out and buy the latest, greatest whatever). Of course, sometimes you're bound to get a lemon. For instance, I've had somewhat spotty luck with routers/wireless hubs until my current one. But overall, I'm not sure I buy the argument that everything of yesteryear was somehow better made - at least at equivalent prices.

Comment Re:Is this the same "One Decade" we were promised. (Score 1) 291

Who cares about a single year ...

The people who argued that there was a global warming "hiatus" after 1998, evidently. That is assuming they aren't liars.

the climate models overestimated warming by nearly 2x for the average for the last two decades and 4x for the last 15 years

Which models are you speaking of? NASA's global instrumental record data is actually quite close to the IPCC 1990 FAR model runs that correspond to the actual greenhouse emissions. You have to allow for for La Niña (2000, 2001, 2008, 2010-2012) and El Niño (1997-1998, 2014-2016), of course which deviate below and above the model predictions.

Comment Re:Too bad for men. (Score 1) 123

Let's help make it a bit clearer. Let's say you're the average US male height, weight and build - 176cm / 59" and 83kg/184lbs and a bench press of 165lbs. Picture an environment where everywhere you go, you're surrounded by men who average 192cm (64"), 105kg (231lbs) - with the weight difference being primarily muscle - with a bench press of 400lbs. On average. Basically, the average person around you is a NFL linebacker. Now picture that a good number of them are sexually attracted to you. That they're much more likely to be involved in violent crime than you. That a disturbingly high percentage of your friends and family have been molested or raped by them. Perhaps you yourself.

Try to understand the difference in what the world is like for others.

Comment Re:DGW - Dinosaurogenic Global Warming (Score 2) 291

I'm sure if climate scientists were in charge of things they would "put up". But they're not; politicians are, and politicians naturally worry more about being b lamed for action more than being blamed for inacdtion. They'd rather be forced to spend a trillion dollars than choose to spend a hundred billion.

But even if you are willing to take the hit as a politician, you can't do it alone. You need to bring other politicians around, and the public around as well. If you can't take effective steps right away, you take what you can. This gets people working on CO2 reduction technologies and businesses, and builds a constituency for more steps. It's like stopping a cattle stampede. You can't make the entire herd stop and change direction at once, you get the lead cows heading in a slightly different direction.

Comment Re:UI chases fads (Score 2) 284

Preach it brother!

Worse, all sense of color has been removed -- icons are now monochromatic.

* Before users had two ways ways to identify icons: color, and silhouette.
* Now with "flat shading" users only have 1 way to identify icons: silhouette.

And this "flat" stuff is 'better' ??? NOT.

Comment Re:DGW - Dinosaurogenic Global Warming (Score 4, Informative) 291

Of course, the problem with focusing exclusively on the costs of trying to stop or (more realistically) slow climate change implicitly assumes that inaction won't cost us anything. In fact we're looking at costs either way. We're in a minimax kind of situation: how do we minimize the maximum costs?

There's also another wrinkle to this, which is that costs (and indeed profits -- every misfortune profits someone) aren't distributed evenly. The key determinant of how much you have to pay for or profit from climate change is how mobile your capital is. If you're a Bengladeshi subsistence farmer you're going to take +2C right on the chin. If you're a Wall Street bank you take your investments out of farms which are going to lose productivity in the next ten years or so shift to underwriting the opening of new farms in newly favorable places. In other words you make money going and coming. Likewise if you own multiple homes your risk from local changes is spread out. If the lion's share of your nest egg is in a house that is in the new 20 year floodplain or in the range of a newly endemic zoonosis, you're screwed.

So even if you can't avoid +2C without climate engineering (which might not be such a bad thing), getting there in ten years instead of twenty or thirty makes a huge difference. And beyond 2C, there are other benchmarks beyond that we don't want to hit in a hurry.

This is not a black-and-white situation: that we had our chance to do something and now there is nothing we can do. We had our chance to avoid this situation and now we're talking about how much time we'll have to adapt.

Comment Re:Is this the same "One Decade" we were promised. (Score 1, Interesting) 291

The "hiatus" in global warming was produced by choosing 1998 as the baseline year. Why was 1998 a good year to use as a baseline? Because it was, by far, the hottest year on record when it happened, shattering the previous record (1997) by 0.13C.

Now this is a news for nerds site, so I don't have to explain why cherrypicking an outlier as your baseline is dishonest. People who swallowed that are either dishonest or mathematical ignoramuses.

I will go out on a limb right now and say that since El Niño has passed an next year will be less warm, sometime around 2020 we'll be hearing "No significant warming since 2016."

Comment Re:UI chases fads (Score 1) 284

> Seriously, Microsoft deciding to drop colors from icons had me very preplexed.

That's because all the modern UI designers are color blind. They would rather pick gaudy colors and visual vomit, then work within a 1 or 2 color "theme" and make that look good.

It is the modern approach of "throw shit at a wall and see what sticks" mentality.

Comment Re:UI chases fads (Score 5, Insightful) 284

> Skeuomorphic design is stupid and childish.

There is a name for myopic people who assumes their religion is "best" for everyone; their immature "my way is the only way" mentality is called a cult.

The *proper* solution is to give users a **choice** -- because good style is subjective.

Naturally, that begs the question, what is good? We'll get to that in a second.

Some people think this bookshelf is absolutely beautiful. Compare and contrast to the "modern" version which is bland and boring. All sense of charm, and uniqueness is flushed down the crapper -- Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft now all look the same. **Yawn**

I'm not the only one who hates the flat button look. All these modern designs look the same -- bland. Skeuomorphism matches what a real calculator looks like -- and you can pry my HP48SX from my cold, dead hands, thank-you very much.

Again, the best decision would be to match what users prefer. Some prefer the former, others prefer the latter. BOTH choices are OK. But designers love to pretend that they know better -- and shove their crap down my throat regardless if I like it or not.

Personally, I find antiskeuomorphism design to be dumb and gaudy -- as there no context for what is foreground and background. Congratulations, you've removed all signal and just made everything noise!. How is completely over-loading the user with noise helping them???

Maybe you prefer the gaudy, boxy design of Windows 1, er, Windows 8, but many people sure don't.

UI should be about empowering users -- NOT "let's make everything look bland, sterile, gaudy, lifeless and make me want to gouge my eyes out" because that's what modern UI has become. A clusterfuck of visual vomit.

IMO skeuomorphism is like spice

* Too much and you get indigestion.
* Too little and everything is "flat" and lacking.

I also disagree that "flat design" is skeuomorphic but that is a topic for another day.

Henry Poincare derived the e=mc^2 Mass-Energy equivalence 5 years earlier before Einstein. Einstein also abbreviated it as a linear equation instead of an infinite series.

Slashdot Top Deals

As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie