Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Look at the data (Score 1, Flamebait) 468

Your first link point to very local data - northern Europe - but your paragraph about it is titled, in bold Global temperature increase data *FACEPALM*
Here is some real data you might want to consider and inspect closely.

Secondly, you point to the fact that, quote, In fact we see the opposite, we see that the CO2 rise *follows* the temperature rise, not precedes it.. Well that is simply not true concerning the contemporary climate events, the temperature rise is extremely well correlated to the human output of co2 in the atmosphere. Now, correlation being not causation, it is possible that another cause - which one, you never say - would make the temperatures rise. However it is extremely unlikely that another natural cause would magically correlate with human activity of the last 200 years.

But maybe you meant the co2 rise of the past climate events ? That must be that, because it's a common meme through the deniers' sphere. It's funny that you fail to reproduce the basic non-scientific mantras of the deniers and you want us to believe that your post is of any significant value. *FACEPALM*

Concerning the delay between temperature rise and concentration of co2 rise in the past warming events, it correctly is of about 800 years on a total warming phase of around 5000 years. However, considering that this means that the present climate event has nothing to do with human output of co2 is a lack of the most basic knowledge of climate science.

Here is how it worked - short version : the earth changes orbit periodically - milankovitch cycles - and the amount of energy received by the earth increases a little bit. This drives global temperature up, 1 or 2 degrees, not more. This, in turn, induces changes in the biosphere : more vegetation in short. Slowly, that vegetation dies and releases co2. The co2, in turn, drives temperature up with the greenhouse gas effect. But much higher than the effects of the initial perturbation, 8 to 12 degrees more ! This is called a feedback. But that doesn't mean that co2 cannot be the initial perturbation if we release enormous quantity of it as is the case in the present climate event.

In fact, the delay in the paleolithic events and the no delay in the present event is another proof by simple logic that the humans are the cause of the imbalance.

Also, this shows how worse the situation can become as past climate changes lasted hundreds or thousands of years when this one would be much shorter. Guess in which case the biosphere adapts better ?

I could go on answering your nonsensical post but i stopped reading after that second paragraph that shows you lack even the most basic knowledge on the subject.

I suggest that you educate yourself, for example with "Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis" Farmer, G. Thomas, Cook, John published by Springer. Then maybe you can tell the world to look at the data.

Comment Not "Less Severe" but "Slower" (Score 2) 468

This study doesn't say anything about the "severity" of the phenomenon but is a statistical modelling of the sensitivity of the surface temperature to the concentration of co2. In other words, the rate of the warming. However, it is written : "When the researchers at CICERO and the Norwegian Computing Center applied their model and statistics to analyse temperature readings from the air and ocean for the period ending in 2000, they found that climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration will most likely be 3.7C, which is somewhat higher than the IPCC prognosis. But the researchers were surprised when they entered temperatures and other data from the decade 2000-2010 into the model; climate sensitivity was greatly reduced to a “mere” 1.9C." That doesn't look to be a very solid model ...

Comment Definitely not libertarian or even democrat! (Score 1) 572

I have just one last comment, in response to a few Slashdot comments. Some of those comments were written by people who sound like complete creeps to me, [...] Such people should not be making policy for the seventh most popular website in the world.

So now, in your opinion, anyone who defends freedom of expression or freedom of thinking is automatically classified as having the lowest moral standards among those who can use that freedom ?

Never heard of the quote "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." by Voltaire ?

Besides, you make a succession of small and subtle deviations in your reasoning :

first, we start with the subject of fictional representations of sexual characters that might be minors;

second, we are on the subject of those who are sexually stimulated by such depictions. It's not the same ! Watching such cartoons *does not* automatically translate in being sexually stimulated for a massively large part of the population. It even is disgusting for many people. [For me, I am more disgusted when i see a baby about to die of malnutrition in Africa or children being shot by an helicopter in Irak or Gaza, than by a stupid cartoon.]

third, we are now talking about those who make a comment acknowedging that people get stimulated by that kind of fiction, or simply moderate the comment. It doesn't necessarily mean they are "creeps" but you put them in the same league;

fourth, you make a whole paragraph about those who advocate a pedosociety : "Such people should not be making policy for the seventh most popular website in the world."

