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!

Comments

top

Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

Jane Q. Public Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (81 comments)

Jane keeps insisting that this Sky Dragon Slayer equation describes electrical heating power:

In a particular, very specific context, which you have not bothered to explain here.

No, Jane/Lonny Eachus's Slayer nonsense has been scientifically shown to violate conservation of energy.

No, it hasn't. It has been "khayman80 shown to violate something... I'm not sure what. But you "scientifically" show squat... you didn't even use the appropriate equations for the context of the problem under discussion.

I repeat: your use of a heat transfer equation, rather than a radiant power equation, to calculate the radiant power output of the hottest object in an isolated vacuum environment is just laughable. Your own "power in = power out" claim shows it to be wrong. It contradicts your own calculations, which I showed to be wrong 3 different ways. Hell, you even got some simple math wrong.

Your repeated, out-of context claims notwithstanding.

I repeat: I will be publishing this for all to see. Your repeated protests are only going to make you look that much more foolish... or dishonest. I'll let the readers decide on that one.

yesterday
top

Canada Will Ship 800 Doses of Experimental Ebola Drug to WHO

Jane Q. Public Re:Tax dollars at work. (101 comments)

Jane becasue of certain common responses on Slashdot that your post could be understood in two ways is not solely your fault. Unfortunately you created a misunderstanding because you did not originally identify that your intent was to bring attention to the difference.

Perhaps. Reading my original comment again, I do see how it could be taken two ways. But one of them would be a mistake, and one of them would not.

When there is ambiguity, should the reader assume the meaning that would be a mistake? Or is it more likely the writer meant it the other way, which is not a mistake?

Regardless, I shall try to keep this in mind.

yesterday
top

Google Changes 'To Fight Piracy' By Highlighting Legal Sites

Jane Q. Public Re:Is Google Losing It? (156 comments)

They ALREADY put ads on top. They have for years.

No shit, Sherlock. Figured that out, did you?

This is the same.

No, this is NOT the same. The ads they put at the top are separated from the rest of the search results, and clearly marked (as required by law... at least it is for newspapers) as advertisements or "sponsored" content.

This is different. The claim is that they will rearrange based on some subjective measure of the "legitimacy" of the content. That is not the same at all. It's not just advertising, it's changing your search results according to endorsement by Google.

I don't give the slightest DAMN what Google thinks about the contents of sites I search for. I just want honest search results, not "paid distortions" of their order.

yesterday
top

Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

Jane Q. Public Re:WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (81 comments)

The assertion you claimed was supported by scientific papers: I'll help GP a bit and show you [ a paper detailing geothermal activity as the cause of the observed melting of the west antarctic ice shelf ].

That is very far from what I actually stated. GP claimed not to have seen any papers about geothermal activity. I supplied one. End of story. I did not claim it was any kind of proof of what anybody else said.

Don't try to put words in my mouth, unless you want to make an instant enemy. That's not ethical.

yesterday
top

Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

Jane Q. Public Re:WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (81 comments)

So what is the cause of the rest of the melting?

Why the hell are you asking me? I simply pointed to a paper about volcanic activity under the Western ice sheet. Did you see me anywhere here claiming I was an expert about it?

My suggestion would be to go find someone who is loudly proclaiming their vast knowledge of the subject... then ask someone else, and you are probably more likely to get the truth.

But I specifically deny expertise about the Western ice sheet. Maybe I'll go learn about it.

yesterday
top

Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

Jane Q. Public Re:WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (81 comments)

I'm going to call this Myth Busted on the 20 seconds claim alone.

You call it wrong. If all you did was Google "GISS" and "Goddard", that's a pretty obvious fail. You look pretty silly basing any call on that.

You know, it's funny how "khayman80", and people like you, who write in ways that are remarkably similar, tend to pop up at the same time in the same places. And in particular, much like the comments by "khayman80", all of "your" comments seem to be about global warming (aka "climate change").

Hmmmm.... I think I smell yet another sockpuppet. Does anybody know how long "Truth_Quark" has been around Slashdot?

yesterday
top

Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

Jane Q. Public Re:WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (81 comments)

Ah, the muckraker troll rears his head again.

Would you all like to see his dumbass failure at trying to school me in thermodynamics? All you have to do is follow his comments back a ways. A long ways... because he kept making the same nonsense arguments, over, and over, and over again, even after he had been shown how wrong they were.

