Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MasterCard Transactions To Be Mined For CO2 Data

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the strip-mined-with-acid-I-hope dept.

Earth 124

seamus1abshere writes "In the latest twist from Big Data, MasterCard and Brighter Planet today announced that cardholder transaction data will be mined for clues about CO2 emissions. Initial coverage will be of flights, car rentals, hotels and other purchases for which the credit card company stores extra metadata. Interestingly, the science behind the offering is all open source."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cue slashdot denialists... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115462)

Oh look. It's this thread again.

Re:Cue slashdot denialists... (2)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115508)

you beat me to it!

Re:Cue slashdot denialists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36117020)

Yep. Why must Mechanical Turk be so cheap?

Oh, sure. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115466)

Let's give the greentards access to private financial data. What could possibly go wrong?

Hah! (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116042)

That's gonna shut the green privacy activists up!

Are there also any fossil-energy-loving privacy activists? Nuclear privacy activists perhaps? We depend on you now!

Re:Hah! (-1, Troll)

flyneye (84093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116402)

Perspective problem. Let's look again.
Dumbass "green" college kids at the urging of their prof.( prolly a full blown green douche) do something "green" as part of their grade.
Prof. Douche eagerly awaits the biased results for his own evil agenda as he knows they forgot to track everything that causes gas.
Yes, methane, you know the stuff cows let off so much of that automobiles come in second for destroying the ozone.
Prof. Douche doesn't care so much about the ozone, but being noted in the media for contributing "value" to the green cause gives him pseudo-masturbatory pleasure and fulfills the prophet Warhols prediction of fame.

A class action suit from cardholders against the college should put reality back into perspective for all.

Re:Hah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36117286)

There is so much wrong with what you just said, that the phrase "put reality back into perspective" should be stricken from your lexicon.

Re:Oh, sure. (3, Funny)

guruevi (827432) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116986)

Don't worry, the anonymized it by removing your name and address. All they use as an identifier is that random 16-digit number on your card. They have to keep the expiration date as well so they can properly put their data on a time line.

Re:Oh, sure. (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117350)

thank God they're only using that plus the three little numbers on the back as a kind of checksum

Re:Oh, sure. (2)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117256)

Mastercard has been giving aggregate data back to its member banks for at least 20 years. This is just another set of aggregate data, but given to corporate card holders. Even if they gave card numbers, names, and addresses, it's only going back to the owners of the cards.

I worked with Mastercard's data warehouse for 5 years. So if anyone has any questions about what *really* goes on there I might be able to answer (although I can only speculate about this particular program).

So... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115468)

So the crazy loons are pulling the same stunt spammers do.

Thank you, assholes. Oh, wait. Thank you, crazy assholes.

Re:So... (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115940)

Speaking of spammers (yes i know bad segue but damned if i can think of anywhere to ask this) has anybody else noticed that those "porntube" style sites have figured out how to get your Yahoo address book from your browser somehow?

I have a customer that loves those porntube style sites and I keep getting these weird spams from him that consist of a single web link that has obviously been generated at random. since I had just cleaned his machine and knew it was good I asked him WTF was going on and he swore he had only been going to those porntube style sites, nothing else.

So i figured I have NoScript, Avast, and a fresh disc image in case anything goes wrong so what the hey, I'll try. so I started clicking random links on porntube style sites, DrTuber, Xhamster, etc and sure enough about an hour later I got an email from myself and so did everyone in my address book from the looks of the To: field. Now since I had only been using that Yahoo mail address as a spam dump I really didn't care about that, what I DID care about is this means that Yahoo must be storing my addressbook somewhere on my drive unencrypted! Either that or they have figured out how to read it from memory in BOTH Chrome and FF 4, as I had it happen in BOTH browsers! So has anybody else been seeing this weirdness?

As for TFA I'll listen to the "greenies" when they kick out Mr Al "My house has its own BBall court" Gore, who has the balls to tell us to ride the bus while he farts around in his private jet, which he has the brass balls to say is "carbon neutral " because he pays himself carbon credits from his company!

Re:So... (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116148)

When you are logged in or have auto-login enabled for Yahoo it is more likely some smart XSS exploit that loads Yahoo in a hidden IFRAME and posts the address book to their servers by means of the XSS payload. Typically this works with all mayor browsers and does not require your address book to be stored locally or your memory to be read directly.

