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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Anyhoo, nobody pays attention on the road to Hell (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39838143)

Where's NASA's interactive overbearing government maps?

"Here's the world tech level with more economic freedom. Now slide the slider, and see the tech level go down and deaths increase due to lagging tech as everyone's warm and socialist fuzzy goes up!"

Re:Anyhoo, nobody pays attention on the road to He (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39840275)

Human Development Index - Wealth (GDP), Health, Education, Literacy, Quality of Life.

1. Norway 0.971 ( 1) (Socialist)
2. Australia 0.970 ( 2) (Socialist)
3. Iceland 0.969 ( 2) (Socialist)
4. Canada 0.966 ( 1) (Conservative)
5. Ireland 0.965 () (Independant? Don't know)
6. Netherlands 0.964 () (Socialist)
7. Sweden 0.963 () (Socialist)
8. France 0.961 ( 3) (Socialist)
9. Switzerland 0.960 () (Socialist)
10. Japan 0.960 () (Socialist)
11. Luxembourg 0.960 ( 3) (Christian Social People's Party)
12. Finland 0.959 ( 1) (Centrist)
13. United States 0.956 ( 1) (Evil Capitalist Centre-Right Obama party)

N.B, "Socialist" in this context means by Republican party standards.

Death Valley (3, Interesting)

LasVeganLucy (2032428) | about 2 years ago | (#39838151)

Somehow Death Valley, California seems to fill up with water with a slight rise in sea level.

Re:Death Valley (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39838309)

The Netherlands has a similar problem. I seems like the algorithm for this ignores the Netherlands Delta Works.

Re:Death Valley (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 years ago | (#39838731)

So you think manmade infrastructure could hold back world wide ocean flooding?

Re:Death Valley (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39838953)

1-2 meters worldwide, maybe not. 1-2 meters in an area where engineers need to improve an existing system, I'd give them a chance. They are already planning for it. Considering the map shows 1 meter as flooding the entire country, I doubt it factors in that some regions are already below sea level.

I'm not talking about problems when there are natural disasters. Many regions around the world would have problems with natural disaster flooding even if the oceans receded several meters. The map implies those lands would be underwater under dry conditions, which assumes either an instantaneous rise or that engineers aren't building systems to prevent flooding.

Another post below has a link to where the creator of the web site lists his limitations. The fifth one is about coastal defenses.

Re:Death Valley (2, Interesting)

Grismar (840501) | about 2 years ago | (#39839479)

Actually, the Dutch water defenses can take quite a bit and do so regularly when storm surges occur. Of course, when a storm surge would come on top of a sea level increase of 1m overall, that would cause flooding sooner, at least temporarily.

However, this lame website simply colors every bit of land that just happens to be below the set level and ignores any defense that would keep the water out, even at the lower settings. It's utter bollocks and I'm betting it's only there to generate ad revenue. Oh /., how sad to see you slip into senility.. (not directed at parent, but at the so-called editors that decided this should run)

Re:Death Valley (2, Funny)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 years ago | (#39841651)

Right, the only reason not to factor in complex human factors into what is otherwise a simple elevation based color-by-number script is to generate ad revenue. And obviously the fact that there's a few spots where humans have built massive infrastructure to hold back the sea means that a map showing what would naturally be underwater with various changes in sea level is completely pointless. Good thing you're here to call them on it.

Re:Death Valley (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 2 years ago | (#39841775)

Defences to keep the water out, sounds nice but in reality when you are talking thousands of kilometres of coastline, it all becomes horrendously expensive, especially for countries that can't maintain their roads, footpaths and even bridges. So privatising the profits and socialising the losses yet again.

Re:Death Valley (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about 2 years ago | (#39848935)

Click away and cause your own Sim Flooding

I spent 5 minutes waiting for a monster to appear after my flood and rampage through the city.

Re:Death Valley (1)

yurtinus (1590157) | about 2 years ago | (#39851837)

That's a bug in how the simulator works. It simply paints all areas of the map at or below that elevation, so if you set it to 1m, it finds all areas below 1m above sea level and fills them in. This includes Death Valley, the Netherlands, the Caspian Sea, and many other locations. In reality these locations wouldn't flood like this (well... maybe the Netherlands, if it happened fast enough)

Why the hell is NASA... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39838203)

...spending their budget on this? This is NOAA's turf, not NASA's.

Re:Why the hell is NASA... (5, Informative)

Goaway (82658) | about 2 years ago | (#39838451)

It was not actually done by NASA, and if it was, it would probably not have made a terribly big dent in their budget, seeing as how it was actually done by some guy just for fun.