I will invite everyone to my complete writeup (which, unlike his comments, won't take others out of context or distort their statements... I promise a true accounting). This will take quite a while since he was actually trolling about this for over two years, in various forums.

yesterday
top

Sale of IBM's Chip-Making Business To GlobalFoundries To Get US Security Review

Jane Q. Public Re:Abu Dubai???? (94 comments)

Which is a valid concern and deserves consideration.

It deserves a hell of a lot more than just "consideration". I honestly believe "NO" is the only rational answer.

yesterday
top

Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

Jane Q. Public Re:WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (81 comments)

The actual paper (which cites the one you linked to) says geothermal activity is responsible for part of the melting, not all of it. I'm getting used to you either lying or being confused by abstracts. It explains your ridiculous position which flies in the face of evidence.

Pardon me... do you see anywhere here where I claimed it was responsible for "all" the melting?

Attributing words to me that I didn't write is the only lie here. Why did you do that?

2 days ago
top

Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

Jane Q. Public Re:WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (81 comments)

You think if I read some anti-science blogs I would find that science is all wrong, and that the real truth can only be found in blogs that say that the scientists are all lying?

What makes you think "Steve Goddard's" blog is "anti-science"? Because it doesn't conform to your world-view? That's name-calling, not an argument.

Goddard examines raw data records and compares against the "adjusted" data. This is what allowed him (and others) to show the massive amount of manipulation that is done to data that comes out of NCDC, and GISS in particular. GISS has been widely criticized for questionable manipulation of its data sets, and in fact not long ago it was found (by who? your "anti-science" Steve Goddard that NCDC was improperly "infilling" as much as 40% of its data in some cases from temperature stations that were offline or did not even exist.

Not only that, NCDC publicly admitted that infilling was a problem, that they had known about it (for some unspecified time), and that they "intended to fix it" at some unspecified time in the future. Nobody knows how long they had known about it or when they intend to fix it.

Obviously, nobody needs to "fix" something that is working properly.

Granted, Goddard got some things wrong in the beginning, but lately he's been getting a lot more right, as even GISS has admitted.

Further, your sources are not all "independent", since most of them incestuously rely on the same questionable data sets. It doesn't have to be "a conspiracy" or "lying", if they all work with the same questionable data. This is a valid point that people have been making for well over a decade.

So don't sit there and tell me what your vaunted sources say, until you address the data they are all using. There are KNOWN serious problems with it. Not just minor problems; big ones.

I suspect that this is bullshit.

You suspect incorrectly. My "collection" consists of web links to official data, of course, it's not all right here on my hard drive. But I do have it. Don't expect me to post it all here on Slashdot. Regardless, your "suspicions" are irrelevant.

I see you don't read your own links very well. From the abstract of the first paper: These adjustments yield large increases (2.2â"7.1 Ã-- 1022 J 35 yr1) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates, and have important implications for sea level, the planetary energy budget and climate sensitivity assessments.

I see you didn't read my comment very well, AND have poor analysis skills. First, the conclusion is drawn from the second paper, which references the first. Second, the Argo array has been measuring the upper-level sea temperatures since 2005. THOSE temperatures are no surprise and have already been accounted for.

Deep ocean warming was the last gasp attempt to show that the CO2-based warming models were sound, by discovering the "missing heat" that they predict. There is none. Therefore the CO2-based warming models are unsound.

You can try to obfuscate this fact all you like, but it really doesn't get much simpler than that.

Hell, even the majority of climate scientists admit that it hasn't really warmed for 16 years or more now.

Really. Citation please.

Seriously? Do you know absolutely nothing about the subject you are discussing, and pretending to refute me on?

Even the latest IPCC AR report, which is of course based largely on the questionable mentioned data above, admitted that warming in the last 15 years has been a paltry 0.075 degrees C. Read it yourself. 10 seconds on Google can find the actual report.

If there wasn't a real "pause", why would Pachauri say this in 2012? Doesn't IPCC represent what alarmists have been claiming are the majority of "mainstream scientists"?

Hadley Centre/CRU temperature records -- the ones that largely started this whole alarmism thing -- themselves now show no warming for over 17 years.

This continued claiming that the trends in temperature data are significantly upward, when the actual "trend" is far smaller than the error bars, must stop. It's garbage science.

2 days ago
top

Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

Jane Q. Public Re:WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (81 comments)

If you don't believe, try looking HERE, and HERE.

I have quite a collection of official government raw data that show a very different truth than what NOAA claims.

Hell, even the majority of climate scientists admit that it hasn't really warmed for 16 years or more now. Their last best hope for explaining why their CO2-warming climate models didn't correspond with reality was that the "missing heat" was hiding in the deep ocean.

