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


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Maybe people are oversaturated (Score 2) 89

Clicks let people actually see a quantifiable effect from their advertising (flawed as it might be). That is a lot harder with things like TV commercials and print ads.

IMO, those commercials and ads had become very over-valued because they couldn't really be measured. Especially when the people selling ad time/space talk up "brand recognition" and similar effects as the major value in buying their time/space.

Comment Re:the real reason theyre arguing it. (Score 1) 309

It's also about the jury during the post-battery-fire lawsuit.

Plaintiff: "I burned myself changing my oil right after I shut the engine off!!"
Jurors: "Dumbass. Everyone knows engines are hot"

Plaintiff: "I electrocuted myself repairing my fridge while it was plugged in!!"
Jurors: "Dumbass. Everyone knows you have to unplug electrical appliances before taking them apart."

Plaintiff: "My lithium battery caught fire after I put this wire in the wrong place!"
Jurors: "What? This thing in my pocket CAN CATCH FIRE?!?!"

As the technology moves from magic to mundane, these things will move from scary to mundane for the jury in the inevitable lawsuit over a botched repair.

Comment Re:Begs the question... (Score 1) 106

I know you weren't making a complete list, but an additional factor is we have linear DNA. The enzyme that copies our DNA sticks to the DNA being copied by grabbing on to a few base pairs before and after the copy site. Since we have linear DNA, the enzyme falls off before reaching the end. So each time our cells replicate, the DNA inside them gets a little shorter. And eventually, that "little shorter" is going to run into something important.

(To counteract this, a whole lot of junk base pairs are added to the ends of our DNA molecules shortly after an egg is fertilized. That provides the DNA that can be lost without harm during that person's lifetime. But it will eventually run out)

Comment Re:Failure of Big Science (Score 1) 457

These are a dime-a-dozen. The Internet is full of such lists assembled

The first link just lists predictions. It doesn't actually provide any data showing the predictions were wrong.

The second link is talking about popular news articles form the 1970s....that were not about warming. In fact, the "we're heading into an ice age" prediction in the 1970s was a fringe position not backed by the majority of climate scientists. So, the exact opposite of what you claim.

And I'm not going to bother going through the rest of the google results when the top two are not remotely close to your claims.

Dr. David Viner, a scientist with the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia, told the UK Independent in 2000 []. Fail [].
“End of skiing” in Scotland.

"Ski" does not appear in those articles.

With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.

It is now 2017, but snow is still plentiful in Scotland. Indeed, the 2014 was the snowiest since 1945

Hey look! You confused "weather" with "climate". That is an extremely common mistake made by those denying climate change. You should really learn the difference before attempting to discuss the issue.

Also, "no ski industry" does not mean "no snowfall". Having a skiing industry requires either making a lot of man-made snow or having a lot of natural snowfall in the right place, and consistently. You can not make a ski industry out of one year's snowfall, especially when that snowfall is not where your ski resort is. Unless you raise ticket prices to the point where man-made snow can do the job, but that apparently requires ticket prices too high to maintain the industry.

Amusingly, when your citations actually talk about the ski industry, they describe an industry in collapse because they do not consistently receive snow in the right places.....which would actually back climate change.

I made no claims requiring citations

Actually, you did. You made the claim that climate scientists are consistently wrong in their predictions.

And given the utterly abysmal quality of citations you have provided, you still need to provide those citations. And with your claim that they are always wrong, your inability to provide any citations is again rather odd.

That may be too onerous a requirement in the case of Climate Science — the experiments take many years, so any replication is difficult.

Replication in this case would be getting similar results using different measurement methods. For example, tree rings, ice cores, historical temperature data and sediment samples providing results that are consistent with each other.

Comment Re:Al Gore predicted... (Score 0) 401

What Gore actually said:

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Could happen in as little as 7 years is not will happen in 7 years. Also, 2007 + 7 is not 2013. But please, keep insisting the people warning about global warming are the ones being inaccurate.

Comment Re:Two Problems (Score 2) 401

1) Thermodynamics wins - to freeze the arctic they will actually generate more heat increasing overall heating of the planet.

Only if you think the Earth is a closed system. It is not.

The point to having more ice coverage is to reflect more light back into space. Thus taking the energy contained within that light away from Earth.

2) The arctic has thawed before. This is a cycle.

The fact that something has happened before does not make it a cycle. And the fact that it is happening again does not mean it is part of a natural cycle.

In the past, Earth was completely covered in ice. It was also completely ice free. Humans will find it difficult to survive in anywhere near our current population in either of those extremes.

Comment Re:Failure of Big Science (Score 1) 457

what you demand is that I prove a negative.

Nope. I am not asking you to prove anything. I'm asking for citations where the predictions were way off.

There are plenty of patently failed predictions by Climate Scientists

Yet you've provided zero. Odd.

All you need to prove me wrong is find a couple of successful ones

Nope. If you actually believe in science, I have to provide you with successful ones that survived peer review and replication in order to begin to "prove" climate change.

Instead, I'm asking for the evidence behind your assertion, that climate scientists have repeatedly been waaaay off in their predictions.

Comment Re:They deserve this... (Score 1) 457

Climate change was never going to produce never-ending drought. It will cause longer, more severe droughts and more flooding when it does rain. The people who "believed the lie" understand this. You don't.

That's why scientists changed from "global warming" to "climate change". Too many morons were unwilling to get beyond "duh! It was cold today".

Comment Re:I have an idea! (Score 1) 457

You want to pump water under high pressure into the ground.

We already know what happens when you do that in non-earthquake-prone geology thanks to fracking. Oklahoma now has frequent earthquakes.

You think it's a good idea to do the same thing in a place that is prone to earthquakes and has (estimated) tens of thousands of unknown fault lines.

Slashdot Top Deals

We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"