Re:Why the hell is NASA... (1)

Sussurros (2457406) | about 2 years ago | (#39840617)

I did this by hand last year using a Times atlas and calculating for 5m rise for Greenland, 10m rise for West Antarctica, and 50m rise for the meliting of East Antarctica. I discovered that my city, Sydney, would vanish under the waves and that my suburb would be at the water's edge at the end of a peninsula. I also discovered that the ocean would flood large areas of inland Australia and that Queensland would have a western coastline as well as a Pacific coastline.

When I did the same test on this map, and allowing for the errors induced by its not allowing for landlocked depression, I cranked it up to the maximum 60m (5m less than my test last year) and I discovered that the ocean would not break into Australia's interior and that millions of square kilometres, say Texas and California combined, would not flood at all.

The difference between 60m and 65m is not so great but the difference in effect is astonishing.

Re:Why the hell is NASA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39841233)

Those are not plausible numbers for sea level rise.

Maybe it's because i'm on a mobile device... (1, Informative)

Zakabog (603757) | about 2 years ago | (#39838205)

Maybe it's because i'm on a mobile device (Droid 3 with the included browser), but that site just seems like an ad filled annoying to use waste of bandwidth. After I changed the sea level once it wouldn't let me change it again, and somehow from the summary I imagined something that looked much cooler than google maps.

Lex Luthor was on to something. (3, Interesting)

Brad1138 (590148) | about 2 years ago | (#39838211)

In Superman 1. I need to buy up all the real estate 20 miles inland and wait for Global warming to make me rich! Maybe I should set off some nukes at the north and south poles to help speed things up...

Re:Lex Luthor was on to something. (4, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#39838237)

In Superman 1. I need to buy up all the real estate 20 miles inland and wait for Global warming to make me rich! Maybe I should set off some nukes at the north and south poles to help speed things up...

Forget that noise;
1. Buy large oil company.
2. Begin drilling wells off the coast of large city... at a 45 degree angle.
3. Frack baby, frack!
4. giant sinkhole swallows 20 miles of coastline.

Re:Lex Luthor was on to something. (1)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | about 2 years ago | (#39838319)

Not to mention you make crazy profit selling the gas after you frack it out and before the real estate becomes valuable.... you know, that may well be the goal now that I think about it... :/ Seems like a win win for them!

Re:Lex Luthor was on to something. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39838373)

You forgot step 4.5: ?????

Re:Lex Luthor was on to something. (1)

Turken (139591) | about 2 years ago | (#39844709)

I like this idea! Especially since even the 60m increase isn't enough to really cleanse the US of all the east/west coast crap. At least it would do something about Florida (aka South New York).

Of course, the problem with waiting on global warming to wash away the coastal stench is that it's still too slow of a process, and all the rats would just climb higher and infest the rest of the country. Fracking induced quakes though... gotta get working on that, pronto!

Sweet (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#39838215)

Sweet - more ways to kill my Sims! Actually, no. This method is slower than that; I can simulate global warming now by just taking the ladder out of the pool. :D

Where's the Waterworld Option (3, Funny)

ATestR (1060586) | about 2 years ago | (#39838243)

This darn thing only allows for a 60M rise. I want to try out 1000M and set sail in a Trimaran.

Re:Where's the Waterworld Option (2)

jonadab (583620) | about 2 years ago | (#39838453)

> This darn thing only allows for a 60M rise.

They probably designed it to assume that all the water has to actually come from somewhere.

There simply isn't anywhere enough water available to raise the ocean levels by the kilometer you propose, not by a long shot -- not with the ocean basins being anywhere near as deep as they currently are. If you want to make it that deep, you have to raise the ocean floor and/or lower the continental plates. But, of course, if you start changing that stuff, the simplistic model NASA used to calculate the coastlines wouldn't work. Once you start raising and lowering whole large sections of the earth's crust, Florida might end up being at a higher elevation than Wisconsin, who knows? All bets would be off, and all our maps would be worthless.

Re:Where's the Waterworld Option (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 2 years ago | (#39839091)

Bah, just redirect a couple of comets. Large ones contain a couple hundred km^3 of water.

Re:Where's the Waterworld Option (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 2 years ago | (#39843059)

Bah, just redirect a couple of comets. Large ones contain a couple hundred km^3 of water.

1000km^3 distributed on 335,258,000 km^2 raises the ocean by 3mm.

Re:Where's the Waterworld Option (1)

jonadab (583620) | about 2 years ago | (#39911123)

3mm, huh? So a couple of comets could do 6mm, right? Is that enough to put Florida under water, or do we need three or four comets?