Alas, THIS PAIR OF PAPERS shows rather solidly that there isn't any "missing heat" being stored in the deep oceans.

Too bad, so sad. Which is sarcasm, of course. People should be celebrating (and some are). But too many are so caught up in their ties to research grants or their "CO2 religion" to admit they're looking more foolish by the day.

2 days ago
top

Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

Jane Q. Public Re:WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (81 comments)

The last 6 months were the warmest on record for the NOAA and the GISTEMP data sets, so I think that the hiatus may have finished.

NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim.

And it's just like them to do so. They choose whichever dataset that supports their pre-formed conclusions. The satellite record has shown a slight but real cooling trend for a decade and a half, and a year that has actually been one of the COOLEST on record. Not the coldest ever, but right down there in the bottom 10.

Also, sea level is not rising. That is to say, it isn't rising any faster today than it has for the last couple of hundred years. About 1-1.5 mm per year, on average.

The amount of fudging that NOAA and its NCDC have to accomplish to make this year actually look warm, much less a record, is nothing short of incredible. I mean that word literally: in-credible.

2 days ago
top

Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Jane Q. Public Re: Moral Imperialism (470 comments)

I meant to say:

Freedom of speech is an area in which legislators are obliged to tread very carefully, and this kind of situation is especially full of traps, because it borders so closely on "thought crime".

2 days ago
top

Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Jane Q. Public Re: Moral Imperialism (470 comments)

But as far as I know, obscenity laws are completely different from the law/s against child pornography. The difference being that obscenity laws do not regulate possession, only distribution. You can't be prosecuted for owning something that is obscene, only for distributing it.

In the U.S. they are different. But this statute is trying to link them, and I'm not sure that would stand up to a Constitutional test.

One thing our Supreme Court established long ago is that government cannot establish what is obscene by statute. It must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Look up the Miller Test.

And that is why they worded it this way. They aren't making artificial depictions of child pornography illegal; they're simply making them illegal *IF* they fail the Miller Test. But that's redundant, because things that fail the Miller Test are already, by definition, obscene.

So it's a law with no apparent purpose except grandstanding. Unless its purpose was to change the punishment for this particular obscene material.

I am not defending child pornography. But any responsible statute has to balance the good it does with the potential harm (because there is almost always some of both). Freedom of speech is an area in which legislators are obliged to tread very carefully.

2 days ago
top

Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Jane Q. Public Re: Moral Imperialism (470 comments)

Seriously. Even if it's not obscene, however that works, you still risk being called a pedophile given that trials are on the record, right?

This kind of argument deserves to be taken out behind the woodshed and shot dead.

The question here wasn't what someone is willing to risk. It was about what is LEGAL. And to answer your question: YES, as long as something I do is LEGAL, I am not going to cower in a corner and be afraid of the damage false prosecution would do to my perceived character. To do so would be abject cowardice.

Having said that, I do not intentionally involve myself in any way with ANY kind of depictions of child pornography, real or fake, simply because I find it morally objectionable. But in a free and rational society, morality informs the law, not the other way around. They are two very different things.

2 days ago
top

Google Changes 'To Fight Piracy' By Highlighting Legal Sites

Jane Q. Public Re:Is Google Losing It? (156 comments)

Google doesn't really change anything.

YES, they ARE! It's a search engine. Changing the order of the search results changes EVERYTHING.

And by their own admission, they're doing based on [A] payment, and [B] their subjective perception of whether the content is real.

I repeat: that *IS* modifying search results, and they're doing it for money.

When I search, I'm not searching for the highest bidder.

This is why I am using Google less and less now. I have actually started using Bing (which in some ways isn't much better), and I'm giving DuckDuckGo a serious try.

2 days ago
top

Your Online TV Watching Can Now Be Tracked Across Devices

Jane Q. Public Re:Now I'm even happier I cancelled Netflix. (126 comments)

Because there's no wh*re like an old wh*re.

I think the vast majority of the votes are in by now, and "Surveillance For The Purpose Of Targeted Ads" was voted just plain evil.

2 days ago
top

Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Jane Q. Public Re: Moral Imperialism (470 comments)

Just FYI, the rule against illegal cartoons exists in the USA too. The Supreme Court struck down attempts to use CP laws in this way as being obvious nonsense, so Congress just went ahead and amended the law to make it explicitly illegal as opposed to implicitly illegal.

I do not believe this is true. I was aware of the SCOTUS decision but I've not even heard of this statute. Can you provide a reference?