What it leads to think is that watching cartoons about sex equals being sexually stimulated by it equals morally approving it equals advocating for legal sex with minors in the society.

I don't think that kind of reasoning is fair or valid.

Comment You are not a libertarian! (Score 1) 572

In reply to this :

Call this censorship if you like, but I don't really think you have a constitutional right to publish and consume realistic drawings of child rape and molestation.

Apart from repeatedly saying it's wrong, you didn't give any reason behind this opinion.

So i'd like to know what are the criteria that you would use to decide what *fictional* material should be allowed or not ?

Surely it can't be that the situation depicted is illegal or most fictions would be banned.

Surely it can't be that the situation depicted is illegal and shocking as the sensibilty varies from one person to another. I can't stand the movie "Natural born killers" but that doesn't mean i want it banned. If you don't like one type of fiction, just don't look at it. You would have a point if sensitive fiction would be pushed on national TV. I personally think there is too much violence on tv but i don't care if someone rents a very violent movie on dvd.

Is it that the situation depicted must be illegal, shocking and involve children ? Then we surely must ban "Anne Frank's journal", "Schindler's list", "Pan's labyrinth" (murder of a child at the end), "law abiding citizen" (murder of a child at the beginning)
On what grounds would you assume that it's right to show violence, murder, rape or torture on an adult in a fiction but not on a child ? If you ban fictional situations involving children on the basis that it's "wrong" in reality then it looks like the same horrible situations are "right" in reality if they concern an adult. Of course that is not the case ! A rape is criminal and horrible in reality whether on a child or an adult. And in fiction, it's still horrible but like many other fictional depictions, it's FICTION, if you don't like it, just ignore it ! [NB: Anne Frank is not fiction]

Is it that the situation depicted must be illegal, shocking, involve children and depict sexuality or nudity ? Then, i am sorry but you have strange moral values. I see no reason why you would be offended by the cartoon of an underage having sex and not be offended by the murder of a child in a movie.

Is it that the situation depicted must be illegal, involve children and depict sexuality or nudity and look apologetic ? When you see a murder in a movie, you instantly know it's wrong, whether the movie is apologetic or not. That should be the same with depiction of illegal sexual activities involving minors. There is no reason to ban it, you should be able to use your moral judgment whatever fiction you see.

The bottomline is, if it's fiction and there is no victim, it's not a matter of legality but morality. And morality is in the eye of the beholder. It's not the role of a governement to decide what is moral or not. If you don't agree with that, then you surely are not a libertarian.

Comment Re:Doesn't work, unfortunately, on XP. (Score 1) 896

Your comment validates my point. It does work. It makes software difficult to install. Virus work best when they are easily installed.

If your strategy against malware is to make the system unusable then i don't think you are doing a great IT support work.

If microsoft introduced UAC in windows vista, it's for that precise reason, some software need administrative rights otherwise they stop working.

And having limited rights doesn't stop malware, it just limits the damage to one account but it can still do whatever it usually does : using your computer in a botnet, slowing your internet connection, bombard dubious ads, steal information, send spam and of course infecting other computers.

Comment Doesn't work, unfortunately, on XP. (Score 1) 896

Unfortunately, running as non ADMIN on windows XP creates problems. One example is when a software updates, it can stop to work. I've had the case with firefox. Firefox will update silently and on the next reboot, the software won't start, producing an error.

Also, it doesn't prevent malware from installing but only limits the how deep malware can infect the windows OS.

Comment Re:Priceless (Score 1) 678

I am just Cc Cv :

BioShock was released on 21 August 2007, sporting a new version of SecuROM protection incorporating an online activation method. It wasn't until almost two weeks later that a working crack for the game was released, and in fact the crack came from an unknown third party, because the established cracking groups had been unsuccessful in getting around this version of SecuROM. 2K Games' Martin Slater said in this interview:

        We achieved our goals. We were uncracked for 13 whole days. We were happy with it. But we just got slammed. Everybody hated us for it. It was unbelievable... There is a lot of strain on our content-delivery servers and things like that, where everyone has to download a 10MB executable. I don't think we'll do exactly the same thing again, but we'll do something close. You can't afford to be cracked. As soon as you're gone, you're gone, and your sales drop astronomically if you've got a day-one crack.

