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 Re:This isn't really that hard to understand (Score 1) 662

The problem with climate science is that it's so difficult.

No, it is actually VERY VERY SIMPLE.
1. To show that CO2 has an effect on heat, get two glass jars. One filled with CO2, and one filled with air. Shine an infared lamp (or even just sunlight) on both jars. You can measure that the CO2 jar absorbs more heat, because it's hotter than the air jar. This principle has been known and well-understood for over 100 years, and you can demonstrate this in an elementary-school classroom.

2. To show that human industrial activity releases a shitton (ie. enough to affect the whole world's climate) is also relatively simple. Get in a plane, and fly over the Los Angeles basin. Just look at the carpet of constantly running automobiles, as far as the eye can see across many hundreds and hundreds of square miles. Wrap your brain around this happening 24x7, week after week, month after month ... for decades. Get on Google Earth, and look at the land-area we're talking about; and multiply that by all the major cities of the world. This is completely non-mathematical, but very easy for most people to visualize, if they've ever had the opportunity to fly over any urban sprawl area and just watch it happen. Maybe with a little observation of a car exhaust, and how the engine works, and what kind of volume of gasses it puts out while it's running. Also think about jet engines, and the volume of gas they put out as they're running, and think about the tens of thousands of flights happening right now, and every single day: again, 24x7. Non stop. For decades.

These two simple observations are obvious and plain enough that it affected me on a gut-level. No math required. It's plain and obvious. Not at all subtle.

Now: to observe the actual effects on the world, is not so easy. One way is to look at photos, over decades, of glaciers that have receded. If you've been alive for 30+ years (or longer), you know damn well that even though we've had a couple of harsh winters, it's certainly not like it was when we were kids. If you ask older people, they can tell you that things have definitely changed. But this effect is subtle enough that even the very old people who remember Minnesota winters 70 years ago, don't seem to be able to grasp how very different the climate there is now.

Comment Attack the Economic Position (Score 1) 662

They have very convoluted and complicated arguments against Climate Change.

On the Economic side, you hear that the Carbon Tax, and funding for research into renewables (and smart grids, and mass energy storage, and electric cars, and etc); will have a net positive effect on the economy. Yet when you're talking with a denier - they're arguing that any tax is going to cause economic devastation and abridge everybody's quality of life and standard of living, and that shutting down all the fossil fuel jobs will leave millions unemployed. Nobody questions this claim (in the newsmedia), and rarely are the economic arguments compared or scrutinized. This is also an important point that needs to be made to climate change deniers. Where renewable investment has been made, where carbon taxes were enacted, positive, measurable benefits have been observed. Most mainstream economists actually agree with this, but those arguments are silenced in the mainstream newsmedia.

Comment Best defense (Score 3, Interesting) 183

Don't use the internet for anything business related until business gets serious about fixing the problem. These people just want their profits and, like they learned getting that MBA, the easiest way to do profits is to re-direct costs. In this case, put the costs of doing business online onto the customers. Seriously, who pays the real price when a business gets hacked and all the customer data goes walking out the door/server? The customers suffer from having their data abused, that is who suffers.

Do you trust your ISP with your bank account number, address, phone number, etc? How about your bank? Your employer? Your local utilities? How many of these types of businesses have you seen hacking reports on these past years? All of them, repeatedly, every year.

Do you remember in 1995 when the business and banking communities were warned that the internet was not designed with security in mind, but the complete opposite? Do you remember that they all just said the business opportunities were just too great to ignore and that security would naturally follow usage?

The internet is not for business; the internet is for porn!

Comment Unlikely (Score 2) 259

Such hubris from a corporation that can't even get its flagship OS to keep time properly: Windows 10 will have a time-related brainfart if not connected to the internet when it tries to update system time and change the system time to some arbitrary time in the immediate past, usually several hours at a minimum. Such crap.

Comment Nothing to see here. Move along. (Score -1, Troll) 424

Woman does malicious thing X.
Woman regrets malicious thing X.
Woman can't take it back.
Woman kills self.

Welps, that about sums it up. Seems like the right outcome.

And for anyone screaming "misogyny," I realize that it is now considered sexist to allow women to experience the consequences of their very own behavior, but I think it's about time we started doing just that. After all, men have to do it. Let's have some equality.

