×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Ask Slashdot: Best Biometric Authentication System?

Jane Q. Public Re:RFID/card scanner (126 comments)

It means nothing of the sort. That is an assumption on your part.

OP asked for "biometric" ID, okay? RFID, cards, NFC, etc. are not biometric. The reasonable assumption -- unlike yours -- is that he had an actual REASON for asking for biometrics. People don't usually say things for no reason.

Having said that, most consumer-level biometrics are crap. Despite Apple, fingerprint readers are crap for any kind of real security. Capacitance is even worse. You can foil it (pun intended, but pretty literally) with a tinfoil hat.

My best recommendation would be voice recognition. Not the "Hey, Google, where is 'Interstellar' playing nearby?" kind but the person-recognition kind. It's pretty good and not terribly expensive.

yesterday
top

Two Google Engineers Say Renewables Can't Cure Climate Change

Jane Q. Public Re:Maybe, maybe not. (630 comments)

Please total up a reasonable estimate of the cost of the CO2 and get back to me. "Horrendous" is not acceptable. I want figures based on real science and economics.

Pretty obviously there is no such figure. So far, nobody has managed to prove damage to date over the last couple of decades is any higher than ZERO. Sure, there have been lots of claims but there have been lots of claims of UFOs too. I want evidence.

You don't get to ruin MY economy simply because you're a coward who will believe anything you're told.

yesterday
top

Two Google Engineers Say Renewables Can't Cure Climate Change

Jane Q. Public Re:Maybe, maybe not. (630 comments)

Give me a fucking break. Google may be "more" responsible than "some" companies about what it does with my information, but that hardly makes it a saint.

I'm not going to bother listing the UNETHICAL things Google has done. They are all around us. Should I count how many times it has been to court -- and either LOST or settled -- over privacy violation issues? Does that sound like an angel acting in your best interest?

I could go on for ages, but why should I? Your implication that Google is somehow "ethical" just because it doesn't do the worst of the shit that others do is ridiculous on its face.

yesterday
top

LinkedIn Study: US Attracting Fewer Educated, Highly Skilled Migrants

Jane Q. Public Re:America's loss is Africa's gain (324 comments)

The population density argument simply doesn't hold water, as otherwise all US cities would have far better internet than all of Europe, which is laughable.

No, you have it backward. The FIRST problem is that the Internet companies are badly (and inadequately) regulated. That's what causes internet to be worse there. The density problem in rural areas just makes it WORSE.

yesterday
top

Bitcoin Is Not Anonymous After All

Jane Q. Public Re:Aw man (114 comments)

You're fooling yourself. No one is safe from researchers.

Yeah, especially the taxpaying American public in recent years, it seems.

yesterday
top

Harvard Scientists Say It's Time To Start Thinking About Engineering the Climate

Jane Q. Public Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (367 comments)

Good grief, not this nonsense again. I never described a positive feedback loop that occured only once, then stopped. In fact, several months ago I explained that the equations I'm using account for an infinite series of reflections. But as MIT explained, this infinite sum converges to a finite temperature.

As usual, you have your context scrambled again.

I was referring to your original "solution" to Spencer's problem, which you posted publicly on your website as a "refutation" of a comment of my own. Your explanation of how you found that solution led directly to a positive feedback loop, which I mentioned to you at the time. That has been a couple of years now.

But you have never acknowledged your original error. Ever moving the goalposts, ever finding new "explanations" for how your "solution" somehow didn't ACTUALLY violate conservation of energy.

This is why I don't engage you on this. My comments are only for the edification of other readers. You and I have been over this many, many times now, and your repetition of your BAD PHYSICS isn't going to make it any more true.

It's pretty clear that Jane refuses to ask this simple question because he's just scared Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) will say "yes", which would mean that Jane's entire calculation is wrong, from the very first equation.

It should be pretty clear to anybody who has actually been following these exchanges that I'm just not playing your game. My solution was already demonstrated to be true, and your solution was already demonstrated to be false. I have no obligation -- or reason -- to engage in your game of "No, but you HAVE TO do it this way...". Especially when "mainstream physicists" and textbooks on the subject say I don't.

No, I don't have to do it according to your own ill-conceived notions. I already did it, my way... that is to say, the "mainstream physics" way.

Have a nice day. Or not.

yesterday
top

Ask Slashdot: Best Biometric Authentication System?

Jane Q. Public Re:RFID/card scanner (126 comments)

An AC first post hits the nail on the head.