(I jest. Florida isn't really the geographical area I'd most want to put under water. Unfortunately, California is too mountainous for it to be practical, and redirecting comets would be ridiculously expensive anyhow. We'll just have to wait for the San Andreas fault to do its thing.)

Re:Where's the Waterworld Option (3, Interesting)

pjbgravely (751384) | about 2 years ago | (#39838531)

What no negative? I wanted to see what it would look like with sea levels lower.

Re:Where's the Waterworld Option (5, Interesting)

jonadab (583620) | about 2 years ago | (#39838583)

Also, 1000 meters of ocean level rise wouldn't really be enough to give you a Waterworld scenario. It would be a global catastrophy, certainly, but there would still be quite a bit of dry land -- in large continuous strips, some which would extend for more than a quarter of the earth's circumference in length. Dry land would certainly not be so difficult to locate as to approach mythical status. A lot of Asia would still be above water (not just the Himalayas, either), plus a good portion of Africa, a sizable chunk of North America (just for example, Denver would still be more than half a kilometer above the new elevated ocean level), a long strip of South America running from Columbia all the way to Tiera Del Fuego, and quite a bit of Antarctica (yes, even with all the ice melted off), as well as various mountains and islands scatter around every geopolitical region in the world.

+30M and I have a BEACH FRONT HOUSE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39838253)

SWEET! Come on global watering!

Shhhhhh.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39839917)

there's nothing positive about CAGW.


That's odd... (2)

cirby (2599) | about 2 years ago | (#39838267)

The map has a lot of different levels for ocean rise, but they don't show the 0.3 meter "most probable" one from the current IPCC report.

The closest they have is one meter - three times the predicted level - and it doesn't seem to do much of anything - just a few inland lakes that magically rise in levels, even though they aren't connected to the sea.

Oh, well, I guess they'll fix that in version 2.0. Right?

Re:That's odd... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39838381)

Many inland lakes are connected to the oceans by a magic known as "groundwater".

I guess they didn't cover that in your Sunday School geology class, though, did they?

Re:That's odd... (1)

cirby (2599) | about 2 years ago | (#39841571)

Not the ones that show up as having dramatic expansion. Pretty much anything more than a mile inland isn't going to have a direct connection to the ocean.

Re:That's odd... (1)

isopropanol (1936936) | about 2 years ago | (#39838417)

Also I think their DEM is not very precise... looking at 6m I can see the neck of Gabriola sands park of Gabriola Island still exposed but that neck is only about 3m above the high tide line now.

Re:That's odd... (2)

ankhank (756164) | about 2 years ago | (#39838961)

The "current IPCC report" 2007 (Fourth) explicitly did not consider sea level rise and gave _lower_ numbers than the Third
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5-leaflet.pdf [www.ipcc.ch]
"due in 2014, will provide an update"
What do we know better now?
Example: See the illustrations at: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rosenzweig_03/ [nasa.gov]

Re:That's odd... (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 2 years ago | (#39839109)

Exactly. When the next AR comes out, I can already hear the deniers: "Bah, they never mentioned much sea level rise before - why now? They clearly don't know what they're talking about! All the climatologists must have bought real estate a couple hundred feet inland! They're all evil, I tell ya! Probably paid off by Al Gore too!"

Re:That's odd... (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | about 2 years ago | (#39839669)

The "current IPCC report" 2007 (Fourth) explicitly did not consider sea level rise and gave _lower_ numbers than the Third

If the AR4 report didn't consider sea level rise, how did it give any numbers at all, let alone lower numbers?

I think what you meant to say is that it didn't explicitly consider sea level rise from fast ice sheet dynamics. It did consider thermometric sea level rise, as well as sea level rise from glaciers and some estimates of "slow" ice sheet dynamics.

What they should do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39839205)

Too bad they cannot calculate for a DROP in see level; I try to put in negative numbers and it does not work;

Re:That's odd... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39840071)

Since my house is somewhere between 38-42 feet above sea level, and even at 40m the water is close but not there yet, I'm betting this map is like the Hubble and there was a mistake in translation of the data size unit. Most likely the data is in feet, not meters, so using the "1" is most likely the 0.3 meter "most probable".

Re:That's odd... (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 2 years ago | (#39842709)

Current estimates for sea level rise by 2100 are in the 1-2 meter range. These were made after the IPCC AR4 was issued.

Re:That's odd... (1)

Vintermann (400722) | about 2 years ago | (#39842725)

The IPCC projection does not take calving (in other words, glaciers gliding off into the sea as opposed to just melting) into account. It is thus a superconservative estimate. Observed sea level rise is already above it.

