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


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

Comment Re:Is this so hard (Score 1) 110

Obligatory Critique*:

Their plan proposes a

(X) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting [telephone] spam. Their idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to their particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of telephones will not put up with it
(X) Telcos will not put up with doing this work for free
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(X) Many telephone users cannot afford to lose business or miss critical calls
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid phone numbers in their lists
(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
(X) If a spoofer gets their number banned, you would be unable to call for help
(X) Authorities could abuse it to suppress viewpoints they dislike
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest telephone numbers
(X) Organization's phone trees and other legitimate telephone uses would be affected

Specifically, their plan fails to account for

(X) Monetary incentives for telcos to conduct as many calls as possible, billing both parties
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for callerID
(X) It would break telephone connectivity even for correctly dialed numbers
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all telephone numbers
(X) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(X) Huge portions of existing telco equipment base cannot be retrofitted
(X) UnWillingness of users to activate optional teleco services
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(X) Technically illiterate politicians
(X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
(X) Huge categories of political, charitable, etc. calls that many users want prohibited
(X) Huge categories of political, charitable, etc. calls that many users don't want prohibited
(X) Huge categories of political, charitable, etc. calls that politicians don't want prohibited

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(X) Ideas similar to theirs are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
(X) Any scheme based on opt-in is unacceptable
(X) phone connectivity should not be the subject of legislation
(X) Blacklists suck
(X) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(X) Sending telephone calls should be allowed for the good guys (opinions vary)
(X) Why should we have to trust you and their servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
(X) Temporary/one-time telephone numbers are cheap
(X) I don't want the government approving/disapproving my telephone calls
(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn their
house down!

*I shamelessly borrowed this form from the first place I found a copy. If you know the original author, please reply to credit him.

Comment Median Income (Score 1) 282

By 2020, 80% of adults on earth will have an internet-connected smartphone.

In the U.S.*, operating a smartphone for a year (to say nothing of purchasing one to begin with) costs well north of $50x12=$600.

The median per capita income worldwide is something like* $2,920.

Even if the 50% of world adults above the median all bought smartphone service, he'd need to get another 30% of adults from below the median to reach his 80%. Those people would be spending something like* 20% of their yearly income on this. No way.

*To be sure, this post uses several approximations (U.S. data plan costs, Gallup's income methodology, etc.), but 80% is a still a fantasy.

Comment Re:Mycology (Score 4, Informative) 270

Correction factors are used for systematic errors.

Correct. And if you read the link, that's exactly what the NOAA corrections were: they corrected for known systematic errors, such as the change from fluid-in-glass thermometers to electronically-measured thermistors.

The measurement errors are random errors.

Random errors can be reduced by taking many measurements (which NOAA also does). The random error decreases as the square root of the number of measurements.

Comment Assertion without evidence (Score 2) 270

First time I heard that adjusting data to fit sought for conclusions is science.

You just asserted, without evidence, that the data was adjusted "to fit sought-for conclusions."

Again, it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument by the deniers. If the data isn't adjusted to correct for known instrument drift, the deniers shout "the data needs to be corrected," and if it is, the deniers shout "the data was adjusted." All data is analyzed. If you don't understand that, about all I can say is that you've never done real experimental science. If you don't correct for errors, the data is wrong. The question is: was the data analysis right? not: was the data analyzed?

In fact it is only people who really 'suck at science', who would do anything of the sort. Questioning such practices is opposite of "arrogance"; It is a sign humbleness to look afresh at unvarnished evidence that universe throw at us to arrive at conclusions through scientific method.

Questioning is good. Asserting that the data was analyzed to fit a "preconceived conclusions" however, is not questioning-- you've already come to your conclusion without even looking at the data analysis. Is the data analysis wrong? You haven't shown any analysis supporting that conclusion.

Comment Mycology (Score 2, Interesting) 270

> I challenge you to find any scientific study that uses raw, unfiltered data.

Im a mycologist and when doing spore measurements we measure the length and width or many spores. Then average the length and average the width. Providing largest measurements, smallest measurements, and average. We don't "adjust" our actual measurements to make sure the spore size meets the expected size.

Possibly you should, since other mycologists do make corrections. Here are some corrections factors noted by Smith et al: "Sources of Variability in the Measurement of Fungal Spore Yields": http://aem.asm.org/content/54/...

"Quantification of the sources of experimental error in spore
production measurements provided a basis for recommendations
concerning the necessary degree of replication"

"to ensure that these precise counts are also
accurate, checks must be made for interference from nonspore
particles in the same size range as spores and for the
clumping of spores. The degree of clumping that we encountered
necessitated a correction factor that was much larger
than that expected from the coincidental passage of conidia
through the aperture, which should have been less than 2% if the
conidia were all separate. Also, our correction factor was
only approximate and probably varied with culture age, as
did the mean weight per spore. "

see also Chapels: "Spore size revisited: Analysis of spore populations using an automated particle sizer" http://www.zobodat.at/pdf/Sydo...

