Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Re:Cheap? (Score 1) 336

The "billions of dollars in budget overruns" are self-inflicted by the ridiculous mess of bureaucracy that's in place. Material and labor costs for a nuclear plant really aren't that much different than any other power plant. Construction time (again, taking out the bureaucracy) takes about a year or two more. Actually getting one approved however requires billions of dollars up front before so much a s a shovel touches the ground, and something just short of an act of god.

The problems with nuclear power are caused by people.

Comment Re:Didn't ANYBODY Check Wikileaks?! (Score 1) 689

Fact checking? Haven't you figured out that facts mean nothing in this election?

Slashdot. News for nerds. Now you'd think with a mantra like that, the site would be full of "smarter than your average bear" type people. But this election has shown that whatever the site used to be back in the day, it is far cry from that now.

I dislike Clinton. I understand why people dislike Clinton. But I can't figure out how anyone with a logic center in their brain could vote for something like Trump. He's a pathological liar. Post debate fact checks alone are more than enough to illuminate that. None of his policies (what few has put forward) make any sense or, at the very least, won't do anything like he claims they will. His take on foreign relations is equivalent of that of a 2 year old throwing a tantrum. He refuses to release his tax returns. He thinks a blind trust is letting his family run his business and manage his assets (I don't even...). The list goes on.

There isn't a logical reason to vote for Trump. No, "Hillary is a liar" is not a reason.

The republicans could have put up anyone else besides Trump, and they would have won. Someone on the more moderate side instead of tea party crazy would have won by a landslide, and with it the house and the senate. But they went with Trump. The RNC truly fucked up with that little piece of strategy. Maybe it was all the crazy they've been fostering and encouraging over the past decade. Maybe they honestly thought that popularity guarantees a win. I honestly don't know what the hell they were thinking, but their strategy team needs to fired because they literally wrapped the presidency in a nice package and delivered it to the democrats. Worse, the damage Trump is doing may actually lose them the house and senate as well.

Comment Re:Interesting (Score 1) 756

Trump's skeletons are usually out there already for all to see, some even with flesh still on them. I don't think he tries to hide much. As far as email leaks, it may be that Trump and his team simply don't use email.

He doesn't use email. He tweets. And those tweets are often so damaging that Wikileaks is like "Well shit, I don't have anything that can top that!".

WikiLeaks: "Oh do we have some info on you Trump!"
Trump: "I just tweeted that America can suck my dick and all my supporters to go and grab pussy!"
Wikileaks: Ok, what do we have on Clinton?"

Comment Re:you're partly right (Score 1) 1042

The people I know who are most disturbed by the simulation concept are the ones who most claim to believe in Jesus. And they get really pissed when I ask them how it's any different from their creation myth. Fireworks really start when I explain the simulation was developed over 6 phases by a lead developer with the intials G.O.D. and Eden was just the sandbox where they tested the "human" code. Of course, the flood was a major content patch when the simulation exited beta.

Actually, the flood was a fat fingering mistake. You see, one of the developers was just trying to debug the simulation by running God's Debugger by using gdb --reset. The problem was, that was the command to reset God's Database (gdb), not God's Debugger (gdbug).

The developer's name was Lucifer some such. Apparently as punishment he was relocated to the basement and is only allowed to write accounting scripts in visual basic.

Comment Re:Define "work" (Score 1) 160

Pretty much. if you're not motivated to get in shape in the first place, it's unlikely a fitness tracker is going to help you.

For me, it was the tool I needed to find out what I was doing wrong. I've always tried to stay fit, but could never seem to lose weight. The fitness tracker, while not 100% accurate, showed me just how far off I was in my estimation of calories in vs. calories out. Once I fixed that little problem, the weight basically melted away.

But again, if you don't have the motivation to get fit and the will power to break bad habits, a fitness tracker isn't going to magically do so.

Comment Re:I'm just guessing they won't study the fraud (Score 1) 680

in scientific research. For example, what is this "hide the decline" all about? Why would scientists want to hide their data?

They didn't, and you'd know that if you read the whole chain as opposed to some out-of-context excerpt that just happens to fit your bias. "Hide the decline" had nothing to do with "hiding" anything, and a whole lot to do with finding and eliminating bad data.

Why wouldn't the CRU (Climate Research Unit at UEA) release their data sets as required by reputable journals such as "Nature."

Ensemble model runs produce petabytes of data. And that's just one data set. Peer-reviewers are of course granted access to the data as needed, but there's no conceivable way to "release" a terabytes and petabytes of HDF/NetCDF/GRIB/etc. files to the public short of a massive data farm, and people like you bitch enough already about "all the money being spent on science".

Why would they deny FOIA requests and conspire to find a way around them?