Of course, this map would be boring without the option to enter really spectacular numbers. 1m sea level rise may mean millions are displaced or die, but it doesn't look very impressive on a map.

Houston (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39838277)

Damn. It takes 20m to sink Houston

Re:Houston (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39841237)

Nah, it only took a couple feet of bathwater...

BOOM! (...too soon?)

denmark & holland fucked (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#39838279)

along with bangladesh. and well, other areas are not that bad off. if the change wasn't rapid the 60m doesn't look like end of the world on global scale, even if it was rapid not the end of the world.

and hey, lot's of stuff for coral to grow on.

Re:denmark & holland fucked (1)

ongelovigehond (2522526) | about 2 years ago | (#39839011)

Those places would actually be fucked with 0m sea level rise if it weren't for the levee system. The map isn't really accurate for those places, as it assumes that all levees and dikes will be breached with a +1 meter sea level rise, which may not be necessarily true.

I imagine this could be useful... (1)

blind biker (1066130) | about 2 years ago | (#39838281)

I guess this could be useful to determine the level of risk one incurs when buying property at a given location. I say "guess", because the site is slashdotted and I have no first-hand experience of how it works and what level of detail it gives.

Not NASA (4, Informative)

ripler (19188) | about 2 years ago | (#39838287)

As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with NASA. It looks like a ploy to get better search rankings for firetree.net.

something something slashdot editors something.

I don't see how NASA's name got attached to this. (5, Informative)

mongoose(!no) (719125) | about 2 years ago | (#39838303)

It's based on their DEM (digital elevation model) dataset, specifically the Shuttle Radar Terrain Mapping project, but I doubt that they had anything to do with this. There's also an ad at the bottom for flood insurance. It also looks like the guy just went through and generated a blue overlay for land lower than the sea level rise you select, which wouldn't include any backwater effects from going up rivers. He's got a website about what he did here: http://blog.firetree.net/2006/05/18/more-about-flood-maps/ [firetree.net]

Re:I don't see how NASA's name got attached to thi (1)

dnwq (910646) | about 2 years ago | (#39838409)

Hmm. That explains why it shows the Volga delta as massively flooded at +1m. In actuality the Caspian is -27m right now already, so of course +28m would be catastrophic.

5 years old, and not NASA (4, Informative)

eggstasy (458692) | about 2 years ago | (#39838357)

This website is 5 years old and has been covered on Slashdot before. It has nothing to do with NASA.
Altitude information was alledgedly taken from NASA, but you could well have done it with Google Maps API.
Or simply by superimposing a transparent blue layer on Google Earth at the altitude(s) of your choice.

redistricting (1)

tverbeek (457094) | about 2 years ago | (#39838407)

What's scary is that there are probably political analysts looking at the impact of higher sea levels on voting patterns, to see whether it would favor one political party or another and at what level. I just hope they're accounting for the fact that all those coastal lib'ruls whose homes would be flooded would simply move inland rather than disappearing into the sea.

Netherlands (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39838431)

Dutch people - RUN away! Why your land has not yet been flooded is beyond me.

Why NASA? (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 2 years ago | (#39838467)

Why is NASA poking it's nose into this? Does this has anything to do with Aeronautics or Space? Maybe if NASA was more restrictive about mission creep we wouldn't be hitch-hiking into space with the Russians. At best NASA should be acting as a contractor launching a satellite or two for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. If they have enough resources to bully their way into other Agencies areas of responsibility, maybe they have too many.

Wrong algorithm (2)

MathiasRav (1210872) | about 2 years ago | (#39838499)

The map is wildly inaccurate. Look at this gravel pit [firetree.net] near Petersburg, VA: Because the pit is close to sea level, the map claims it will be flooded at a 2 m sea level rise. In reality, it would probably take a 60 m sea level rise for it to flood because of the height of the surrounding terrain.

It looks like NASA just did a plane intersection with the terrain. If the height above sea level at this point is lower than a threshold, then they claim it will be flooded when the sea rises to this threshold. This is the reason why the Netherlands seems to be all flooded on the map - dams are completely ignored by this algorithm.

Look at a sea level rise map of the same gravel pit [scalgo.com] in a calculation that takes the global terrain into account. You need to set the water level to 60 m for the sea to spill over into the gravel pit.

Re:Wrong algorithm (1)

arse maker (1058608) | about 2 years ago | (#39838877)

As others have said NASA didn't make this.
And I don't think anyone is saying this is anything but a fun hacking project this guy tried. No organization respectable or otherwise is supporting this.

Its a cool idea as a hacking project but its not going to get much treatment for being that in such a charged topic as climate change.

