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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Dictionary Definition of Autopilot (Score 1) 277

You do realize that by drawing that hasty (and false) equivalency you're arguing that the problem with iPhone 4 not working properly if "held wrong" or without a "bumper" or a piece of tape over the antenna - was a "human beings" and "human nature" problem?
Not the fact that it was a bad design, not present in past or future versions of the phone.

I.e. That people really WERE holding it wrong.

Cause in every case of Tesla crashes so far - that was exactly the case. They WERE using it wrong.
While ignoring repeated warnings.

Comment Re:Activism (Score 1) 323

Most wood is, however, not in a museum.

Indeed, most of it actually lives to be alive for hundreds of years. Even thousands.

A decade is not a very long period of time in the context of the climate system.

You are being deliberately obtuse.

If a decade (and I didn't say a decade) is not a very long time in the context of the climate system, then how come there are measurable and visible changes in the climate during last decades?
How come there are visible and measurable changes in the ozone layer - for the better?
Besides - I was talking of wood being explicitly left to the elements and the ecosystem to reclaim it. I.e. Left to "rot".

On the other hand, while "decades and decades" which may take a piece of wood to rot naturally and decompose back to carbon (which basically never happens as it gets used up by the ecosystem centuries before that can happen) - a bullshit time period or physical state like "permanently" doesn't even exist.
If it did - we wouldn't be able to use fossil fuels in the first place. Carbon would have been "permanently sequestered".

Also, you should really go to a museum.
Primarily to look up how long have we actually had museums AND ways to preserve stuff in them.
Then look up all the wooden artifacts found. All they needed to stay preserved for millennia was a thin layer of dirt or water to keep all those aerobic bacteria out.
Hell, we got processed wood from over 4000 years ago.

Sequestering carbon is a piece of cake. Literally. We make cakes out of sequestered carbon.
If we wanted to, we could sequester it all into the ground. We don't want to. Nor do we need to.
We're keeping it sequestered in mobile form. As humans and food for humans. And you need to grab a lot of carbon from the air to feed 7.4 billion humans (and growing) and all our pets and food.
And when we're done with using our carbon we put it under ground. Or we reclaim it and use it to trap more carbon.
Or we put it in a large pile and cover it with more stuff until no air can get to it. Just like we always did.

Comment Re:The Earth is used up (Score 2) 323

The earth cannot "bounce back" from such a rapid change, it will take millions and millions of years for geological processes to bring carbon back into the Earth's crust.

Who said it needs to go into the crust? You know what really likes carbon on this planet? Everything.

Also, while tree-sequestered carbon can stay in that form for millennia after the tree is cut - carbon sequestered into plastic takes millions of years to become CO2 again.
And we could just suck it out of the air and pour it into a hole in the ground.
It's just that the trees are far more efficient and a LOT cheaper to produce.

Also, forget rainforests. It's plankton that's making most of the air.

Comment Re:Activism (Score 1) 323

And even that CO2 is only permanently sequestered if the tree is neither burned nor allowed to rot - otherwise it just turns back into CO2.

Ever been to a museum? Ever saw an old piece of wood in there?

CO2 sequestered by trees takes CENTURIES to return to CO2 again - unless you burn it.
Even left to rot it will take decades. Ever seen an old tree stump, sticking out of the ground, all covered in moss and mushrooms?
Decades and decades.

Comment Oh, so you're a mysoginist. Makes sense... (Score 1) 637

I don't even know what the fuck the problem was. If you don't want to go see the Ghostbusters reboot, don't go see it.

Men ARE from Mars.

And if you say you don't want to watch a Ghostbusters rema...rebo... restar... cynical cash grab then you are a sexist mysoginist buthurt baby child(?) salty regressive trans-hater.

You must also be one of those men (i.e. THE men) who sabotage female shows on imdb.
We know that cause you are pretending to ignore that "'The Angry Video Game Nerd,' a misogynistic web show whose sycophantic Wikipedia entry made me pine for hemlock in my coffee" even exists.
When it was after all, right there in the article featured right here.

BTW, all that was even before the movie which was promoted like this came out to fantastic reviews which keep talking about women and naysayers and ruined bro childhoods of little boys - and to a disaster at the box office.
Then again, The Nice Guys also had FANTASTIC reviews and yet it flopped... but the tone of the reviews is markedly different.

Now, take all that happening before the Twitter controversy and consider if there is perhaps a chance that the entire thing was blown out of proportion on purpose?
By a company known for faking reviews for marketing purposes.

Comment Re:raging asshole, maybe, but he is right you know (Score 1) 637

The middle ground is to moderate them both down.

Do you see thousand of people on slashdot re-slashdotting slashes of people they dot on to the people that dot on them?
Slashdot doesn't even notify you about your "friends, fans, foes and freaks" posting something - AND THAT'S A GOOD THING.
It is a very different thing to moderate slashdot compared to twitter.
And that's just regarding the whole nature of the social network.
Let's not forget that slashdot predates twitter by decades, has a smaller and more tech/science oriented following, which is growing older faster than twitter's - and that people here CAN express in sentences longer than a bee's neck.

