Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Already solved! (Score 1) 76

Isn't this what free apps like HiYa and TrueCaller do?

With apps like that, you're still getting the robocalls, you just don't see them. The carrier still has to carry them. They take up bandwidth on the trunks and frequency allocation on the cell towers. The ones that originate as VOIP sessions from some boiler room in Bangalore clog up valuable spectrum on transatlantic cables. The earlier in the process they can be blocked, the better.

Those are all still problems, you are right.

But, they are now the CARRIERS's problem, not mine.

It's their problem to fix anyway, so that's right where the pain should be to get the issues resolved.

Comment Re:Block on the phone. (Score 1) 76

That's stupid. I don't know the number someone might call me from during an emergency. I want all calls to come through, except for the ones made by jerks.

Both tools should be available.

Nobody depends on me. "Emergency" is not something anybody would call me for.

Others, with job, family, etc. may need to be available from a wide variety of places (i.e. some random school administrator)

Voicemail will be fine for any non-contact list communication for lots of people.

Really what needs to happen is a DNSSEC-like signature system between phone companies and the switches and the phone so that spoofed numbers are automatically blocked no matter what. Not that I do this, but there is far too much easy-to-break-into phone equipment out there still.

Comment Re:British "free speech" norms (Score 1) 74

I read that and immediately said "Bullshit!" and I was right. He was arrested for abusive behaviour and assault, not for quoting the Bible.

RTFA:

Did you RTFA?

At Kilmarnock Sheriff Court last month, Sheriff Alistair Watson ruled there was no case to answer and acquitted Mr Larmour of threatening or abusive behaviour, aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation. The sheriff also found him not guilty of a second charge of assault aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation.

He was arrested for threatening and abusive behaviour and assault. He may have been accused of those crimes because he was quoting the bible (the story does not even attempt to present the complainant's story), but he was actually arrested because he was accused of assault.

it is absolutely not OK for you to lie about it.

The sad thing is you seem to think that what the defendant claims happened is what actually happened, even when the facts are right there contradicting his story. So try reading and understanding the entire article next time, before you start spreading bullshit around. You duped yourself into believing a Fake News story here, and you have no one to blame but yourself for exposing the fact you are an easily manipulated fool.

Comment Re:No, "offensive" is defined as racism (Score 1) 252

Trump (really Bannon, Trump's just the mouth piece) managed to make racism OK again. I'll Let that one sink in...

Actually, it started long before those two hit the stage with any power.

See, there is an old story about a boy, and a possibly fictitious wolf...

The way to understand why this happened, is to go take your mirror off the wall, put it on the floor in a well lit room, take off your pants, and slowly sit on it while closely looking at the mirror. Nobody cares anymore about what you think is "racism" because you said it about everybody and everything. Which is probably the case with your opinion here too. But, even if you WERE right, still, nobody cares, because you already used up your ability to actually accurately call someone out.

You should try something else to bleat your horn about. (Hey, how about actual valid criticism on actual actions?!? nah, you can't find none of that)

Comment Re: Youtube lost me to forced ads. (Score 1) 252

Or use a HOSTS file ad blocker.

I have been smiling my way through this entire bitch fest of a thread wondering about all the wonderful ads I have missed and had know idea they existed.

There's a file set maintained by some hobbyist (not our famous slashdot spammer) that provides a HOSTS file for you to drop into your operating system. Another option is running your own DNS and getting one of the "block by domain" tools. I see a few ads on facebook that are fed directly from their servers, but all google tracking, all ads (including inline on youtube) and everything else is blocked and the requests for them never leave my computer.

Some day, they'll figure out how to stop what I am doing. Until then, no ads for me!

Also note, I get almost zero drive by browser attacks even on risky sites with this. It's much more secure browsing too.

Comment Re:Methane [Re: No complaints here] (Score 1) 372

I, as a "denier", obviously know more about AGW than you as a "true believer" do. That should actually concern you, but by tomorrow you will forget this happened and deny facts given to you to keep your flawed viewpoint while calling other people fact deniers.

This is a fairly common phenomenon where people with no expertise believe they know more than experts.

The other poster was correct, Methane may be be 25 times more potent per volume emitted (my sources say 84 times), but Anthropogenic emissions of Methane are estimated to be 300 Tg (300 million tonnes) which is about 0.3% of the emissions of Carbon Dioxide which is estimated to be 10.6 Gt (10,600 million tonnes). At your number, 25x, Methane only contributes 7.5% of the warming that CO2 contributes because there is over 300 times more CO2 emitted every year. That's why people talk about CO2 more than methane. CO2 is the dominant driver because there's so much more of it emitted every year.

You definitely know less, and should try showing some humility.

Comment Re: No complaints here (Score 1) 372

My working hypothesis is that the mechanized propaganda efforts are working. I believe the Russians are the leaders, but I'm not sure why they would care so much on this issue. Even if the risk of detection is low, the possible benefits seems too far away to justify the effort. Yeah, tropical Siberia would be great for them, but it might not work out that way (unless they are also leading in climate modeling). In contrast, the extractionists certainly have short-term concerns that could justify their propaganda investments, even if they aren't as good at it as the Russians are.

There would be a much shorter term reason for Russia to support climate change denial, they export a lot of natural gas to Europe. The less Europe depends on fossil fuels, the less influence and power Russia can exert on Europe.

Comment Re:No red lines [Re: No complaints here] (Score 1) 372

1.) Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow.
2.) It’s been 10 years since scientists predicted the “end of skiing” in Scotland.
3.) The Arctic would be “ice-free” by now
4.) Environmentalists predicted the end of spring snowfall

SOURCE ? link to scientific journal please ?

He can't do that, because the above points are copy-pasta of half-truths:

  • 1) In an Independent article the author says that snow is a thing of the past, and that he quotes some scientists who say that if global warming continues snow will become a rare occurrence. No dates attached to the scientist's predictions.
  • 2) In a Guardian UK article in 2004, unnamed "experts" predicted that the Scottish ski industry had about 20 years left before it died. For the math challenged, that prediction won't be testable for another 7 years. The article points to some short-term trends that showed fewer ski days and fewer ski tickets. The article that the claims were copied from claims since there was a lot of snow this year, the Scottish Ski industry is saved forever.
  • 3) This is one based off of something that Al Gore said, which was "Some of the models suggest to Dr Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire North polar ice cap, during summer, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice free within the next 5-7 years." There's a lot of qualifiers in there that get skipped when skeptics read that, they tend to ignore "Some of the models" and "75% chance" and claim that Al Gore said all the Artic would be ice free in 5 years. I'm pretty sure Dr. Maslowski further hedged his bet by prefacing it with "if the current trend continues", but what was actually said is less important than claiming it's wrong.
  • 4) This one is references a Union of Concerned Scientists press release, which notes that we have been getting less snow in spring over the last decade and then talks about the kinds of environmental impacts those changes have. The article the claims were copied from notes that there was a record breaking snowstorm this year as a refutation of the entire press release.

Slashdot Top Deals

Have you reconsidered a computer career?

Working...