Its much safer to post a video of baby rape on slashdot :)

Re:Wrong algorithm (1)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about 2 years ago | (#39841039)

Others have made this point. I think they glossed over the concept of a water table. However, they didn't live on River Road

Biblical fail (1)

Dan East (318230) | about 2 years ago | (#39838643)

Okay, so in addition to this not involving NASA and the data being 5 years old, the biblical references are wrong too. Heston played Moses, who parted the Red Sea. "raise sea levels on a biblical scale" would refer to the great flood, and that involved Noah (and even then he didn't cause the flood). So I have no idea what Charlton Heston has to do with this in even the most convoluted possible way.

Congress take notice! (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#39838685)

2 meters puts floods on the National Mall!

Of course, that would take an awful lot of ice melting. There's only enough ice on Greenland to raise sea levels 7 meters and only enough on Antarctica to raise it 123 meters. Holy crap!

But the latter isn't likely to happen -- not totally anyway. Greenland is within the realm of reasonably likely this could happen in the next century.

Re:Congress take notice! (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 2 years ago | (#39839141)

Except that sea level rise is mostly due to thermal expansion of water, not ice melt.

Re:Congress take notice! (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#39841809)

That's what doesn't make sense to me. The current mean temperature of the ocean is about 4C, according to this source [tamu.edu]. And at 4C, the CTE is zero.

But I have a hard time squaring that with this graph [tamu.edu]

The graph makes it look like most of the Earth's oceans have surface temperatures significantly higher. Maybe the penetration that warmth to lower levels isn't very great?

Re:Congress take notice! (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 2 years ago | (#39842221)

Actually I was wrong. I just read up a little more and today it's between 50/50 and 1/3rd thermal expansion and 2/3rds ice melt, depending on the source.
But yeah, the water temperature has a very clear gradient. It is up to 30s near the equator at the surface and slightly below zero at the bottom since the bottom water comes from the highly saline water that remains when ice freezes out at the surface. That cold dense saline water is what drives the global circulation. So some has a small expansion coefficient (even slightly negative) and some has a large one. That doesn't mean that the overall expansion has to be zero. The wonders of calculus.

Re:Congress take notice! (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#39853679)

Yeah, I find the calculus particularly hard without knowing the global distribution of water temperature and depth in every cubic meter of ocean.

Off in North Carolina (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39839003)

I wonder what elevation data NASA is using? I work with the Lidar derived elevation data in NC every day and in the mainland behind the Outer Banks. When I crank sea level flooding up to 1m, Most of Alligator River refuge is under water. You have to crank it up to 7M on the NASA site to get the same effect... Methinks they have some data issues.

BIG parts missing (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about 2 years ago | (#39839077)

Basically, if the caps melt and your get 60m flooding, the tropical and temperate zones are unihabitable, not just from the heat, but the humidity and wet bulb issues. So, everyone will move north or to antarctica, and what are the two parts of the world missing? Antarctica and the arctic. nice. so basically, everywhere no one is goign to live we can see, but the areas we are goign to move to, we have no mapping. Brilliant.

Odd verbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39839177)

I laughed when I saw the phrase "buy into global warming"; as if it's something being peddled by a snake oil salesman.

Salton Sea, Death Valley (1)

mbstone (457308) | about 2 years ago | (#39839485)

More water in the Salton Sea at +7M you could argue. Where would the water come from to accumulate in Death Valley??

Narragansett Bay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39840661)

Glad to see my home state of Rhode Island will not be affected by any sea level rise!

Water table at Nottingham (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 2 years ago | (#39840697)

...is only 26m AMSL, so say the yardsticks every half mile sticking out of the Trent. The map doesn't blue out until 40m. I call shenanigans.

Not so bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39844983)

Not too bad, even at 60m rise, only about 1/2 of LA is underwater, nowhere near as much as I had hoped.

I'm surprised how little land is lost (1)

JTsyo (1338447) | about 2 years ago | (#39845253)

Had the height set to 60m. west coast of the US only loses a bit. Most of Florida is gone and maybe a few miles in on the eastern seaboard. I was thinking 60m would be like 30% of land lost.

Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39847433)

Some land that my parents own near Columbia, SC, which I may inherit, will become less than a mile away from the "coast" assuming a 60m increase. Here's hoping for some beach front property by the time I'm 90!

Population displacement (1)

saveferrousoxide (2566033) | about 2 years ago | (#39870273)

What would have made this really interesting is to see population densities with an estimate of how many people would actually be displaced at the different levels. Because really, who cares if land that no one lived on anyway is now under 2 feet of water? I vaguely remember that project floating around out there too, but my curiosity isn't sufficient to chase it down.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account