Comment Sugars and starches are seriously bad in my case. (Score 1) 527

Sample size of one, and it may just be my biology, but over the last twenty years I have done this three times:

- Gain 50-70 lbs. over time, see skyrocketing blood pressure, and bad cholesterol, high fatigue, fuzzy thinking
- Get tired of it and cut all sugar and starch (i.e. no breads, sweets, soft drinks) out of my diet
- Lose 50-70 lbs. in the space of about 3 months, see blood pressure and cholesterol return to perfect, lose fatigue and fuzzy thinking problems

The first time I rationalized that it was more likely due to inadvertently reduced calorie count (after all, natural carbs are supposed to be good for you, and the foundation of your diet, while fats are supposed to be bad for you, and protein in moderation—that was the federal wisdom at the time). So I added sweet foods and starches back to my diet but kept to a lower calorie count. Within five years, I had put on tons of weight again.

The second time I sort of thought "worked once, probably will work again," so I cut out all sweeteners, natural or artificial, as well as all grains and grain flours. Three months down the line, I was skinny and healthy. "This time," I thought, "I'll adopt a lower calorie count when I return to a 'normal' diet." Well, another six or so years down the road, back up by 75+ pounds, even with calorie restriction and a conscious replacement of "refined" sugars with "natural" alternatives like honey and sticking to "whole grain, high fiber" starches and flours. I just plain got fat, even on the "natural" and "high fiber" stuff.

Third time cutting out sugars and starches just happened, started in about June of this year. Cut out all sweeteners and all grains. But consciously increased my caloric intake of protein and fat considerably as a kind of experiment. No limits. We're talking a full pound 70/30 beef patty sandwiched between two fried eggs for dinner territory. What many people at Whole Foods would call "heart-clogging food." Well... Dropped 75+ pounds in ~3 months. No calorie control at all, and not even thinking about moderating fat, protein, or salt intake. Same result, and again, blood pressure returned to excellent as did cholesterol, despite likely significantly higher cholesterol and salt intake. Energy levels are much higher. Alertness significantly improved.

Though some people worry about sustained ketosis as the result of diet, I have experienced no problems. This time, I'm not going back to a "normal diet." I feel like I have enough first-hand data for my own biology. I'm just gonna keep eating as much red meat, eggs, and butter as I want, along with low-sugar vegetables (esp. leafy greens like spinach and chard, etc.)

But sweet anything and grains are seriously off-limits.

I am still having trouble convincing relatives that this is a good idea, everyone is terribly worried about me. The fat will clog my arteries, the whole grains are good for me and I'll get colon cancer without them, etc. But I feel about 1,000% better without sugars and grains in my diet, and I can buy regular clothes as well.

Comment Because they don't work. Period. (Score 2) 206

Totally would do this, but:

1) Apps refuse to start on rooted/jailbroken phones.
2) There are about umpteen dozen payment systems that do not support each other.
3) Invariably retailers only support at most one or two (which your particular phone does not have).
4) Only a tiny fraction of retailers even support that one or two.

So the result is that you spend all the time setting it up on your device, and then walk around for months never seeing a place where you can use it. When you finally, finally do see a terminal that claims to support the network that your app uses, and you try to start it, you get a pop-up saying, "For security reasons you can not make payments from a rooted and/or jailbroken phone."

In short, people are willing to use it but the corporate world is fucking it up (again).

Comment Apps solved the monetization problem. (Score 3, Insightful) 154

For years, companies wanted, but struggled, to generate revenue on the web. They couldn't. There was just too much friction for the average user in pulling out a credit card, typing in details, then remembering logins and logging in over and over again, not to mention tracking all of their subscriptions to various services.

Apps and in-app purchases are the "micropayments" that were talked about for so long. User provides billing information once, then is able to conveniently pay for content (whether the app or in-app purchases) with a tap or two. All payments and subscription information are centralized and run through a trusted (to the user) provider.

This is why companies have gone there. Because it's where they were finally able to generate sufficient user acquisitions to sustain an online purchase/subscription model, for the most part. Companies go where the money is, and it wasn't on the web.

Comment For even more fun, put a "Try Again" button (Score 2) 156

beneath the "access denied" and watch a few of them try for 10 minutes straight to load it by clicking again and again, then leave it open and tap it once or twice a day for two weeks before giving up.

I know a couple people like this. You ask, "But what if the link is malware?" and they respond with "But what if it's something great?"

On a similar note, I once sent a bad link by accident to a person who was in college at the time. I then sent a follow up email saying, "Sorry, bad link. Try this one."

They then called me an hour later to say that they kept trying the first link I'd sent, but couldn't get it to load, and asked if there was anything I could do to help. I said, "But I thought I mentioned—that was a broken link, it doesn't work. I sent the right one!" And they responded with a variation on the above—"I know, but you never know, maybe I'd like it! I'd at least like to see it!"

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

Working...