Re:So... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116208)

In this case it would be a CSRF [wikipedia.org] attack.

Re:So... (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116368)

A CSRF can perform an unwanted action, but to post content back to the attacker another method needs to be used (the attacker might request the contact list in the IFRAME but will have a hard time to read it since modern browsers prohibit this). When the attacker has the ability to execute arbitrary JavaScript by means of a XSS exploit this becomes much easier, so this would basically be a CSRF with a XSS to get the result from the request forgery.

Re:So... (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116916)

A CSRF can perform an unwanted action

You mean an action like yahoo.com /send.php?subj=look+at+my+porn&body=porn+porn+porn&contact[]=Ok&contact[]=Ok&contact[]=Ok&contact[]=Ok&contact[]=Ok...

I wouldn't be surprised if someone wrote a "send to contacts" page that worked exactly like that, without checking to see if a request was via POST or GET.

Re:So... (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116156)

I think this would make a nice "Ask Slashdot" question. It's a very interesting question and can maybe be easily answered (JavaScript Drive-By attack or something). But I think one possible explanation is our good old friend flash.

It could also be that this is not directly related with the sites, but rather a rogue advertiser.

Privacy (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115470)

The same people that invented a constitutional right to privacy in order to justify abortion now want your credit card usage info to condemn you for global warming. Consistency would be super.

Re:Privacy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115510)

They are consistent: abortion means less population growth which means less pollution and less of global warming.

Btw.who's they?

Re:Privacy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36116120)

A woman currently has the right to kill her baby, that is the law. We also have laws both federal and state that show it to be premeditated 1st degree murder. These people should be tried and sentenced to life without parole or death as per state guidelines. As it stands now the doctors are accessories to murder and any other employees that aided in the dumping of the body/paperwork are as well. The prosecuting attorneys that failed to prosecute this heinous crimes are not only accessories but aiding and abetting in the continued commission of a felony.

Re:Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36116678)

If they yank one out and it cries momma and asks for a cup of milk I've got your back. Otherwise quit the crazy already.

Re:Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36116998)

A woman currently has the right to kill her baby, that is the law

We respect your right to decide (for yourself --not for us) whether a clump of cells is a thinking, sentient being, with the full protection of law, but we'd like to reserve our right to a difference of opinion. It would be easier to stomach your point of view if you had any compassion for people after they're born. But... Once they're out of the womb, god forbid they or their unwilling parent get any welfare money, right? Only the unborn deserve any "right to life."

It's a fascinating irony that until science gave you stupid fundies some knowledge, you didn't believe the fetus had a soul or was even alive in any meaningful way during the first four months of pregnancy. (Read up a little on Quickening [wikipedia.org] )

It's not like you or I should really have a say in the matter anyway --we aren't in a position where some jerk could impregnate us and ruin our careers (I'm assuming you're male from your callous attitude). Perhaps you'd like to protect the rights of a malignant tumor in your body to keep dividing. More power to you.

.

Kewl... Oh, wait (4, Insightful)

pitterpatter (1397479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115492)

While I would dearly love to have Al Gore's data from this enterprise, I'm not so sanguine about him having mine.

Re:Kewl... Oh, wait (2)

olderphart (787517) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115500)

The science is open source. But the raw data has been "lost"...

Re:Kewl... Oh, wait (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116880)

But not to worry, any "wrong" conclusions will discarded as a result of "lack of programming skills."

Re:Kewl... Oh, wait (4, Insightful)

pnot (96038) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115970)

While I would dearly love to have Al Gore's data from this enterprise, I'm not so sanguine about him having mine.

As I'm sure you noticed from R'ingTFA, this programme basically involves some extra annotation on a system Mastercard's been running since 2002 allowing corporate clients to analyse spending on their cards. So yes, if you're working for Al Gore and spending his money on your company card, he will (shock horror) be entitled to data-mine your transactions for anything he damn well pleases. Get over it: you don't have any expectation of privacy when you're spending company money on company business.

Re:Kewl... Oh, wait (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116788)

As I'm sure you noticed from R'ingTFA, this programme basically involves some extra annotation on a system Mastercard's been running since 2002 allowing corporate clients to analyse spending on their cards. So yes, if you're working for Al Gore and spending his money on your company card, he will (shock horror) be entitled to data-mine your transactions for anything he damn well pleases. Get over it: you don't have any expectation of privacy when you're spending company money on company business.

