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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:It's useless anyways (Score 1) 538

Setting aside how stupid this idea is, how stupid Feinstein is, and our first amendment rights: Most of the things in "The Anarchist Cookbook" simply do not work or have absolutely terrible methods. This is a book that tells you to dry gunpowder in a pot over an open flame.

I other words probably most dangerous to someone attempting to follow these instructions.

It's utterly useless and there are plenty of resources out there if you want to learn how to make explosives.

Especially explosives which have been around for more than a thousand years. I suspect that some of the better resources originate from military sources anyway.

I wonder if she realizes that most of us have the chemicals to make legitimate high explosives in our garages and bathrooms?

Not sure that legislators are required to have any knowlage of chemistry.

Comment Re:just FYI (Score 1) 77

DNP is an ATP inhibitor, which means it prevents cell mitochondria from synthesising ATP from simple sugars.

Mitochondria can't handle sugars anyway. What happens is that sugars must first be converted to something mitochondria can use within the cytoplasm. This is generally either pyruvate or lactate.
On the other hand mitochondria can directly use carboxylic acids.

Comment Re:(looks straight down) (Score 1) 122

Interesting... What happens if you tunnel fro New York into an ocean on the other side of the world? Does the water drop in and boil in the centre of the Earth?

This was what I was thinking about their example of a tunnel between the poles. Given that Arctic Ocean is more than 4km deep at the North Pole. Even with a vacuum tube you might fall around 7km short of the South Pole...

Comment Re:Sweet F A (Score 1) 576

Besides, even if they were at our level of technology, if they have starships, then they have nuclear weapons. They don't have to invade, they can simple drop rocks or nukes on us to accomplish the same thing, and there wouldn't be anything we could do about it...

If you can drop rocks on a planet you probably don't need to bother with nukes. No nasty radioactives to clean up afterwards.
The only possible advantage of a missile over a rock is accuracy. But there probably isn't that much capable of surviving a near miss in the 100 MT range.

Comment Re:We'd probably detect an invading fleet quite ea (Score 1) 576

We do not. We have detectors for big honking stellar explosions. If a bunch of objects 200m across were as close as the lunar orbit, if we knew exactly where to look, it is unlikely we could really distinguish them from rocks.

They might even be rocks. A 200m rock makes a very effective Kenetic Kill round. A 200m chunk of ice is probably going to be even harder to see, but still rates in the tens of MT range.

Comment Re:Dammit, Europe! (Score 1) 219

I was hoping your be the ones to bail us out when the U.S. went full fascist. Alright, New Zealand, all eyes are on you. No pressure!

Recently New Zealand introduced tougher speeding and drink drive penalties. With the result that road deaths over the Christmas period went up. So probably best not to expect too much of The Beehive. There's also the Megaupload mess to consider.

Comment Re:Do you really buy your own BS? (Score 0) 360

Just one question for the deniers....When the mean temperature is up ten degrees globally and humanity is tanking it because of massive environmental change and crop failure,

The actual "deniers" are the AGW faithful. Who are in complete denial that their senarios are little more than dystopian fantasy. As well as in denial that temperature and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have never been constant in the first place. With the AGW crowd even being in denial about their extensive use of logical fallacies to support their "argument".

you won't be upset when we lynch you for being the liars and shills who prevented proactive fixes from being implemented, will you?

How about instead lynching the psudoscientists, along with their cheerleaders, so we can start doing some actual science instead?

Comment Re:A Less Hysterical Take (Score -1, Flamebait) 360

The key issue remains the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the observations: 2014 just made the discrepancy larger."

Any discrepancy indicates either that the models do not reflect the theory or if they do the theory has been falsified. Either situation means that whatever is going on simply cannot be called "science".

Comment Re:Facts (Score 1) 360

What I fail to understand (and please help understand out without trolling) is IF the "global warming alarmists" are wrong, the most you had to give up was driving your hummer for a more fuel effecient vehicle while living by a set of rules that might curb a few activities. Mind you I am not even saying that such acitivites will be eliminated, but curbed a little bit.
If the "global warming alarmists" are right, well, can you really afford to take that chance? Seeing that there is only one planet and if the ice age, and hell or whatever rains down on earth should be cause for alarm in my opinion. I don't even care to argue WHEN it will happen.

The kind of things being advocated include the likes of "carbon credits", which are basically financial con games. Very unlikely to make a difference once way or the other. So called "green" electricity tends to be simply expensive. When everthing is taken into account wind and solar can end up with higher "carbon footprints" than just burning fossil fuels.
The proposed "solutions" are simply a poor match with the alleged "problem". On the other hand you don't tend to see things like demands that AGW conferances be performed online or a big switch to nuclear for electricity generation.

Comment Re:Someone teach me something here... (Score 1) 360

You're missing the point that water freezes at 32 degrees*, so if the ice fields warm by 1.4 degrees, the result is a lot of messing with the world's oceans, which in turn means significant changes in the atmosphere.

Just because that is the phase change point that does not mean that all, even most ice, on the planet is anywhere near that temperature. In the summer Antartica might manage -4 Farenheit.
Sea ice melting or freezing makes no difference to sea level at all, BTW.

Comment Re:Someone teach me something here... (Score 1) 360

Keep in mind that in that roughly 150 year period we are talking about because of increased carbon dioxide concentrations, the world oceans are now 30% more acidic than they were then. The next 100 years will see a another 30% decrease in Hydronium ion concentrations even if humans don't add a single extra molecule of carbon dioxide themselves as the amount already in the atmosphere will take some time to reach equilibrium with that already there.

What's actually happened here is that there is a difference of 0.1pH between some proxy reconstructions related to 150 years ago and some actual measurements taken recently. Since modern pH meters, from different suppliers, can differ by up to 0.3 the difference is meaningless. Do climate scientists understand that pH is a log scale, thus ONE unit would equate to a 1000% change.

However, the reality is that although the baseline of annual carbon dioxide production by all the volcanoes in the world is about 250,000,000 metric tons, the amount humans now produce annually is 33,000,000,000 tons, so it is highly unlikely that humans will turn this around soon.

The figure for vulcanism is very difficult to verify. Since most of the Earth's surface, including some highly vocanically active areas, is covered with water. The likes of geothermal vents are likely to be difficult to spot under the ocean. These will be putting strong acids. Yet the oceans manage to buffer an unknown quantity of these. Carbon dioxide in water forms a weak acid. Even with all of the possible carbon dioxide on Earth in them the oceans would still be alkaline.

Comment Re:wee little issue (Score 1) 360

Let us know when we can download the raw unprocessed data to feed into their pet algorithm. Yeah... you are about to link to some place where you THINK the raw data is... but you are wrong... thats processed data ("adjusted")

Unless you know exactly how it has been altered such data is useless for showing anything at all. A basic case of GIGO.

and they keep altering the old, already processed, data.... funny that.
(I am a witness to it - quite simple really, download their data... wait 4 weeks and download it again... do a difference.. note how old data keeps changing)

Thus the only useful thing you can do is analyse how said data is being changed. Especially given that there is no good reason to be altering supposedly archived data.

Slashdot Top Deals

Memory fault -- core...uh...um...core... Oh dammit, I forget!