And AC first post -- and the first responder to the post -- appear to have been hit on the heat by a very heavy nail.

RFID, chips, cards, etc. have the SAME "problem" as IP addresses: they don't identify the PERSON, they just identify the identification. If someone else is holding the identification, all bets are off.

Entire movies have been made about this. I mean, come on.

yesterday
top

Jackie Chan Discs Help Boost Solar Panel Efficiency

Jane Q. Public Re:Copyright? (188 comments)

One day the sun will kick your ass.

yesterday
top

DragonFly BSD 4.0 Released

Jane Q. Public Re:Difference versus FreeBSD? (64 comments)

That really is a concern for many distros, though.

I have to admit that the Linux principle "do one thing and do it well" actually does work. Did some things need improvement? Yes. But systemd has become like a Cthulhu in the system, with tentacles everywhere, far beyond its original concept.

I have to agree with some others who have said that systemd resembles Windows a hell of a lot more than Linux.

yesterday
top

Auto Industry Teams Up With Military To Stop Car Hacking

Jane Q. Public Re:First rule of computer security!!! (113 comments)

The sad part is that preventing this is really easy

Yes. I think it is pretty clear that the auto makers got themselves into this mess -- as they have often done -- by doing stupid shit they did not understand.

yesterday
top

Clarificiation on the IP Address Security in Dropbox Case

Jane Q. Public Re:"Keep reading to see what Bennett has to say" (147 comments)

Pardon me for hijacking this higher position, but a serious pet peeve has been triggered.

Hey, Bennett, or samzenpus, or whoever did it:

You do NOT put your own hypotheticals in quotes. Got it? Quotes are used for QUOTING OTHER PEOPLE. That's their purpose. Learn it. Use it. And it's usually best if readers can tell who is being quoted, even if only via context.

Thank you very much.

yesterday
top

Clarificiation on the IP Address Security in Dropbox Case

Jane Q. Public Re:"Keep reading to see what Bennett has to say" (147 comments)

Use this greasemonkey script to hide Bennett's shit from the main (and "older") pages. http://pastebin.com/RWCxT0jJ (I disable it once in a while to check for his shit so I can tell people about the script.)

Give Haselton a break. He has done us all not just one but many public services.

Having said that... let's be honest: sometimes Haselton expounds on things that are very clearly not in his area of expertise, and certain Slashdot editors (for that is exactly what they are) probably give him too much "air time" on Slashdot. Especially, it seems, when he is expounding on something that is not in his area of expertise.

But while this one is rather long-winded, it IS an issue everyone here should pay attention to, regardless of whether we happen to agree with Haselton and his analysis.

If Haselton bores you, blame the editor(s) for putting him up too often, in regard to things he is hardly an acknowleged authority.

yesterday
top

Harvard Scientists Say It's Time To Start Thinking About Engineering the Climate

Jane Q. Public Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (367 comments)

In case my point wasn't clear, I'll spell it out explicitly:

I don't give a damn if Postma is rude... as long as his physics is sound.

Like me, he has had to deal with innumerable assaults by other rude people, who DON'T understand the physics. After a time, that does have an effect, and one gets to the point of having a short fuse. That's just human nature, when people are exposed to bullying and harassment for years on end.

If people are bothered by his rudeness, and wonder what caused it, many of them need only look in a mirror. I have little sympathy for them.

2 days ago
top

Harvard Scientists Say It's Time To Start Thinking About Engineering the Climate

Jane Q. Public Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (367 comments)

Mr. Postma's derogatory phrases are why I've often been puzzled that Jane cites... Mr. Postma

I cite Mr. Postma because he understands the physics of the problem better than you do.

End of story.

I found it very interesting that his followup article, which I also discovered just today, mentioned the same problem with your version of the physics of Spencer's experiment that I mentioned to you in our prior discussion. To wit:

(a) Your math was fundamentally in error, in that you counted some radiated power twice, and

(b) If your idea of the physics were correct, a heat source within a cavity of the same material would form a positive feedback loop and heat to infinity. Which of course is ridiculous. You never did adequately explain how your positive feedback could occur only once, and then stop.

All in all, I found his arguments to be mathematically and physically sound, and yours not. That is why I have stopped arguing the point with you. Repeating unsound physics over and over is not going to make it more true, no matter how much you might wish it would.

2 days ago
top

Two Google Engineers Say Renewables Can't Cure Climate Change

Jane Q. Public Re:Maybe, maybe not. (630 comments)

It was a business venture, and they knew it wouldn't succeed based on morals alone.