More recently, the online activation methods of Mass Effect and GTA IV have similarly prevented fully working pirated versions of these games from being available until at least several days after their official release, and definitely not before release. What most users don't consider is that 'day-one' or 'day-zero' piracy as it's called is disproportionately more damaging to a game's sales than at any other time, as this article explains:

        Day zero piracy is where a game is released for free by pirates before the official release. It's disastrous for the developer and publisher because whatever route gets the game out to the gamer first will be the favoured choice, so a game uploaded to the internet before the release date will have a huge impact on sales.

It's around the release period when marketing hype has reached fever pitch, and gamers are most excited about getting a game. If a working pirated version is available at the same time, the potential for lost sales is enormous. Pete Hines of Bethesda Softworks recently confirmed the same thing when discussing concerns about Fallout 3's release, saying in response to a question about day-one piracy: "Yeah, it's a huge problem. Huge."

Even the makers of StarForce DRM have said exactly the same thing regarding the use of their protection technology. On the StarForce forums they said this:

        The purpose of copy protection is not making the game uncrackable - it is impossible. The main purpose is to delay the release of the cracked version. Maximum sales rate usually takes place in the first month(s) after the game release. If the game is not cracked in that period of time, then the copy protection works well.

Comment 99,7% ? (Score 1) 678

To be honest, I don't think you get it. How many regular, normal users are going to google/torrent the hack?

To be honest, I don't think you get it. Do you think a company would bother developing DRM schemes if 99,7% of the buyers didn't care and bought whatever they can ? :
The report concludes that " the end of 2007, there were more than one billion PCs installed around the world; nearly half have pirated software on them." ... For 2009, the most pirated PC game as reported in this article was Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. The PC version had a staggering 4.1 million downloads via torrents alone compared with an estimated 200,000 - 300,000 actual sales via retail and Steam :
As yet another example of removing DRM not leading to any reduction in piracy, the game Demigod has been pirated so heavily in its initial release period that it has caused the game's servers to effectively go down. Out of the 120,000 connections made to the game's servers, over 100,000 were by confirmed pirates, leaving only around 18,000 legitimate purchasers.

Very interesting article.

Comment Re:You're not exposed to multiple channels (Score 1) 791

What if you don't use a wi-fi AP and only use your cell phone once or twice a day for less than a minute ?

You are - correctly - showing that the effects of cell tower antennas are several orders of magnitude lower than those of an individual phone or wi-fi AP but why do you ignore the length of exposure factor ?

If you have a broken bone, you will probably pass a x ray radio scan with no protection but you will notice that the medical operator is protected behind a wall. Different exposure.

Comment How many emails in your (gmail) spam folder ? 396 (Score 1) 198

Please put the answer in the title of your response. Note that gmail deletes spam that is older than one month so if you answer for another spam system, count for the last 31 days or specify the length of time.

I have 396, much lower than the peak that has been around 900 for years then abruptly got to around 400 each month and remarkably stable.

Comment Re:Accounting for help desk calls?! (Score 1) 198

Are you sure ? I know a lot of inexperienced people who are overwhelmed by the number of messages in their mailbox. One 70 year old just told me she gave up on her mailbox because there were 750 messages in it. Another one, 50 years old, is drowning in advertisement messages - not even spam, she gave her email on legitimate shopping sites.

A third one, 50 years old, lost an email confirming her plane travel and ended up rebooking it ! When she called me, i found the email in 1 second by using the search function.

For an experienced user, it might seem easy to use some basic techniques like filtering, searching, sorting but most people just pile up the messages and only use "reply" and "forward" without editing.

I offer a one hour basic course for email management with an optional one hour for setting up filters and other tools but email is rarely considered a serious issue rather a tool to send jokes, porn or "how are you" messages, unfortunately.

Slashdot Top Deals

A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard.