Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



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

Comment Re:How to delete your phone number from facebook (Score 1) 100

I had a friend on MSN messenger who I knew in real life, we'd never connected on the internet in any other way whatsoever so the only way to link us was via MSN.

I was on LinkedIn but only with 10 or so contacts, all of whom were recruiters and had no common links between me and my friend on MSN.

One day when I logged into LinkedIn it suggested my friend from MSN as a contact, given that the only way to link us was via MSN it was clear that long before MS bought LinkedIn it was engaging in illegal data sales/transfers with LinkedIn and LinkedIn was willing to buy/accept illegal data too, and use it to try and grow it's business.

It seems that pretty much all big tech companies violate data protection laws. The law just seems to not get enforced against them.

Comment Re:How to delete your phone number from facebook (Score 2) 100

Facebook already does this, they're in flagrant violation of European data protection laws, but for some reason no one is touching them, it's frustrating.

For example, I installed the Facebook app on my phone and have never given Facebook my phone number. Next time I logged in on my PC it prompted me to add my phone number with a textbox and an add button, except the phone number was pre-populated with my phone number, they were effectively asking me to confirm it by asking me to add it, because they'd very clearly already taken it, illegaly, from my phone, to pre-populate their add textbox (I don't use any kind of auto-fill, it was Facebook's actual website populating it).

This is a complete farce, because they're taking and storing data they have no right to have and then asking you to click a button to make it legal - the fact they even ask you to add it with this pre-populated box means they're completely aware they're breaking the law because it is simply asking you to click the button so that they're compliant. This isn't accidental violation, this is wilful violation, so they should be getting fined the maximum amount by all Data Protection agencies across Europe already.

Apparently you can opt-out of this new WhatsApp data transfer when it comes along, but what's the bet if you opt-out the data still gets sent regardless?

Comment Re:Checklist marketing (Score 5, Informative) 152

What kind of menu do you want? There is a lot of information and settings that have to be presented to the use

There really isn't. Not on the camera itself anyway. 95% of the menu setting never get touched or get set once and never touched again so why do they need to be in a crappy interface at all?

Professional photographers change their settings regularly. So do advanced hobbyists. Nobody else needs a DSLR, so this is a complete non-problem. If you find DSLR settings confusing, you would almost certainly do just fine with a super zoom compact.

You are going to interface the camera with a computer at some point so why not offload the menus for the rarely/never used settings to a PC or tablet?

Because I need to be able to change the setting quickly, and also while holding the camera with both hands. I might be on a moving vehicle. I might be in a constricted space where I can't let the camera go and let it hang on its strap. I might need to change the setting faster than I can get my phone out of my pocket.

Comment Re:Features you don't need (Score 2) 152

If it is used incredibly rarely then offload it to a tablet or a PC or (heaven forbid) a phone.

No. NO NO NO. Photographers already have to deal with their gear being fiddly. They don't want to have to have their phone out so that they can get the full interface to their camera. That would be beyond idiotic.

It's very easy to fix this kind of problem, make people drill down further for the more advanced features. There's no need to take anything out.

Comment Re:CAGW in a nutshell (Score 2) 591

The 'skeptics' point to the observed reality and show that the dire predictions made in the past don't come close to observed behavior,

The problem with this idea is that they're cherry-picking predictions. There are dire predictions which do come close to observed behavior, and these are the ones we've been using most often. The way in which they don't match observed behavior is that observed behavior is actually worse. For example, polar ice is melting substantially faster than predicted by any credible model. If you don't think this change in albedo is going to have additional effects, you're not thinking.

Comment Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 591

In contrast, keeping a house warmer than the outside is much cheaper. Humans with no technology are 100W heaters. All other machines that we put in a house generate heat as a waste product. With modern insulation, it's very easy to reduce the outflow of heat. Heating a house for a day can easily consume less energy than cooling it for a week.

It's very easy to keep a house cooler than the outside cheaply. You sink ducts into the ground where they get cooled to 50 degrees, and you use slow, low-power fans to move that air into your house. Sadly, we don't do this, nor do we install adequate insulation into most homes. They are overwhelmingly still insulated with fiberglass, which is practically ancient technology today.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 5, Interesting) 591

Around 90% of them would actually mean it (you'd have thought that sociopaths would be a lower percentage of the population of parents than the general population, but apparently not).

Why would you think that? Having children is a sociopathic act when we're overpopulated. At our current level of behavior, Earth is over its carrying capacity. People having children aren't thinking of society, they're thinking of themselves.

Of those, a very small percentage would honestly be able to say that they also want a safer world for everyone else's children. If your children are going to inherit a survivable part of the world, then why should they care that if a billion or two other people that they've never met will suffer and / or die?

That, in turn, is only because they are stupid and ignorant. It should be obvious that we are all living on the same planet.

Herd mammals did not evolve to have an emotional response to that (and, for the most part, that's a good thing - you couldn't function if you had an empathic response to all of the suffering in a world of over 6 billion people). That's why appeals to emotion in things like this are a waste of time.

Herd animals are easy to panic. That's why appeals to emotion work. If you tried them with predators, you'd just get your face bitten off.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 591

Why the hell should anyone care about abstract "people"?

Because they are "people"

If they don't, I argue that they aren't actually people, and we'd be better off without them. AKA you.

Another argument is that sooner or later the men with guns are going to realize that the environment has to be protected. And then they will find that you muck up the numbers, and will have to be removed from the equation in order to make them come out correctly. Buh-bye!

Comment Re:Only time will tell (Score 1) 591

These have been increases in temperatures.

What have?

This implies global warming.

What does?

Since we are still at the infant stage of understanding and accurately predicting what will happen over mid to long spans of time it's best to stop arguing,

Actually, we're well past infant. We can make pretty good predictions. The only way in which they aren't very good is that things are actually getting worse faster than predicted.

try to pollute less since that just makes sense,

To a lot of people, it doesn't. Consequently...

and enjoy our lives.

I'm trying, but people who don't believe in polluting less are making it difficult. That's why we need to force them to behave better. And that's why we need to argue about it.

Life is too damn short to fight about issues primarily created and controlled by oil, gas, and energy corporations.

This issue was created by physics. Try to keep up.

Comment Re:So global warming started... (Score 1) 591

It is because we burned all that that we sit here with 2016 technology not dying of different diseases and injuries and infections and feeding many multiples of people per acre than they did.

No. That's only because we burned some of that. Most of what we burned, we burned for profit and greed, not human advancement as a species. Not even accidentally. Most of the unnecessary energy output goes directly to padding pockets.

Comment Re:Shows cumulative as well. (Score 2) 591

So many like to point to industrial revolution for causing this.

That's because humans now emit more CO2 than volcanism.

Yet, what this study is really saying is that for centuries, if not millenniums, man had been overwhelming nature and slowly breaking down its ability to absorb the co2.

Yes, that is also true. We were deforesting the planet in pursuit of war. Most of the really heavy deforestation came when the big countries went naval warfare. We were cutting them down, making them into boats, then putting them out into the ocean and sinking them and losing that wood forever.

Of course, today we're still doing the equivalent; just try getting a permit to cut down a tree in Japan and use it for something, but they are buying California's redwoods as fast as they can be shipped over there. Then they are coating them in tar and sinking them under the ocean for storage. What are the odds that some cataclysm will remove them from the equation? Pretty goddamn good in Japan. We're cutting down the redwoods for nothing, as a species. Just to move some numbers around.

If there were such a thing as karma, humanity would deserve to die.

Slashdot Top Deals

The only problem with being a man of leisure is that you can never stop and take a rest.

Working...