Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Rotten Tomatoes is getting self-important (Score 1) 144

I do the same when looking for a restaurant - find a negative review and they'll tell you everything good about the place that they don't understand.

This. I use this same strategy when evaluating any product. Read a few good reviews, sure, but I need to read a few of the top negative reviews to figure out if the product actually has weaknesses that matter to me, or if it's just been purchased by a few users with unrealistic expectations.

The good thing about negative reviews is they usually aren't placed there by the business or by a sock puppet/SEO, so the dishonest reviews are at least more transparent. If some jerk with a grudge posts a 1 star review, they'll often include a whole sob story about how this company was unfair to them because they didn't immediately replace the broken thing the user dropped on a concrete floor.

Comment Re: also in the news ... (Score 1) 442

It's funny, I've thought a time or two about leaving IT and starting a lawn and snowplowing business. Why? Pay isn't quite as good, but except in the winter when you're plowing, you set your own hours, don't need to interact with people, and the pay is pretty damn good just the same. If only for allergies....

Our 'lawn boy' is an 18 (now 19?) year old gay kid. He's been mowing lawns for 3 years, every summer. He has bought his own new truck -with cash - and all the accessories you'd expect. He makes at least $70k/year after taxes, and that's just with the people we know are his customers, paying voluntarilly, in cash/check, $20-40 at a time.

No 401k or insurance necessary.

Those poor lawn boys...

Comment Re:Poor business (Score 2) 144

One guys "crap" is another guys entertainment.

The problem is that any given reviewer wont "mesh" with what *YOU* like. Or what *I* like. In the dark ages (before www), I used to religiously read two or three movie reviewers in my area. After 5 or 6 reviews the lights clicked. If X liked a given movie it would be likely that I WOULDN'T like it. If Y liked a movie, then it was pretty good odds that I would enjoy it. It was a bit more complicated than that but that's the gist. I learned what THEIR criteria was pretty quick.

Occasionally, I'd see a crappy movie my "rules" would indicate I would enjoy it or vise versa but it was otherwise pretty accurate.

Good example of an exception -- Back to the Beach (1980s reunion movie). I did *NOT* want to see that film. Some friends and I went to see the latest Bond film (can't recall what it was) but it was sold out. They decided to see this and I didn't drive. Everything told me that this movie would be crap. I'm embarrassed to say I enjoyed it. The opening on the airliner set the tone and it was just fun to watch. My "rules" told me to avoid this film like the plague.

Comment Re:In before global warming whiners... (Score 1) 71

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

Rose's story ricocheted around right-wing media outlets, and was publicized by the Republican-led House of Representatives science committee, which has spent months investigating earlier complaints about the Karl study that is says were raised by an NOAA whistleblower. But Science Insider found no evidence of misconduct or violation of agency research policies after extensive interviews with Bates, Karl, and other former NOAA and independent scientists, as well as consideration of documents that Bates also provided to Rose and the Mail.

Instead, the dispute appears to reflect long-standing tensions within NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), based in Asheville, North Carolina, over how new data sets are used for scientific research. The center is one the nation’s major repositories for vetted earth observing data collected by satellites, ships, buoys, aircraft, and land-based instruments.

In the blog post, Bates says that his complaints provide evidence that Karl had his “thumb on the scale” in an effort to discredit claims of a warming pause, and his team rushed to publish the paper so it could influence national and international climate talks. But Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and he never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms.

Tuesday, in an interview with E&E News, Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” he told reporter Scott Waldman. And Bates told ScienceInsider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change. But it was important for this conversation about data integrity to happen, he says. “That’s where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people,” he says.

At a House science committee hearing yesterday, Rush Holt, CEO of AAAS (publisher of Science and ScienceInsider) stood by the 2015 paper. "This is not the making of a big scandal—this is an internal dispute between two factions within an agency," Holt said in response to a question from Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), the panel’s chairman, and a longtime critic of NOAA’s role in the Karl paper. This past weekend, Smith issued a statement hailing Bates for talking about “NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.”

Some climate scientists are concerned that the hubbub is obscuring the more important message: that the NOAA research has generally proved accurate. “I’m a little confused as to why this is a big deal,” says Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist with Berkeley Earth, a California nonprofit climate research group that has examined surface temperatures. He’s the lead author of a paper published in January in Science Advances that found Karl’s estimates of sea surface temperature—a key part of the work—matched well with estimates drawn from other methods.