Are you seriously under the impression that they'll only provide this information to the owners of the corporate cards?

Once they've identified this as data that people are interested in, and willing to pay for ... they will likely do what every other company with your private data does ... sell it to third parties to make even more profit.

In fact, my money is on them already having done so.

Matching products (4, Insightful)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115538)

I imagine that the most important piece of information regarding the transaction is the supplier and a transaction number. The amount is worthless. How would you match an amount to a product, especially if more than one product is purchased? Many customers pay different amounts for the same product, how will they factor this in? They'd have to ask the supplier what was actually purchased with some kind of order number.

Some services are bought but not redeemed later in the future such as a flight or a cruise ship. They need to work out when a servie is actually utilised.

Somehow I think they'd be better of analysing public transport systems. Such as buses, trains, planes and traffic. If 10 people buy a bus ticket, the bus will expel the same amount of CO2 than if the bus was full. Same with trains, they are quite often under capacity.

Re:Matching products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115656)

Actually do the physics...Full load vs no load means a huge difference in CO2 output.

Re:Matching products (4, Interesting)

uncqual (836337) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115742)

This seems a little hard to believe for a train or a cruise ship or even a bus. I'd buy this on planes though.

For example, a popular school bus line [wikipedia.org] weighs up to 36,200 pounds (without fuel I believe) and transports up to 90 passengers. In my experience, school buses cram about as many people as possible into the available space and have the lowest level of amenities so I would expect them to have about the lightest weight "per passenger capacity" of any bus. Anyway, this works out to an empty bus weighing about 400 pounds per passenger -- then add the passengers. I would be surprised if adding another 50% (assuming each passenger is 200 pounds - probably high when discussing urban transport where there's no real luggage) weight would result in a "huge" difference in CO2 output between an empty and a full bus.

I would expect that municipal buses and train cars would have even less discrepancy between their weights when fully occupied vs. empty.

Re:Matching products (1)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115778)

Divide the CO2 produced by the number of people on the bus.

It's more efficient if you have more people on bus. With nobody on a bus, it will generate X amount of CO2. Add more people to the bus and increase the CO2 maybe a little due to added weight but it's still more net efficient as those people share the CO2 contribution.

I'd hazard a guess that bus engines are so powerful that a couple of people would make little difference to CO2. People are not THAT heavy. When you compare full load versus no load then maybe you'll see a difference.

Re:Matching products (2)

lxs (131946) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115910)

You can get even more gains If you assume that every passenger not taking the bus uses a helicopter to go to school.

Re:Matching products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115854)

If you consider each individual bus, there will be several tours that emit more pollution/passenger than an individual car, however you need to consider the whole system. If bus frequency is increased in a sufficiently high-density (and walkable) community for instance, more people will find the bus convenient and will take the bus, it is likely that a few of the new trips will have few passengers, but overall the total increase in pollution divided by the total increase in passengers will produce a net decrease in pollution.

Re:Matching products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115928)

> Same with cars, they are quite often under capacity.

FTFY.

Re:Matching products (1)

Kim0 (106623) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116216)

How would you match an amount to a product, especially if more than one product is purchased? Many customers pay different amounts for the same product, how will they factor this in?

I use least square matrix methods for this.

Re:Matching products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36116268)

I seem to recall seeing somewhere that the break-even point for carbon emissions on a bus is 7 people. So a bus creates about the same emissions as 7 cars. I also would love to live in the same fairy-tail world as you where you can take an empty bus, add over 10000lbs of meat, and not use any more gas.

Re:Matching products (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117272)

Especially considering many buses operate in high-traffic city areas, where they are constantly accelerating and decelerating. That extra 10,000 pounds of meat takes more energy to get moving from a standstill, and more energy to bring to a stop from 30 miles an hour. If that extra weight required no additional energy, then a Volkswagen Beetle would be able to tow a 30 foot trailer.

Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115556)

What is the benefit of doing this? I'm pretty sure we can calculate how much CO2 is emitted by various activities without invading people's privacy.

Re:Why? (0, Troll)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115860)

Because according to the cult of global warming, you have no privacy. They're doing this for *your* best interest.

Re:Why? (4, Interesting)

pnot (96038) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116134)

Because according to the cult of global warming, you have no privacy. They're doing this for *your* best interest.

I find the psychology interesting here. Companies have tracked spending on corporate credit cards since forever; after all, it's their money you're spending, not yours, and they don't want you to spend it on booze and hookers. I don't remember ever hearing anyone complain about the principle of this. But as soon as Mastercard start to offer carbon emissions analysis to their corporate customers -- because 80% of those customers wanted it -- we have a dozen outraged comments about "invasion of privacy" and "the cult of global warming".

Just try this: storm into the accounts dept. and tell them you're not going to submit receipts for travel reimbursement, because it's none of their damned business whether you rented a hummer or took the train, and if they say otherwise they're members of the cult of global warming. Maybe you could get the ACLU to take on your case.

Re:Why? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116396)

Companies have tracked spending on corporate credit cards since forever; after all, it's their money you're spending, not yours, and they don't want you to spend it on booze and hookers.

Those are just two of the many reasons I'm my own boss.

Re:Why? (2)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117158)

Companies have tracked spending on corporate credit cards since forever; after all, it's their money you're spending, not yours, and they don't want you to spend it on booze and hookers.

"Entertainment Expense"

Re:Why? or why not? (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115972)

What is the benefit of doing this? I'm pretty sure we can calculate how much CO2 is emitted by various activities without invading people's privacy.

They're just following Kennedy's suggestion: "Don't ask 'why', ask instead 'why not?'". The 'why not?' would also be merely rhetorical, not needing an answer. After all, everyone else seems to be getting away with it, so there cannot be any valid reasons not to do the same...

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36116138)

I'm pretty sure it'll be handy to calculate future CO2 taxes. They can even charge your CC directly too, convenient!

Inquiring minds want to know (1, Insightful)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115574)

How much computing power will be used to mine all of this data? How much energy will be spent on this project? How much CO2 will be released as a result?

Re:Inquiring minds want to know (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115636)

This is the most idiotic and trollish response that always gets thrown about. Expending energy to figure out how to save energy can easily be a net positive. I'm sure automotive engineers expelled a great deal of energy designing cars that get 30+ miles to the gallon instead of 15. Electrical engineers spent energy designing LED lighting that is far more efficient than incandescent. But you aren't thinking about that, nor are you thinking at all. You're just trolling, because you've been trained to hate anyone who suggests that CO2 can have a negative impact on the climate.

Re:Inquiring minds want to know (1, Insightful)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115802)

This is the most idiotic and trollish response that always gets thrown about. Expending energy to figure out how to save energy can easily be a net positive. I'm sure automotive engineers expelled a great deal of energy designing cars that get 30+ miles to the gallon instead of 15. Electrical engineers spent energy designing LED lighting that is far more efficient than incandescent. But you aren't thinking about that, nor are you thinking at all. You're just trolling, because you've been trained to hate anyone who suggests that CO2 can have a negative impact on the climate.

No the parent is not trolling. "How much energy will be spent tracking this" is a perfectly valid question. If I spend x+10 energy on monitoring to save x+1 energy then that's a problem. It's a bit like saying that electric trains are "cleaner" than diesel trains. They're not. The pollution (or expenditure of energy) is just transferred to somewhere else.

Re:Inquiring minds want to know (1, Troll)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115840)

But the parent doesn't care about the answer, and you know it. He's just JAQ'ing off, as all good trolls do. Ask a seemingly reasonable question with the implication that the answer is a bad thing.

Tell me, do you really think that the computing power used to mine this data would offset even a single trip by private jet?

Re:Inquiring minds want to know (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115876)

Yeah, my "gut feeling" is that you're correct. But my gut feeling isn't science.

Re:Inquiring minds want to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36116426)

But my gut feeling isn't science.

Clearly you're not a global warming scientist.

Re:Inquiring minds want to know (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117340)

Actually, electric trains are, as a rule, "cleaner" than diesel trains. A giant power plant generally operates at much higher efficiencies (generally ~2x the efficiency of a typical car motor, if I recall correctly) than your automobile engine - less fuel is consumed to produce the same amount of energy, which means less pollution is emitted.

The giant power plants also have the option to generate some or all of their capacity from "clean" (or at least, "cleaner") sources. Diesel engines are... diesel engines, no matter where they're installed.

Re:Inquiring minds want to know (0)

Charcharodon (611187) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116104)

I'm going to call you a name because you disagree with me.

The troll calling the troll green.

I haven't been trained to hate anyone who suggests that CO2 can have a negative impact on the climate I just hate hypocrites.
Take your own advice to reduce your CO2 emissions by stop breathing so much (at all) please.

I'm going to go driving around in my truck and look for an endangered animal to kick.

Re:Inquiring minds want to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115890)

With the way virtualization in data centers works, these servers of MasterCards will be running either way.

But you don't need to worry, they will be charging all the businesses whom purchase this service from them to pay for all of that electricity.

Of course what the businesses DO with the data about their CO2 emissions that MasterCard will help them track, is totally up to them and out of MasterCards hands.

If even one of their customers ends up finding ways to cut their emissions, it could easily dwarf the additional emissions caused by the running servers, which would be running anyway.

open source science? (1)

kubitus (927806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115578)

science is per definition open soource:

Wikipedia: knowledge in the form of testable explanations

if it is not independently testable, it is not science!

Re:open source science? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115916)

Independently testable? That doesn't make something open source!

'Free' or 'open source' software requires (amongst other things) users to have access to the source code used to create the program. I'd only be willing to call it 'open source' science if researchers have access to the raw data used to create the conclusions.

Re:open source science? (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116162)

science is per definition open source.

You haven't been looking at the U.S. Patent System lately, have you?

Re:open source science? (2)

kenh (9056) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116650)

I think the person that wrote this summary meant to say "the applications behind this is all open source" - referring to the computer programs employed, not the "science" - how long before MasterCard offers to automatically calculate and sell you indulgences (carbon credits) as soon as you purchase the 'offensive' item (airplane ticket, fuel, etc.)?

Re:open source science? (2)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116442)

if it is not independently testable, it is not science!

Good point. The problem is that we're talking about global warming.

Re:open source science? (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116942)

One time events (like weather measurements) are not independently testable by definition. You can still do fact finding without a full scientific process. It just needs a different review process. Peer reviewed fact finding only works if you have reproducible results. One-time events have to reviewed through an adversarial review rather than peer review.

Re:open source science? (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116854)

if it is not independently testable, it is not science!

The big bang, string theory, evolution, the curvature of space/time, global warming/climate change, various theories proposed by relativity, etc are not all independently testable. Are they not science?

(Please do not troll with some test that produces evidence for one of above theories. For example, the only way to independently test the big bang would be to recreate the universe. Using an atom smasher to create a model doesn't cut it.)

Fact is that not everything in science is "independently testable", yet it is still science. And there are some theories that rely on probabilities that simply could not be reproduced, evolution, for example. You could not reproduce the conditions that made creature A evolve to creature B, and even if you could, you might end up with creature C. Inconsistent results do not necessarily violate the theory.

As usual... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115584)

Summary written by a troll.

Press release is about business services. They are releasing a service to help business track their travel expenditures. RTFA if you want the real story.

Cut off comment lines?? (4, Informative)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115598)

Is it just me or is the text on most comments cut off to the top half? I tried with Firefox, Chrome, and IE and it's the same with all of them...

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (1)

witherstaff (713820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115612)

I'm seeing the same thing, or not seeing as the case may be. If the comment isn't expanded it's not all there

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (2)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115620)

Is it just me or is the text on most comments cut off to the top half? I tried with Firefox, Chrome, and IE and it's the same with all of them...

Oh no, its not just you. And Safari on Macs are doing it too.

I expect a .css file will be reverted shortly.

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115968)

You can add Opera to that list.

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115988)

Is it just me or is the text on most comments cut off to the top half? I tried with Firefox, Chrome, and IE and it's the same with all of them...

Oh no, its not just you. And Safari on Macs are doing it too.
I expect a .css file will be reverted shortly.

And Opera (Windows + Linux). Actually, every browser I've used today and yesterday at home (Linux) or work (Windows) has had the crappy cropped text. And being logged in or not on Slashdot makes no difference.

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115642)

It's been like this all day. Apparently Slashdot has moved to the "users == testers" school of software design.