3 days ago

Submissions

top

Global Warming Researchers Trapped In Antarctic Ice

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  about 10 months ago

Jane Q. Public (1010737) writes "Christ Turney, a climate researcher at University of New South Wales, and some other researchers chartered a ship to go to Antarctica to further their Anthropogenic Global Warming ("climate change") research.

The expedition, consisting of 74 researchers and crew, radioed for help on Christmas day, stating that they are trapped in the ice.

A chinese ice breaker called "Snow Dragon" came within a few miles of the stuck ship but had to turn back. The researchers and crew are now hoping that the ice breaker Aurora Australis, out of Australia, will be able to reach them."
top

Airport Announcement Threatens Arrest For TSA Jokes

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  1 year,11 days

Jane Q. Public (1010737) writes "In this YouTube video posted just 2 days ago, the PA system in the Houston airport tells passengers that "... inappropriate remarks OR JOKES concerning security may result in your arrest".

Even under GWB, this would have been unthinkable. And the timing is — for lack of a better way to put it — very interesting."
top

Slashdot Drastically Throttles Submission Frequency

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  about a year ago

Jane Q. Public (1010737) writes "Remember when you could submit a comment in one thread, then submit a comment in another thread after 1 minute?

Slashdot has now limited your submissions to once every 5 minutes.

I don't know about you, but there have been rare occasions in which I found even 1 minute to be stifling. 5 minutes is ridiculous. Sometimes it's possible to browse through 3 whole new topics in less than 5 minutes."
top

Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court To Not Hear Jammie Thomas Case

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  about a year and a half ago

Jane Q. Public (1010737) writes "The Jammie Thomas-Rasset case has been in the news for years now. As of the last court ruling, she has been ordered to pay $222,000 for sharing 24 songs. Her attorney argues that you can buy the same songs on iTunes for $24, and imposing a penalty of almost 10,000 times as much is "excessive and oppressive". The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Obama Administration has asked the Supreme Court to not review the case. Is this another example of this administration pandering to the copyright tro... I mean corporations, rather than The People they are supposed to represent?"

Link to Original Source
top

The Best Dennis Ritchie Quote

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  about 3 years ago

Jane Q. Public writes "

"Dennis Ritchie (1941-2011). His pointer has been cast to void *; his process has terminated with exit code 0."

Thus spake James Grimmelmann (@grimmelm), on Twitter"

top

MIT Prof. Says Power From Water is Near.

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  more than 5 years ago

Jane Q. Public writes "At the Aspen Environmental Forum yesterday, MIT Professor Daniel Nocera claimed that MIT research has found a more efficient way to hydrolyze water at room temperature with the use of cobalt and potassium phosphate, and that tomorrow's home will get its power from feul cells charged with hydrogen from plain water and a bank of inexpensive solar cells. If true, this is a major breakthrough in energy distribution and could solve many of our global energy needs."
top

Apologies!

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  more than 5 years ago

Jane Q. Public writes "I admit that I was a bit less than diplomatic; frankly I did not think I would get your attention, and it really was the kind of error that can cause bad feelings.

I will do better next time."
top

Hey, Editors!

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  more than 5 years ago

Jane Q. Public writes "Hey! Re: my article that you just posted, "FTC Warns Against Deceptive DRM"... webcasts are NOT available, and you should have checked before you changed the article to say that they were. Live streaming webcasts were available when the talks were going on, but they don't work now.

So now, you are going to get lots of readers trying to download webcasts, and blaming me when they can't. Thanks a shitload."
top

FTC says "We'll 'come calling' about deceptive

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  more than 5 years ago

Jane Q. Public writes "At the FTC's Seattle conference on DRM, FTC Director Engle started off by referencing the Sony rootkit debacle, and said that companies are going to have to get serious about disclosing DRM that may affect the usability of products. She also said that the fine print in a EULA is not good enough, and "If your advertising giveth and your EULA taketh away, don't be surprised if the FTC comes calling."
The conference was webcast live from the FTC website."
top

Scotty's Final Mission

Jane Q. Public Jane Q. Public writes  |  more than 6 years ago

Jane Q. Public writes "According to a recent article at Ars Technica, the ashes of James Doohan, who played "Scotty" in the original Star Trek series and several movies, were aboard the SpaceX III launch yesterday and were lost when the launch vehicle failed.

A fitting epitaph might be: "The engines are not meeting specification, Captain! She kinna hold out much longer!""

Journals

Jane Q. Public has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?