Researchers say the Karl paper’s findings are also in line with findings from the Met Office, the U.K. government’s climate agency, which preceded Karl’s work, and findings in a recent paper by scientists at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, an alliance of 34 states based in Reading, U.K. And although other researchers have reported evidence that the rise in global temperature has slowed recently, they have not challenged the ethics of Karl’s team, or the quality of the data they used.

Read on. It's worth it. The short of it: Bates was demoted by Karl several years back. Bates accepts both AGW, and the conclusions of Karl's paper, but decided to post a nitpicking complaint that he had used the ISTI land data in addition to the base NOAA data (the former of which isn't as high quality), without specifically commenting about the data source quality difference:

The Science paper would have been fine had it simply had a disclaimer at the bottom saying that it was citing research, not operational, data for its land-surface temperatures, Bates says.

But Mike Tanner, director of NOAA’s Center for Weather and Climate at NCEI, says there’s no NOAA policy that requires such a disclosure. “There's nothing. That doesn’t exist,” he says

The article also goes into the split within NOAA over how strongly to focus on new data and approaches that capture effects which old data and approaches might have missed, vs. old ones which are less accurate but more validated. The land data people tend to fall into the former category while the satellite people tend to fall in the later category. Karl was a land guy and Bates was a satellite guy.

It's interesting to read Bates' blog post with "Karl" replaced by "The guy who demoted me":

The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of the Guy Who Demoted Me et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Guy Who Demoted Me study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s (Federal scientists say there never was any global warming “pause”). ... In the following sections, I provide the details of how the guy who demoted me failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below. I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future. Finally, I provide some links to examples of what well documented CDRs look like that readers might contrast and compare with what the guy who demoted me has provided.

Comment Two points of bullshit (Score 1) 59

iOS doesn't support color profiles.

Maybe you should read more before you type.

Just because they don't provide you a way to assign a color profile does not mean iOS does not support color profiles... They have to because different devices now support a number of different gamuts.

iOS relies on a fixed resolution.

No, no it does not. It does specify things in points, but at this point there are a lot of iOS devices that are not just double the resolution of the original iPhone...

iOS supports all kinds of technologies that render at whatever resolution you have. From various Core Graphics drawing primitives to advanced image scaling stuff that makes full use of the GPU. I can take a PDF and drop it into Xcode to use as an asset anywhere in the app.

It also of course uses autolayout quite heavily in development, which will happily adapt UI elements to any kind of resolution differences it may encounter.

Comment Not from "predominantly Muslim countries" (Score 1, Insightful) 151

The secretary of state issued the memo after a Hawaii judge blocked the Trump administration's revised travel ban on citizens from six predominantly Muslim countries.

The ban is for six predominately islamic extremist countries. Are you bigoted against Muslims or something?

Comment Re:It's sooo easy! (Score 1) 124

Didn't matter a lot. Maybe it was a honeypot, maybe it checked a whole bunch of sites in a man in the middle attack- but I DIDN'T type in my username, so they would have had to check all the lists of millions of entries and do it very quickly, so I don't think so. And it listed out which breach it was, and it matched up. And I think it used a rainbow table for checking it, so they (allegedly) weren't sending my password in the clear.

It makes little difference, I didn't give a shit about any of the accounts, and I changed them all using LastPass to random 16 mixed character passwords.

Comment Re:3 articles referencing the same statement, misu (Score 1) 124

> You have to always assume your pc has been hacked.

LOL. You can't polish a turd. If your PC is hacked they can grab your password as you type it in anyway, so using an online password storage makes no material difference to security as opposed to using your brain, but the online security is much more convenient, and the online stored passwords are much longer and more random, whereas you've admitted that your passwords are total shit.

Comment Re:It's sooo easy! (Score 1) 124

You know what? You're not nearly as smart as you think you are. I first typed in random 'passwords' that weren't my LOW security password, and it said that those hadn't been hacked. And I didn't type in any of my high security passwords, and those are different on each site anyway, so there wouldn't be any point.

"Use a few passwords and variations of those. add caps and exchange letters for numbers aka "l33t"

Hahaha. Don't do that, moron.

Comment An idea (Score 1) 127

It would be nice if after one wrong PIN attempt, your fingerprint was automatically deactivated from allowed inputs... or maybe some very low specified threshold for finger inputs it did not like.

The iPhone has a start in that direction, you can't use a finger to unlock until after you have entered the pin at least once after the device has powered up.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It is better for civilization to be going down the drain than to be coming up it." -- Henry Allen

Working...