Comment It's a record hot month with or without adjusting (Score 2) 270

Was this before or after adjusting the data?

If you looked at the page you linked, you'd see that the heat-island effect you reference is 0.1F (0.056 C). The article says that this July was 0.55 degrees Celsius higher than the July average for 1981-2010, so that's ten times more than the entire heat-island correction between 1900 to 2000. And it was is one-fifth of a degree Celsius higher than previous July temperature records-- which still five times larger than the entire heat island change between 1900 and 2000.

Note that all data is always "adjusted" (in your term)-- this is how data analysis is done. It is how science is done. The question is whether the data is analyzed in a way that is transparent. The fact that you can point to the discussion of exactly how the data is analyzed is a strong point in favor of the data analysis. Here's a clue: you should be worried when the scientists don't explain how the data is analyzed.

This is, of course, a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument by the deniers-- if the temperature wasn't corrected for these errors, the deniers were shouting how the measured temperatures aren't reliable because they needed to be corrected for all these effects.

Comment Re:Venus rotation- locked to Earth (Score 2) 211

Venus is close to, but not exactly in, an orbital resonance with Earth, but no, I'm not talking about orbital resonance (nor was that what the original poster was talking about.)
Venus is -- very possibly by coincidence-- in a rotational lock with Earth.

If you're looking for a Wikipedia reference, try this one instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Comment Re:Does anybody really doubt it (Score 1) 706

Well, it wasn't a robbery since nothing was taken...

A. I would expect a robber to be motivated to take the wallet, especially the cash.
B. I would expect a political assassin to be motivated to fake a robbery by taking the cash and/or the wallet, so as to throw off suspicion.

Here, 'nothing' was taken. So, was it an unsuccessful robber or an unsuccessful assassin?

Comment Re:As far as they know, anyway (Score 1) 69

Publishing this statement now permits Tor to stop publishing this statement as soon as they are forced to backdoor their service. For instance, in the event of a gag order forbidding them from speaking about the new back door.

Every security service should make a public statement like this that they can withdraw when circumstances force them to.

Comment Re:If Trump Wins (Score 1) 330

Plurality voting needs to be replaced, but IRV has serious problems with 1. spoiler candidates and 2. central counting (i.e., no votes can be counted until all IRV ballots are collected for an entire state, at least).

Approval voting allows local precinct counting, and always elects the candidate that the least voters disapprove of. How easy is it to implement? Just change the ballot instruction to say, "Vote for as many as you like."

Approval voting satisfies the one ballot per voter criterion (aka, each voter gets an equal say). Approval voting is easy for voters to understand. And, voting for your ideal-candidate cannot detract from your vote for your acceptable-second-choice, even in those (nontrivial!) situations where IRV would betray you.

Comment Science (Score 1) 211

... but now we're in this era where "leftist" is unanimously used as an insult and ...

"leftist" should be a unanimous insult considering how...

If the left started supporting scientific progress once again, ,,,

Sigh. Science is not be "left" or "right." The science is the science. Facts shouldn't be adapted to your ideologies; your ideologies should deal with whatever the facts are, not work at denying them.

The facts don't 'support' a left or right ideology: they just are what they are.

Comment Correcting corrections (Score 1) 211

Wow you crammed a ton of incorrect information into a single post. Are you trolling or just too stupid to look things up?

The same question could be asked of you. You just "corrected" two fact that were not incorrect.

On Earth it appears that the oceans put enough water into the crust as to make plate tectonics possible (the water lubricates fault lines. If Venus ever had plate tectonics, it probably stopped when the water evaporated.

Water is not and never has been a requirement for a planet to have plate tectonics.

This is not known. Hydration is driven into rocks by subduction, and water content does decrease the viscosity of magma. So it is a plausible, although unproven, hypothesis that water is needed for plate tectonics.

And then there is the fact that Venus is tide-locked between the Sun and Earth (always has the save face toward Earth when the two planets are closest together)

Not only is Venus not tide-locked to earth, it doesn't even rotate in the same direction as earth.

Nevertheless, Venus does has the same face toward Earth when the two planets are closest together. This is not likely to be due to tidal effects, but the quoted statement that Venus always has the same face toward Earth when the two planets are closest together is correct. Unexpected, but correct.

Since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about I suggest you cease doing that until you learn considerably more than you are demonstrating.

and, likewise, you might do research before correcting facts that aren't actually incorrect.

Slashdot Top Deals

The brain is a wonderful organ; it starts working the moment you get up in the morning, and does not stop until you get to work.