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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Damn subsidies (Score 4, Informative) 112


A 2016 study estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDP.[3] The study found that "China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion)."[3] The authors estimated that the elimination of "subsidies would have reduced global carbon emissions in 2013 by 21% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55%, while raising revenue of 4%, and social welfare by 2.2%, of global GDP."[3] According to the International Energy Agency, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies worldwide would be the one of the most effective ways of reducing greenhouse gases and battling global warming.[4] In May 2016, the G7 nations set for the first time a deadline for ending most fossil fuel subsidies; saying government support for coal, oil and gas should end by 2025.[13]

Keep funding the middle east.

Comment Really? (Score 1) 150

I used to love hangouts. We used 'em at work (instead of whatever MS was pushing or webex or whatever that other 3rd party remote chat program was).

Work eventually got zoom, which works pretty well, and we finally bailed on hangouts. But it always seemed like a solid cross platform solution to me...

Comment Re:Obviously (Score 3, Insightful) 370

SInce this is very very similar to what my partner does, I feel like I'm a little qualified to speak on the subject at hand.

Yeah, pattern matching should nail this - but pattern matching only works if the patterns are reasonable/logical/consistent. Yes, I'm a little familiar with advanced pattern matching, filtering, etc.

Here's the thing: doctors are crappy input sources. At least in the US medical system. And in our system they are the ones that have to make diagnosis (in most cases). They are inconsistent from one doctor to the next. They are inconsistent from one day to the next. They are inconsistent from one patient to the next. They are inconsistent *within a patient* when the original diagnosis was wrong. And what's possibly worst of all: they disagree.

In the US we do the same kind of thing - base payouts on what the doctor diagnosed. They need to write specific magic words in the right way. So my partner looks at medical records and then confronts the doctor - somehow trying to suggest what they left out without making a diagnosis (because she's not a doctor, so she's not allowed to).

As you can imagine this is a delicate dance. Some doctors have egos. In any case, many of things she does are fixing errors [of omission, often], but others are a lot more complicated and sometimes very rare (some medical conditions just don't come up very often).

Finally, if you think having a person hound a doctor to get something corrected might be tricky - imagine having a machine try to do the same thing. Some doctors may be more resistant to that...

The easy answer to this is: that process is crap. Fix doctors/the system/whatever.

I agree.

Good luck with that.

Comment Re:They're not (Score 1) 766

Javascript is not a performance issue unless used horribly - and you really can't blame the browser for that. You might as well say that HTML is a problem - because horrible HTML certainly can destroy a browser's performance.
What's more, it's been expected behavior (to have it enabled) for more than a decade. If you want it off, turn it off.

Comment Re:They're not (Score 1) 766

Now you're just saying "it's fast because I say it's fast".

Well, I think that browsers are demonstrably fast.

But we have discussed at length all the stupid ways in which its performance is wrecked.

We - you and I - have not. But I've scanned a few of your other posts. It looks like you expect to be able to open hundreds of tabs and not use any resources (unless those tabs are looked at).

I don't think that's a common use case, and I think that most users and developers would agree with me. When I open a tab, I expect it to load. And when I activate that tab I expect it to be fully loaded already. if I wanted a list of stuff handy and I didn't want it to load, I'd keep that stuff in my bookmarks. Which is what I do, of course.

If you really want a browser that doesn't load tabs until you look at 'em (and I can understand that use case - it's just not mine), maybe write a plugin.

Slashdot Top Deals

If this is timesharing, give me my share right now.