Because fucking idiots were making ignorant requests that would have wasted thousands of man hours and millions of dollars. But then again, that was the whole point of the FOIA requests to begin with. The "interested" parties had no interest in the actual data, and wouldn't even know what to do with it even if they got it. They wouldn't even be able to store it, let alone process it unless they happened to own their own super-computer.


Why would they seek to marginalize the "Climate Research" journal because some scientists had a contrary opinion, and why did they describe this as "plugging the gap" (their words)?

Having a contrary opinion is fine. Having a contrary opinion being published as reviewed science when supported by nothing but bullshit a college undergrad could rip apart is something else entirely.


Why did a hockey stick emerge from their data no matter what "red noise" was input to the program? (White noise is random; red noise is random from the last iteration, like stock market quotes)

That's a bullshit statement. Not once have I ever seen a single shred of credible evidence to suggest this ever happened. In addition, there are several models with source code freely available for your perusal. Feel free to find the models that behave in this manner.

And why did a hockey stick emerge only when the data was confined to the results of a single bristlecone pine tree?

For fuck's sake, are you stupid or just incompetent? Seriously, the first hits on google take you to several well-written blog entries over on Real Climate that give a thorough debunking to this nonsense.

And why was the fact that contemporary tree-ring data showed a DECLINE in temperature in contrast to very accurate modern thermometers conveniently hidden? Was it because if they don't work accurately now there is no reason to suppose they were accurate thousands of years ago, thus putting the lie to the paleoclimate temperatures?

There's ignorance, and then there's willful ignorance. You are being willfully ignorant. If you were honestly interested in learning the answers to these questions, you would have at least done a little bit of online research. Clearly, you are either incapable of doing that much or you deliberately don't want to.


When you read about these shenanigans it reads like a political backroom dealing attempt to hide shoddy research. I implore you to read "Hiding the Decline; a history of the climategate affair" by A.W. Montford. isbn:978-1475293364, too avail yourselves of the degree of fraud perpetrated by these folks.

Definitely one of the willfully ignorant if you're hauling out that worthless piece of trash. Do you really think the global warming is NEW? You think this was something scientist just cooked up in the past couple of decades? And you wonder why anyone with even a modicum of knowledge on the subject thinks deniers like yourself are just a bunch of fucking conspiracy nutters.

You want to be taken seriously? STUDY THE FUCKING SUBJECT. AGW was first hypothesized back in the 1820's by Joseph Fourier. It was first formalized (complete with a basic model predicting climate sensitivity to CO2) by Svante Arrhenius in the 1890's. The theory of AGW is OLD. As our technology and science has improved, so has our concepts of the dangers of AGW and the resulting climate changes it brings. It isn't some socialist tool to make climate scientists rich and powerful (they're not).

Read the exposed emails sent back and forth which prove all this.

Nothing like a bunch of out-of-context selectively chosen emails to gin up a bullshit controversy. I guess you'll just ignore the several investigations that took place and found nothing because...well... it doesn't fit your narrative.

Real the lamentations of the computer programmer assigned to try to make sense of all this as he says the data is a mess. One would think the members of slashdot could relate.

This means exactly dick. I've worked on climate models and will openly tell you the data is a mess. You've got data coming from different sensors, all with different calibrations. You've got data coming from satellites which have their own custom binary formats (and worse, the data itself can't be used until it has gone through multiple transforms). You've got data coming from multiple different studies, all with different scales, inferences, etc. All that data has to be normalized, transformed, screened for errors and biases, so on and so forth.

What, you think the data comes in a nice geo-temporal format all properly calibrated to kelvin at a nominal surface height? The raw data is veritable cluster fuck of formats, projections, biases, etc. that all have to be handled well before it touches a model.

Do you see why asking for the "raw" data is stupid? Unless you are familiar with the entire data pipeline, hardware used, etc. the raw data is pretty much fucking useless.

Why hasn't Al Gore been called to task for mixing up cause and effect on his giant graph showing correlation between CO2 and temperature? Turns out CO2 went up historically AFTER the temperature warmed. It's not a cause of warming temperatures, it's a result. But, as you may know, he won't debate anyone on the subject.

Well for starters, that's because you're claim is completely wrong. It's debunked on Real Climate. It's debunked on Skeptical Science. And there are plenty of other sites and even books on paleoclimatology that debunk that claim. But since your willfully ignorant, none of that really matters.

And for the billionth fucking time, Al Gore is not now nor ever been a climate scientists.

The climate may very well be warming. That happens when you are coming off an Ice Age

Well I guess that just happens by magic then, right? Nothing to do with basic chemistry or thermodynamics, right? The planet just warms up when it wants to.


And it may be caused by us (or maybe not), but the degree to which these scientists sought to cook the data is unprecedented and one has to wonder why they went to such trouble to do it.