And then there's the whole thing of treating both sides of a trolling the same...
Which would be kinda like a government organizing an execution of their own random citizens - every time the terrorists attack.
"Ha-HA! That'll show em! Take that ISIS! You can't kill nowhere as near as many of us as we can! Who's got a small dick now?!"

Comment Re:B-b-b-but GUNZ is SKEEERY!! (Score 1) 331

"So if guns kill people, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk and spoons make people fat" - I have no idea who wrote that but I think they have a point.

Someone without understanding of false equivalence?

And a special "Well hello there - AGAIN!" to my down-moderator for voicing his/her disagreement with reality by down modding my original post above as "Offtopic".
We can keep on going like this until you run out of mod points or I run out of copy/paste. Plenty more where that came from.

Comment Time for Copy/Paste vs. ModTrolls again... (Score 1) 177

Even if all the scandals she's been involved in were "made up bullshit", that would just mean that the public does not fancy her, which should be enough for her to lose the nomination.

You misspelled rightwing birther loons. And other assorted paranoid schizos who've been jerking off to Clintons since... forever.
Well, since the last millennium at least.

Would you look a that?
Some "people" simply can't stand the fact that "some people" are conspiracy theory rightwing birther loons who have been inventing conspiracy theories about Clintons since the early '90s at least.
And those same "people" like to present their own loony conspiracy theories as the views "of the people".

Hmm... where did I hear that kind of rhetoric recently... Calling personal political goals "the will of the people"? Oh that's right!
It's the guys running for office in order to shut down the government against the will of the ACTUAL people.
Imagine people like that also labeling as "trolls" anyone disagreeing with them. Naaaah... They wouldn't do THAT?

Comment Pity you're a coward... (Score 1) 177

You just went so hilariously overboard with ad hominems and lack of knowledge of history - you would be elected the local rightwing loon faster than you could come up with another crazy conspiracy.
If only you had the balls to sign your name...

Ah well... It is the roads not taken that made you the man you are today... or the man you're not, to be precise.
All those times you lacked the courage to voice your opinion, hiding in the crowds, helplessness and despair silently eating you from inside...
To the point you don't even have the balls to be an internet tough guy any more. And prepubescent boys whose balls haven't dropped yet can do THAT.
What a truly pathetic creature you are.

Comment Typewriters for security? Sure, sure... (Score 1) 173

It's just a Russian version of security theater.

They should know.

During much of the Cold War typewriters were state of the art, so they were the focus of spooks and spies just as mobile phone networks, emails and social networks are today.
Techniques were developed to use cheap microphones to listen to key taps and decipher what was being written, spy cameras could peer over typist's shoulders and undercover agents could photograph and leak documents.
Debonair KGB agents were even tasked with seducing typists and winkling information from them.
Missile-equipped Aston Martins aside, some of what you see in James Bond films actually went on.

In 1984 the NSA became paranoid about the extent of this sort of Russian infiltration and began what it called Project Gunman, under which it replaced every piece of communications equipment at embassies in Moscow and Leningrad.
It shipped the old devices back to the US for analysis, and when they were X-rayed it was discovered that 16 IBM Selectric typewriters had been bugged.
For eight years they had sent the contents of every single document to the Kremlin, via a man crouching outside with a radio receiver.

Comment Re:Aaaw... come on. At least have the balls... (Score 1) 704

OK, may be you really don't understand.

OP suggests that the right course of action if you don't want neither Trump nor Hillary as president is to vote third party candidate, in order to rob both said candidates of electoral votes.
Thus making sure that neither candidate has enough votes to secure the win.
Which, according to the OP is the right thing to do if you don't want Trump nor Hillary - cause then the House of Representatives must make the call.
House of representatives which is loaded with a Republican majority.

So that alone makes danbert8 a liar - cause saying that only way to avoid Trump AND Hillary is to give the decision to people who will elect Trump IS A LIE.

Except, in this case there's also all that deliberate stalling to even hold a hearing for the Supreme Court judge nominated back in MARCH.
Who is stalling? Republicans.
Why is that important?
Cause right now Supreme Court is deadlocked between "republican" and "democrat" judges. There is no tie-breaker.

Meaning that should there be a contentious election like the Bush-Gore one was (which is what danbert8 is hoping for) Supreme Court will not be able to make that decision.

I.e. Not only is danbert8 lying - he is pretending that aside from his little "modest proposal" everything is "as usual".
When actually Republicans have been stalling the nomination cause they are hoping for an election which would be made in the House - by Republicans.
While hypocritically claiming it's all about "the American people should have a say in the court's direction."

Which is why danbert8 is not a mere liar, but a sniveling coward with no balls.
None. Null testicle. Nothing dangling down below.

Comment A paranoid never sleeps I guess... (Score 0) 177

Even if all the scandals she's been involved in were "made up bullshit", that would just mean that the public does not fancy her, which should be enough for her to lose the nomination.

You misspelled rightwing birther loons. And other assorted paranoid schizos who've been jerking off to Clintons since... forever.
Well, since the last millennium at least.

Slashdot Top Deals

A computer scientist is someone who fixes things that aren't broken.

Working...