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


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:Abiogenesis.... (Score 1) 369

Isn't this support of the ID crowd? The experiment was intelligently designed, yielding a possibly self replicating string of information (I don't know if I can describe RNA as living) that was intelligently designed. To me this is proof that the building blocks life can be created by conscious beings. I don't know the creationists theory very well, but doesn't it boil down to life being created by a superior being? I think that is what has happened here.

Comment Re:Great work if you can get it! Follow the Money (Score 1) 458

I didn't imply a conspiracy. I pointed out a bias. If your professional live is spent measuring, testing, and hypothesising about hammers, then a lot of problems will look like nails. Lets look at your post

Like it's the climate scientists who design and implement CO2 abatement policies? No, that's economists and politicians.

I hope the economists and politicians are are working with scientists on this. The IPCC has a great amount of input from scientists.

Geoengineering is an ENGINEERING project. Scientists might tell engineers how much needs to happen, but they're not the ones who would design, build, or deploy the devices.

Now you are quibbling over diction. There are no geoengineers. Just like in the start of the computeing era there were no computer engineers. The first computers were created by. . .SCIENTISTS. Feyman needed to crunch numbers for artillery and later particle trajectories. Von Neumann was the same. The scientists are just about the only people that understand the problem. They will have to be in on designing and implementing the solution.

Besides, if you're insinuating that climate geoengineering is all a scientific conspiracy to get funding dollars, that's pretty lame. Even if you're a conspiracy nutjob, how is inventing a cheaper solution (geoengineering) than existing plans (emissions abatement) going to get them more money?

I am just suggesting that you look at the bias in those surveyed. Most people who legitimately disagree with anthropogenic global warming don't call themselves climate scientists. They call themselves geologists, astrophysicists, statisticians, economists, and other scientists. They were excluded from the survey of "climate scientists".

Comment Re:Solution: Public Key Auth (Score 1) 327

I think they might be getting them from the recent google gmail vulnerability. I was logging in to my gmail account one day, but typed my password into the google search box. The very first hit was my e-mail address and password listed in a big password listing. I checked out the site, and the list itself was behind a paywall, but they let the googlebot through. . .so you could get the entire dataset with some googlefu.

Slashdot Top Deals

Uncertain fortune is thoroughly mastered by the equity of the calculation. - Blaise Pascal