And, once again, you're just making shit up. Svante Arrhenius back in the 1890's predicted a 2C rise. Right now, AR5 is showing the most likely rise to be 3C, a difference easily explainable by our much better understanding of the science as well as advances in technology. Yeah, the manipulation is clearly rampant.

They have made such a massive attempt to squelch opposing data that one wonders how they can look at themselves in the mirror and call themselves "scientists."

This is fraud on a massive scale, but who cares? The masses of people who aren't "scientists" won't be able to tell the difference anyway and we can just accuse them of being ignorant.

They're not "squelching" anything. A highschool AP physics student can work out a rough model of climate response to greenhouse gases in a couple pages of derivations. Determining the warming or how much is actually the easiest part of the problem to solve, and there is plenty of data available to back that up.

Then of course there's the absolute dumbassery of thinking a global cabal of climate scientists can somehow keep a massive worldwide conspiracy under wraps when even the most powerful politicians can't keep who they're banging a secret.

Tell you what. Post a nice paper for peer review showing how all the stupid scientists have gotten it wrong for the past 100+ years. You'd be an instant millionaire and win the Nobel Prize.

Comment Re:hal (Score 1) 680

Yeah, and those old pseudoe science pushers from the 1800's like Joseph Fourier and Svante Arrhenius made billions by pushing this scam forward with the prescient knowledge that 100-200 years later the massive consortium of global climate scientists would be rolling in dough, driving BMW's, living in hilltop mansions, and...wait...that's not actually happening is it?

The prediction of global warming was made well before relativity was twinkle in Einstein's eye. Arrhenius (a.k.a the father of modern chemistry) developed a simple global climate model predicting the sensitivity of the climate system to increased CO2 and greenhouse gases in general. His work was published in the 1890's.

All the bullshit about this being some modern global conspiracy is just that: bullshit. Moreover, the same bullshit pushers from such well known controversies as asbestos, acid rain, smoking, etc. are now paid to push climate denial bullshit.

Comment Re:Does anyone care what Trump thinks? (Score 1) 527

The last I'd heard, news fact-checking organizations were reporting that he told the truth 15% of the time. Why would I ever care what the opinion of someone like was?

And don't tell me "because he's going to be president". The people of the United States are still smarter than that.

True enough. Most people voting for Trump are uneducated white "rale 'muricans". Most people voting for Hillary are doing so because they they can't stomach the the idea of someone like Trump as president.

Comment Re:The Self Reward Syndrome (Score 1) 210

Carbs, protein, fat...bullshit.

Fad diets, special exercise programs, etc. only causes weight loss in one area: your wallet. How much weight you lose is governed by physics. If you consume fewer calories than you burn, the weight comes off. Period. It doesn't matter if you got the calories from eating a candy bar or from eating a salad.

Your body is not a perpetual motion machine. Calories are calories. Eat less, exercise more.

Comment Re:Impossible (Score 1) 209

So, at the speeds Verizon provides me, 569 gig in a few days is a physical impossibility.

Definitely agree with other posters - sue them for the max amount allowable in small claims court. Bet they settle without you ever actually talking to a lawyer.

Wow! That's like seven exploding Samsung Galaxy 7's worth of data!

Comment Re:Clickbait troll much? (Score 1) 629

I don't think there was much concern about Reagan having Alzheimers while he was president, and making decisions as president.

Also, can anybody look at Hillary Clinton's behavior in the past year and honestly say she doesn't appear unhealthy? I just don't know of any other people in the media spotlight or candidates for office I've seen who go on 2 minute coughing fits multiple times, or who need a stool while they're on stage.

By that measure, I guess FDR should never have been president then?

Comment Re:Global ride-hailing company? (Score 0) 31

Please call them what they are : a taxi company.
No need to repeat their marketing drivel.

They're not even a taxi company. They're a contracting service. They match independent contractors (drivers) with riders. The contract drivers agree to is so bad you'd have be blind and/or stupid to accept it. The drivers would actually be better off just working for a real taxi company. At least then they're aren't wrecking their own cars while making pennies on the dollar after expenses and taxes.

Comment Re:Open Pandering (Score 1) 76

Hillary isn't "progressive left". She is, at best, a little left of center. The media also isn't saying she "deserves" to be president. If they are, they certainly have a funny way of showing it. Typically you don't devote air time to trying to tear down the candidate you think "deserves" to be president.

The media also isn't labeling the right as angry/bigoted/racist/etc. They've earned those titles through their actions and what they've said. Now granted, those most vocal on the right may only represent a small segment of the right but that's what's getting the air time.

The RINOs need to become real republicans again and change their message. Brushing up on their science classes would also help.

Slashdot Top Deals

I'm always looking for a new idea that will be more productive than its cost. -- David Rockefeller