Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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:Hubris Much? (Score 1) 66

So your proposal is... do nothing?

Since coral polyps are one of the hardiest creatures on the planet, having survived over millions of years through both tropical and ice ages, yes. "Nothing" is the logical and scientifically-sound action to be taken.

Of course, "nothing" doesn't get scientists and universities grants, get corporations government contracts, nor gain politicians more money and power, so expect a massive government-funded program that wastes obscene amounts of people's tax money while accomplishing little, possibly even causing additional problems that the government and scientists can spend even more of your money on.


Comment Re:More science (Score 1) 247

It's basic physics man. This has been understood for over 100 years. Welcome to the 19th century.

As another reply above points out, this is about making predictions about specific behaviors and trends in a super-massively-chaotic system. The number of variables able to substantially change outcomes is staggering in a system as massively-chaotic as the Earth.

When we have the computing power to model and predict the precise orbits of every bit of rock in the asteroid belt bigger than a basketball, you *might* have sufficient computational muscle to be able to create a model accurate enough to make life-and-death decisions for billions of people. Until then all you have is hand-waving, and that's with a 'gimme' assumption that the proper data is able to be acquired to construct such a model and that the algorithms work properly.

Sorry, but humanity does not yet possess sufficient understanding of global climate nor the computing power necessary to create models with sufficiently-small margins of error to justify many of the extreme actions/measures that are being called for by alarmists.


Comment Re:Let's hope they do arrest him (Score 1) 356

but we got American spies killed in the process

No, those US intelligence agencies and the people who run them who broke US laws, violated US citizen's civil rights, and actively suppressed whistleblowers to avoid legal repercussions for their criminal actions are getting American spies killed by making these kinds of "dumps" of secret/classified info the only practical option to reining in their abuses.


Comment Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited (Score 1) 287

Not really. Human thought is directed by emotions as much as anything. Your personality and your basic behavior, preferences, decisions, the lot are all ruled by how strong various memories are. Your event memories wind together an emotional preference for certain outcomes, aversion to others, and indifference to most of the shit that happens; correlating things together has an impact, too, such that making a desirable outcome occur alongside a particular behavior causes you to engage in that behavior more-frequently. Greed is only another factor: you've learned that having things (and money) reduces adverse conditions and increases desirable conditions.

Using what people have learned by interacting with other people, by the common contexts of language, and by selecting words and phrases in patterns which emphasize some facets and de-emphasize others lets you change how people think. Largely, people think for themselves on a basis of information collected over a lifetime, and have sets of facts which are thusly distorted. They start gathering these facts before they have a frame of reference to analyze them.

That's why you get stupid shit like people believing readily-debunked myths such as that minimum wage increases cause additional spending and job creation or primarily takes money from the rich. No matter the argument, these things are learned-axioms that are used to quickly determine the argument is invalid--unless you carefully manipulate their emotional response to program in new facts that don't get vomited straight back out, but that cause their existing ideals to fail hard. It makes them uncomfortable pushing back, so they just accept this new information until someone makes a better argument.

Comment Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited (Score 1) 287

It's not the only thing that matters. You can sell an enormous lie to people without ever stating a factual inaccuracy by changing the way they interpret the information. Manipulating people so that you can shout loudly that 2+2=4 and have them hear that as meaning that you're giving them 2 apples and 2 pears and they're getting 7 fruits is a common and powerful rhetoric.

Basically, the statement semantically reads: "the discovery of 50% Chicken DNA is meaningless in terms of how much chicken is in the food" and "DNA testing generally gives you a reliable measure of how much DNA is in the food."

The reader will generally hear: "the discovery of 50% chicken DNA doesn't mean it's EXACTLY 50% chicken" and "chicken DNA is a measurement of about how much chicken is in there".

Those are two different statements. What's said and what's heard are different; and the structure of the sentence is to ensure that most people--even highly-intelligent people like the Slashdot crowd--generally hear the second set of information.

Comment Re:Knowledgable (Score 1) 102

For someone who says others are unable to follow a conversation, you certainly show yourself to be unable to do so

I'm following the current discussion. Let me remind you that my post above was in response to your post:

He said the electrolytes have a small window for a stable voltage range. The most likely means that if you charge the electrolyte to (for instance) 3.4 volts it will be stable, but you can't charge it to more than 3.5 volts or less than 3.3 volts.

So my response on state-of-charge and the desirability of a stable voltage range is appropriate for the context of this discussion. Good try, but I have a bullshit-cutting katana.

But he was aked about the FAILURE mode of the batteries. And in answer to that he said there is a narrow WINDOW which will produce that stable voltage range. The WINDOW is refering to the CHARGE voltages that are required in order for the battery to produce that stable range on discharge.

Actually, the voltage at which you charge the battery only affects the rate at which it charges (and the amount of overcharge you can get when nearing/exceeding 100% capacity). Discharge voltage is controlled entirely by battery chemistry.

In other words: Everything you said there is factually-incorrect, technically-inaccurate, and wrong.

By reading ALL of his answers

I'm only interested in the response he gave to the question of why Lithium chemistry batteries suddenly lose capacity as a failure mode, which he answered by spouting a bunch of irrelevant and inaccurate bullshit. If you ask, "Why is the sky blue," and a guy starts talking about how the sky on Mars is red during the day and oceans reflect heat off the surface of the planet due to their mercury content, he's 1) spouting irrelevant bullshit; and 2) wrong. The content of the rest of his diatribe in a forum of further questioning is irrelevant to that inquisitive cycle.

he is saying that in order to keep the DESIRABLE stable voltage range

He suggested the stable voltage range is a problem caused by flammable electrolytes. You claimed that the stable voltage range is the charging range above, and have now changed the definition (fallacy of equivocation).

You're really not good at arguing with people who can think and comprehend, you know that?

Comment Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited (Score 1) 287

The "usual" way is to measure actual protein content, which indicates a relative measure of proportional mass of biological material.

The way they used was to measure DNA content, which indicates content of in-tact DNA. DNA content of 1kg of uncooked, well-preserved, small-cell biological material will be higher than DNA content of 1kg of cooked, large-cell biological material.

Comment Re:Thought the CBC tests were discredited (Score 1) 287

The "But" conjunction is special. It suggests to the listener that the prior statement had no meaning, and thus that it can be safely ignored.

The structure of that statement is to say that 50% Chicken DNA doesn't mean 50% Chicken meat, but the testing is a good measure of proportion.

Take that statement without the first part: "DNA Experts have told Marketplace that the testing is a good indicator of animal and plant DNA in the product." Sounds like it's a reasonable measure, right? Another nice trick: the last statements made--end of a paragraph, end of a sentence, and so forth--carry the most weight.

Comment Re: How to copy? (Score 1) 167

Actually, they haven't. You can clone the mag strip, but most cards now register that they have a chip. The bank won't authorize it by mag strip if a smart card is present; you can still copy the mag strip and use it for offline attacks (e.g. use it to buy crap through Paypal).

A smart chip--the type of tool embedded in an EVM card--is a miniaturized computer with an I/O protocol. When attached to the reader, it's powered up and accepts commands. It doesn't release the key, and only performs digital signing within its own memory space and returns the result.

Some implementations in early chips used DES, which has cryptographic weaknesses. It's possible to crack DES in a few hours and recover the key by analyzing signed known-plaintexts, allowing for cloning. Most early implementations used 3DES or RSA at a currently-unbroken level, making this attack impossible.

Amusing: SD cards are also microcomputers and communicate over an I/O protocol. Direct access to SD card NAND is not possible; loading an operating system onto an SD card and making it perform computations is possible.

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A giant panda bear is really a member of the racoon family.