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


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

Comment Re:Is this the same "One Decade" we were promised. (Score 1) 231

Who cares about a single year ...

The people who argued that there was a global warming "hiatus" after 1998, evidently. That is assuming they aren't liars.

the climate models overestimated warming by nearly 2x for the average for the last two decades and 4x for the last 15 years

Which models are you speaking of? NASA's global instrumental record data is actually quite close to the IPCC 1990 FAR model runs that correspond to the actual greenhouse emissions. You have to allow for for La Niña (2000, 2001, 2008, 2010-2012) and El Niño (1997-1998, 2014-2016), of course which deviate below and above the model predictions.

Comment Re:Design problems (Score 1) 151

The iPhone 6 Plus is also affected. Using a ball grid on a non-rigid substrate was a massive error. The devices have not lasted for a normal amount of time, and people are entitled to getting a fixed version, not having theirs "repaired" (they just heat it up to reflow the solder, but then it comes back because the underlying cause isn't fixed so it comes back). People did this with HP laptops with nVidia chips as well (could be temporarily fixed with a heat gun or sticking the whole laptop into the oven).

Apple isn't a leader in innovation any more. Innovation means new products, not "courageous refinements" like removing the headphone jack to sell more bluetooth ear buds. Look at how their tablet sales have tanked. And their laptops, And the iWatch "isn't dying, it's just resting, pining for the fjords."

Comment Re:They both look the same from here (Score 1) 11

Read the definition of fascism. It simply doesn't require racism. Just because the term was coined in the 1900s doesn't mean that it wasn't practiced before. Things are NOT their labels.

Also, Hillary has already demonstrated the same tendencies as Trump (leaving out the scapegoating, because, as I pointed out, the definitions of fascism doesn't require racism, and that's just scapegoating, not fascism). Hillary and co. doesn't believe in democracy - we saw that with the nomination process. If she was such a big fan of democracy, why didn't she object to what the DMC was doing? Hillary also promotes violence (promoting war is certainly promoting violence). But if you want recent scapegoating, just look at her refusal to say that the leaked emails are true or fake, instead using the Russians as scapegoats to distract attention from the core issue). Suppression of truth and trying to control the story in the media counts. And she certainly did all she could do to defend Bill and attack his accusers when they were telling the truth.

As for the inventor of the term, words change, sometimes even taking on the opposite meaning.

Comment Re:Extradition? (Score 1) 80

Just because it "sets forth a legal framework for considering the circumstances in which the U.S. government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities" doesn't mean that it's going to be limited to foreign countries. Stop being naive. The CIA wasn't supposed to do any domestic spying either.

Comment Re:Told ya (Score 1) 134

There are killer apps. and look at the pebble forums ayou can find all kinds of really cool ideas that people are freely publishing.

Google and Apple prefer to hinder development and force people to pay $99 a year and go through a "you suck and your apps sucks" approval process for the watch ecosystem

Comment Article is 95% herp Derp (Score 4, Insightful) 134

Nobody is UPGRADING their smartwatches because why the hell should I pay $350 to get a watch that has zero features above what I already have? When I had a Pebble Time it did everything I wanted then and the other pebble offerings were useless iterations that either offered a useless feature (lighter and shorter battery).

the Apple Watch 2.0 only really offers waterproofing. no real advances that people would dump another $350+ to replace their 1 year old Apple Watch 1.0

The android watches, well nobody has been buying them, they have always been the last place runners, but their new iterations are all useless. Zero advantages on the new versions.

The ONLY smartwatch maker not with their head up their ass is Pebble. 10 day battery life in the Pebble Time Steel. Apple could have doubled the battery life, Samsung could have doubled battery life.... nope, they are all stuck in the "ZOMG THINNER!" stupidity.

Comment Re:DGW - Dinosaurogenic Global Warming (Score 1) 231

I'm sure if climate scientists were in charge of things they would "put up". But they're not; politicians are, and politicians naturally worry more about being b lamed for action more than being blamed for inacdtion. They'd rather be forced to spend a trillion dollars than choose to spend a hundred billion.

But even if you are willing to take the hit as a politician, you can't do it alone. You need to bring other politicians around, and the public around as well. If you can't take effective steps right away, you take what you can. This gets people working on CO2 reduction technologies and businesses, and builds a constituency for more steps. It's like stopping a cattle stampede. You can't make the entire herd stop and change direction at once, you get the lead cows heading in a slightly different direction.

Comment Re:DGW - Dinosaurogenic Global Warming (Score 3, Informative) 231

Of course, the problem with focusing exclusively on the costs of trying to stop or (more realistically) slow climate change implicitly assumes that inaction won't cost us anything. In fact we're looking at costs either way. We're in a minimax kind of situation: how do we minimize the maximum costs?

There's also another wrinkle to this, which is that costs (and indeed profits -- every misfortune profits someone) aren't distributed evenly. The key determinant of how much you have to pay for or profit from climate change is how mobile your capital is. If you're a Bengladeshi subsistence farmer you're going to take +2C right on the chin. If you're a Wall Street bank you take your investments out of farms which are going to lose productivity in the next ten years or so shift to underwriting the opening of new farms in newly favorable places. In other words you make money going and coming. Likewise if you own multiple homes your risk from local changes is spread out. If the lion's share of your nest egg is in a house that is in the new 20 year floodplain or in the range of a newly endemic zoonosis, you're screwed.

So even if you can't avoid +2C without climate engineering (which might not be such a bad thing), getting there in ten years instead of twenty or thirty makes a huge difference. And beyond 2C, there are other benchmarks beyond that we don't want to hit in a hurry.

This is not a black-and-white situation: that we had our chance to do something and now there is nothing we can do. We had our chance to avoid this situation and now we're talking about how much time we'll have to adapt.

Comment Re:Is this the same "One Decade" we were promised. (Score 1, Interesting) 231

The "hiatus" in global warming was produced by choosing 1998 as the baseline year. Why was 1998 a good year to use as a baseline? Because it was, by far, the hottest year on record when it happened, shattering the previous record (1997) by 0.13C.

Now this is a news for nerds site, so I don't have to explain why cherrypicking an outlier as your baseline is dishonest. People who swallowed that are either dishonest or mathematical ignoramuses.

I will go out on a limb right now and say that since El Niño has passed an next year will be less warm, sometime around 2020 we'll be hearing "No significant warming since 2016."

Comment Re:Pretty sure I read this story last decade. (Score 1, Interesting) 231

The planet could pass a key target on world temperature rise in about a decade, prompting accelerating loss of glaciers, steep declines in water availability, worsening land conflicts and deepening poverty.

The above is a 100% accurate statement. The below statement is also 100% accurate:
"The planet could pass a key target on world temperature drops in about a decade, prompting massive increases in wealth for everyone, plenty of food and peace for all mankind."
or even:
"The planet could pass a key target on world temperature rise in about a decade, prompting massive increases in wealth for everyone, plenty of food and peace for all mankind."

In other words, neither statement says anything but that a possibility, no matter how likely or unlikely exists. Which make them meaningless in terms of a scientific conclusion.

Wake me up again when scientists say, "If we don't drop our carbon consumption tomorrow, we're all going to die. Therefore, wanting to live, as of today I'm no longer going to consume any more carbon than I absolutely need to live" and have actual data to back it up. 'Cause that's about how drastic it'd have to be for people to believe after all the false alarms and cries of wolf not matched by personal action nor actual empirical results. After you're wrong repeatedly in your models, the rest of us will need to see some actually predict something accurately for a while before thinking you're on to something.

Slashdot Top Deals

The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man understands what will sell. -- Confucius