Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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

Comment Convenience for ALL (Score 1) 29

Closed source, open source, half-way open source - they all have holes the size of the Titanic, and are casing our privacy to sink to the bottom of the ocean.

Are you trying to say, governments haven't spied on and persecuted opponents before these modern-day conveniences appeared?

The problem is our dependence on these "conveniences" we can now not live without.

We can live without them, but the life will be, wait for it, less convenient.

They make living more comfortable. For everyone — including the spies.

Comment Re:Climate Non-Science (Score 1) 411

1 degree of global warming isn't enough for you?

No, it is not enough. Because there are legitimate questions as to how it is measured, how the measurements are calibrated (including the scandal of some raw data disappearing), and what swings are normal. For example, Tasmania used to be connected to Australian mainland not too long ago. It is now an island. Do you think, the shamans of the aborigines living there blamed the sins of their contemporaries for the rising seas back then? Same question about Kodiak archipelago — it used to be reachable from Alaska, but is not any more. The Kodiak bears are now considered different species from mainland grizzlies... Is humanity to blame for that?

And there is a big difference in falsifiability

You try to find a prediction by "climate scientists", that uses a falsifiable "will" instead of the evasive non-falsifiable "may"... The scarcity of such statements itself is an indication, of the state of this sorry non-science... What you can find is as scientific and meaningful as the Geico's commercials: "15 minutes could save you up to 15% or more..."

If you ever found a point where the teachers told you the equivalent of 2+2=5, you could point that out to the world

I don't need to find errors — the purported "scientists" need to demonstrate, their discipline is really a science. And the only way to do that is by showing useful predictions, that have come true. I'm yet to see any.

Try it yourself: assemble a list of link-pairs:

  1. The first link in each pair shall be to the prediction.
  2. The second link each pair shall be to confirmation of the prediction materializing within, say 20% of the predicted value(s), if quantifiable.
  3. The link-targets in each pair must be several years apart — predicting tomorow's weather, for example, would not count.
  4. The prediction must be somewhat meaningful: a promise, that it will get hotter or colder, is not acceptable.

Give it your best... Can you offer at least 3 such link-pairs?

Submission + - Making one-on-one meetings actually USEFUL

Esther Schindler writes: All too often, managers and team members reject a regular check-in because they think it's a waste of time. But when done well, one-and-one meetings are a great way to build trust and rapport. That weekly time slot is a predictable time for feedback and coaching. Even when a manager and team member get along well, a regular one-on-one is an opportunity to impart information privately, to raise emotional issues before they fester, to address career challenges, and to help managers make better decisions with team input.

But way too often, those manager-and-team-member meetings are a waste of time. Here's three ways they go wrong.

Comment Re:The losing side must automatically pay (Score 1) 221

Which means the winning side runs up legal fees until the loser goes right out of business.

My proposal explicitly included the vetting of the winner's expenses by the judge... He can trim them, if he suspects abuse or some such.

The point is, currently, the winner needs to file a separate lawsuit seeking legal expenses compensation. This is too costly and time consuming in itself — the award should be an automatic part of the conclusions.

Comment Re:The losing side must automatically pay (Score 1) 221

And then you're back to the problem of wealthy companies/individuals who can afford expensive legal teams, intimidating poorer, lesser funded individuals who can't afford good legal support

My way, the poor side can reclaim its expenses upon winning.

The current way, the poor side will be bankrupt even if it wins, which is exactly, what allows for the intimidation you denounce.

Comment Re:The losing side must automatically pay (Score 1) 221

No one would ever dare to sue any corporation

Why not? If you are so sure of your case and/or can find a deep-pocketed sponsor (such as described in TFA). But, if you aren't sure, you would not file your stupid suit — thus lowering the legal insurance fees for the corporations and lower prices for their products/services for the rest of us.

because if they lost they would be broke after paying the legal fees of the corporate lawyers

I did allow for the judge to review the expenses claimed by the winner — to prevent abuses.

Comment Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 567

It doesn't matter what way things are going. These naieve ninnies need to get over their flower children fixation and realize that we may need to fight for our survival. If they are right, then there are ugly choices ahead.

There are only so many lifeboats on the Titanic.

You only exist because someone made selfish choices on your behalf.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 567

Zealots come in all shapes and sizes. I personally never had ANY delusions about EITHER party being anti-war. I think NO ONE in this country gets seriously anti-war until there is a draft on. Then suddenly people start caring about war.

Just consider who today's biggest war mongers are.

Comment The losing side must automatically pay (Score 1) 221

The solution to frivolous lawsuits is the loser pays system. If you lose a suit, you have to pay the winner's legal expenses (vetted by the judge). Automatically...

And, yes, the rule ought to cover criminal proceedings too with wrongfully accused compensated by the prosecutor's office.

Comment Re:Climate Non-Science (Score 0) 411

Because the real predictions are only going to be proven after it's too late to do a damn thing about it

Will that ever happen? You say, it will. But you have no proof — you are asking me, and the rest of the civilization, to take it on faith.

Something tells me, you'd dismiss as a fool (or worse) anyone telling you to repent before it is too late and you died before absolution. And yet, you are telling me the same thing about climate: believe in it, before it is too late.

Maybe, I'd be willing to listen to the authorities, to which you appeal — if they were authorities. But they aren't scientists either — no meaningful falsifiable statement has been made by them, that has not been falsified in due time... Off, off with you — 21st century shamans...

Slashdot Top Deals

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. -- Albert Einstein

Working...