Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Leave it to the scientists.... (Score 1) 93

What kind of "unusual" things would an app ask you to do? Drink 8 glasses of water a day? Get 10,000 steps? Move at least once an hour? I haven't seen anything that would be dangerous unless you're seriously out of shape or suffer from some extreme affliction. Considering how lawsuit happy people are, I doubt any of these apps are recommending anything dangerous to 99.99999% of the public.

Comment Re:Climate change deniers (Score 1) 401

Except the satellite record starts in 1979, which may have been a peak for ice extent. Historical records indicate early 20th century warming from ~1920 to 1940 in the arctic, with Russian observations noting retreating glaciers, melting of ice islands, retreat of permafrost, decreasing sea ice, acceleration of ice drift, increased air temperatures, biological signs of Arctic warming, and increased ease of navigation:

Comment Re:Sea ice vs projections (Score 1) 401

Here's a more up-to-date graphic:
Not sure why yours shows less than 4 million square km in 2012, and the up-to-date one shows over 14 million square km currently. Maybe it's multi-year ice? I know the summer extent of ice in the arctic dips down to about 4Mkm^2 during summer...

Comment Re: Serves them right (Score 1) 118

That's a stupid analogy. If the malware is coded well, you won't know it's there and it won't interfere with the operation of your computer. You're using the example of poorly crafted malware. How about I use the example of a poorly marked bill, where they use black ink and completely coat the bill to such a point that nobody will accept it as legal tender?

Comment Re:Serves them right (Score 2) 118

But the legal argument is shaky. Banks will put marked bills in a stack of money, so that if the bank gets robbed, they can hopefully track those marked bills back to the thief. What the FBI did here is very similar. They didn't trick anyone into visiting the site serving the CP, they merely marked the people that visited with some malware so they could be tracked down. They didn't issue a blanket warrant to search 8000 homes in the hopes of finding a crime. It would be the same as the police monitoring the home of a known drug dealer and recording the license plates of all the cars that pull up for a quick visit.

Comment Re:Worked with digital TV (Score 1) 194

1080p not widely available yet because ATSC 3.0 is currently in experimentation and testing trials. Satellite broadcasters currently offer 1080p for pay-per-view and on-demand broadband. 1080p is not being streamed by pay channels and cable services at the moment due to insufficient bandwidth due to currently implemented services.

Comment Re:Retribution (Score 2) 405

total horseshit. They identify that ERI's tend to be hot, so they adjust the buoy data up to match. That adds additional warming that doesn't actually exist to the record for the time period where the buoys are recording data. And because they're now weighting buoy data more heavily in the record, we have an adjustment from actual temperatures to a fake higher temperature carrying even more weight than they should. It's a shell game. Notice that they claim the adjustments are "effectively identical in trend"? They avoid saying the temperatures are the same! I don't care about the trend when they're making the claims of "hottest year ever" and "hottest decade ever". Trend doesn't matter in those cases, but the fake heat added from their adjustments definitely does! The purpose of new instrumentation is to get more accurate results. If the new instrumentation reveals previously unknown errors in older instrumentation, you DON'T adjust the data recorded with the new instrumentation! That is fraudulent! You increase your error bars for your data recorded with that older instrumentation. Do you know why they didn't adjust ERI data down? Because it would lower the calculated temperatures in the 1990's more than it would the 1930's, and suddenly the 1930's would stand out as being much hotter than the 1990's!!!

Comment Re:how about this (Score 1) 626

Well you can read the actual executive order here:

Which part of it is terribly conceived or poorly written? How was it horribly implemented? Currently there are 6 countries named that are in the midst of civil strife/war, and unable or unwilling to provide the data needed to verify info of travelers from their region. The 7th country is Iran. Not sure why they were selected, it might be because they're uncooperative, or it might be because they have a habit of chanting "Death to America" at large gatherings.

Comment Re:It's not that we deny climate change (Score 1) 481

You're confusing (or skeptical science is confusing) "Climate Sensitivity" with the actual mathematical calculation of radiative forcing directly caused by CO2. Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Calculus. 1.2C.
The Climate Sensitivity argument is the part of the Climate "science" that is still in debate. The IPCC says increased warmth from CO2 will cause more evaporation, which will cause increased warming from atmospheric water vapor. But this is a very tenuous claim, as more evaporation will also increase cloud cover as well as increasing convective cooling.

Comment Re:It's not that we deny climate change (Score 1) 481

First off, that's a horrible chart to be referencing, as it's a prediction output from a simple climate model. But let's look at it anyway. At 2000Gt of CO2, we have about 1.2C. double the output to 4000Gt (although I don't know if that will double the concentration in the atmosphere) and we get around 2.4C. Double that agian to 8000Gt, and that puts us up around the 4C mark. So even though this chart is talking about human CO2 output and not the concentration in the atmosphere, it is still giving us roughly 1.2C per doubling.

There are numerous sources for this value, including the IPCC. They give a value of 3.7W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2. You can derive the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and calculate the temperature increase.
References to 1.2C per doubling found using a quick google search:

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A guinea pig is not from Guinea but a rodent from South America.