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (1)

pitterpatter (1397479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115646)

Looks fine to me. Firefox 4.0.1 under Natty Narwhal.

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (1)

operator_error (1363139) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115784)

Huh. Things are borked as-described, for me; and I'm using Firefox 4.0.1 using Maverick. But then again I am reading the Slashdots from Europe.

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115662)

I'm seeing this. Posted on another thread regarding it, too - is there anywhere where a list of changes to the slashdot system can be found? There wasn't any noticable updates in the last couple of days and the comment system has gone from being cluttered (with non-expanded comments appearing with no vertical space between them) to being cut in half for no apparent reason.

In addition, as this (and OP) are offtopic, is there anywhere where discussion of the slashdot site itself can occur without being modded troll / offtopic? Questions like this should have somewhere to be on-topic about and not have to hijack threads to be asked.

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115700)

No, there isn't anywhere that Slashdot itself can be discussed without been moderated/censored to hell. Some quite famous examples of this in the past. It used to be much more apparent when you could see the number of mods each post had.

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36116082)

i liked the compact mode from yesterday. phone doesnt have so many pixels you know.

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (1)

PaK_Phoenix (445224) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115674)

Just trying to save some CO2 emissions.

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (1)

mikestew (1483105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115724)

Mobile Safari, Safari on Mac, same result.

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115774)

i see this kind of cutoff frequently when websites specify the div in pixels and the font in something else. Then since I use fontsize always bumped up like 125%, paragraphs run off their cells.

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115816)

Same here. I also get an annoying bug that makes the page jump up to the beginning if I click the score, I had that one just after the design change but then it disappeared, and now it has appeared again. After the design change, Slashdot has had tons of small annoying bugs.

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (1)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115832)

You said you dislike Web 2.0 so they cut it to half (1.0).

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36116176)

Is it just me or is the text on most comments cut off to the top half? I tried with Firefox, Chrome, and IE and it's the same with all of them...

Nope. Everything is mighty fine in my ELinks!

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36116472)

I too am having this issue with Chrome. Annoying. And after at least 5 hours it is annoying.

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (1)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116736)

Is it just me or links aren't working either?
Is /. really "for nerds"?

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36116902)

THANK YOU! hahaha I was flipping going nuts.

Re:Cut off comment lines?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36116972)

Looks fine in lynx.

So.... (0)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115648)

What's the carbon footprint of the Dragon dildo that Timothy bought?

What could possibly go wrong?

--
BMO

More privacy invasion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115650)

Good goin' Mastercard!

Guess I won't be using you anymore... (the wikileaks debacle already nudged me abit away from you anyhow)

Ohgodohgodohgod (1)

cyberfin (1454265) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115664)

A huge credit card company releasing information (I don't care what kind) to a third party? I hope their servers are decent and users follow protocol... Yeah, I hope.

Am I missing something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115680)

How will this really benefit anyone?

Not a privacy invasion, Ignore the trolls and RTFA (4, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115684)

FTFA: "a new program to help make travel carbon emissions analysis easier ... for the businesses worldwide that use MasterCard corporate cards ... to help businesses more efficiently manage their corporate card programs and meet current and future analytical needs"

This is a program that companies can sign up for, in which Mastercard will help them analyze their corporate travel programs. Al Gore isn't digging through your receipts at the sex toy shop. Ignore all the Republican trolls.

Re:Not a privacy invasion, Ignore the trolls and R (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115852)

Or ignore the slashdot summary and linked article because they've been proven to be habitual trolls, but you already knew that right? Oh wait, so now it's the repubs that are the one's protestting our loss of liberty? Wasn't it just vice-versa a few short years ago? If you could answer this inquisitive citizens questions, I'd very much appreciate it.

Re:Not a privacy invasion, Ignore the trolls and R (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117026)

FTFA: "a new program to help make travel carbon emissions analysis easier ... for the businesses worldwide that use MasterCard corporate cards ... to help businesses more efficiently manage their corporate card programs and meet current and future analytical needs"

This is a program that companies can sign up for, in which Mastercard will help them analyze their corporate travel programs. Al Gore isn't digging through your receipts at the sex toy shop. Ignore all the Republican trolls.

As a Libertarian/Republican, I have to agree with you somewhat. If MasterCard wants to offer a service their customers want, they are certainly welcome to do so. MasterCard is not a government agency. As long as data is kept private, they should be able to do whatever they want with the data. It's not like they don't have the data now. All they will be doing is a bit more data mining at the request of their customers. If I were a tree-hugging* company owner, I might be willing to pay for the data. (*"tree-hugging" is not meant to be an offensive term)

However, what happens when they release statistical information, intentionally or not, that shows that company A is producing 10x the carbon than similar company B? Might that peak the interest of government do-gooders who will want to see the data to see what company B is doing right (so they say)? Is it possible that this will uncover that some CO2 is getting out without being taxed by some future Cap-&-Trade laws, requiring government to start collecting this data themselves? I normally don't like slippery slope fallacies, but this is a really short, steep and well lubed incline that should be considered.

So, you could say I'm torn on this one. If government could keep their noses out of it, I have no problem with it. But you have to consider, when has government been able to keep its nose out of anything?

Finally, not all Republicans would oppose this and not all who oppose this will be Republicans. By accusing all who disagree with this of being "Republican trolls" you are employing a negative stereotype no different than someone claiming that Democrats are Communists, all Christians think the earth is 6000 years old, all Muslims are terrorists or Obama critics are racists. It makes you look like a bigot even though we know you are not because only those dirty Whigs are bigots.

How far can this CO2 mad hunt go? (0, Troll)

Petersson (636253) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115690)

How far can this can go?
Once climatofanatics realize how much CO2 is produced by simple fact that human beings are breathing and that they also fart a lot of methane, will they start to kill people in a mass scale? The fanatics could also be vacuum-drying their bodies to change them into mummies in order to avoid burning and creating more CO2.

It could be an crazy idea for a movie, however nazi concentration and liquidation camps were real and nazi fanatism was also based on crazy ideas.

Re:How far can this CO2 mad hunt go? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36115730)

Its time to realize that CO2 is not the only measure of human pollution to our environment.We should be talking more about paving over green spaces and polluting the great lakes. Besides, if we want to exhaust more C02 by having more humans around, we can always increase the number of green plants to breathe this C02 to make food and oxygen. Maybe we can grow food in the cities on the walls of apartment buildings.

CO2 is important but let's not forget to keep our land fertile, our water clean, and our air pure.

Burnt offerings (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36115836)

... the science behind the offering is all open source.

Well, what are they offering me? Jet engine exhaust? Vaporware?

the science behind the offering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36116006)

It's funny that they say this, as if there is much science behind it. So MasterCard give out their APIs for Brighter Planet to access their customers' expense details, without their consent. What's more to it?

Can't see condensed postings correctly. (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116288)

I thought the gray text on gray background was bad enough, but now the text is divided in half horizontally and I only get to see the top half. What gives? Looks like this in Firefox and Chrome.

Re:Can't see condensed postings correctly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36116690)

They're just previews, to make you click for more!

Re:Can't see condensed postings correctly. (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116980)

Yeah, they need to roll back a step to when they took all the whitespace out, but before they cut into the actual text.

"Detailed estimated data" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36116594)

Yup, sounds like climate science

Open Source? (2)

kenh (9056) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116622)

"the science behind the offering is all open source"

The science of making up numbers and extrapolation?

Science?

Whew! (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#36116708)

Glad I use my Discover card for buying tanks of CO2.

And yes, I do. I brew beer at home (better than any of the store bought swill any of you drink, really it is. Try home brewing it's easy and produces a far superior beer) as well as keep huge planted tropical fish tanks.. the aquatic plants utterly thrive when I inject CO2 into the water.

SKIP THIS. Seriously (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 3 years ago | (#36117346)

Look, sitting here playing games with trying to figure out emissions will get us nowhere. Instead, put a sat up in space to measure CO2 IN and OUT of nations. Then have every nation put a tax on ALL GOODS based on emissions levels PER SQ KM basis. With such an approach, then each nation can decide where CO2 is coming from and more importantly, how to address it. This has the benefit that different locations have different contributions. For some, it is economic. For others, it is humans. Finally, for others, it is environmental (new growth consumes while burning rain forests emits). We need to quit playing games and by putting a tax as I describe, it will help those that spend the money to lower their emissions, while punishing those that have heavy emissions per sq km.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?