They knew it wouldn't succeed based on economics alone. At no time in recent years would I have called Google very cognizant of morals.

2 days ago
top

Harvard Scientists Say It's Time To Start Thinking About Engineering the Climate

Jane Q. Public Re:We've been doing it for a long time (367 comments)

What issues, raised by whom, in what scientific journal? Link?

I have frequently been astounded by your ability to find past information that suits your purposes, but when it comes to information that may serve to contradict your position, you suddenly appear to have never heard of Google. It is SO ridiculously easy to find references to issues with GRACE that I'm not going to bother to do it for you, and only an idiot would call that confirmation of a contrary position.

By the way -- and admittedly this is slightly, but only slightly, off-topic -- in regard to your Spencer's thought experiment, last year Astrophysicist Joe Postma wrote that your argument in regard to the physics was ... well, let's just say he used rather derogatory phrases. I was not aware of this article until today, but I thought you might find it of some interest.

So you should either stop incorrectly claiming that the globe isn't warming, or stop citing Llovel et al. 2014 because their conclusion depends on net warming from 2005 to 2013.

I cited Llovel et al. because of their conclusion regarding the deep ocean. I have already stated what research I would have to do before I could responsibly make a claim that the globe was warming.

3 days ago
top

Harvard Scientists Say It's Time To Start Thinking About Engineering the Climate

Jane Q. Public Re:We've been doing it for a long time (367 comments)

I have no intention -- or reason, for that matter -- to reply to you about something someone may have written on Twitter.

However, regarding what you asked above, I have a question of my own: are you unaware of the issues that have been raised about GRACE? That seems unlikely.

You seemed to suggest that some blog summary of sea surface temperatures contradicted the Llovel et al. 2014 claim of significant warming down to 2000m. Since we now seem to agree that there is significant warming down to 2000m, there's no reason to accuse anyone of dishonesty.

I have already admitted I made an error.

But as for dishonesty, yes, you have given me ample and frequent reason to think you have been less than honest. So I won't apologize for suspecting you may be doing so at times when you may not actually be. "Fool me once..." as the saying goes. Here is an example:

Since we now seem to agree that there is significant warming down to 2000m,

Nowhere did I write such a thing. So when you continually -- rather routinely, in my experience, as I have demonstrated on many occasions in the past -- suggest I have stated things that in fact I have not, I have to wonder what the reason is. Given the context and past experience, Occam's Razor would seem to indicate dishonesty. I know of no other reason that is anywhere even remotely as likely.

I'm claiming that this conclusion is inconsistent with your claims that the globe isn't warming. Can we agree that even the bottom edge of the confidence interval is positive, indicating net warming from 2005 to 2013?

No, without looking into it further, I do not agree. I'm not claiming that it is false, either... I would have to look some things up, which I am not free to do at the moment.

One thing I would have to check, just for example, is what those confidence intervals are given the multidecadal variability, which is not -- at least not uncontroversially -- known to any precise degree yet. What has been claimed to be a newly discovered variability in the Atlantic has turned up, for example. Not to mention that we know during La Niña periods of ENSO there tends to be storage, while during El Niño, more of a release. All these factors would need to be considered. Until I do, I neither agree or disagree.

3 days ago
top

Harvard Scientists Say It's Time To Start Thinking About Engineering the Climate

Jane Q. Public Re:We've been doing it for a long time (367 comments)

Jane/Lonny Eachus used to agree that temperatures above 2000m depth were known and were no surprise while simultaneously claiming that the globe isn't warming. When he realizes the contradiction, which path will he take? Will Jane/Lonny realize this means that the globe is still warming? Or will Jane/Lonny just reflexively dismiss the temperatures above 2000m depth?

Engaging in your usual context-shifting, I see. But even more: how could I be "reflexively dismissing it" if my own statement, which you quoted, was "THOSE temperatures are no surprise and have already been accounted for"??? , That makes absolutely no sense. No great surprise there, I suppose.

Total sea level rise can be measured using satellite altimetry, and land ice melting can be measured by using the GRACE satellites

Assuming the rather huge problems with GRACE's accuracy have been fixed. It is claimed they were. Perhaps they have been.

But it's worse than that. For some reason, Jane seems to think that he can cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures, while also claiming their upper ocean temperatures aren't correct.

Except I did not do that. You have had a very nasty habit of twisting what other people say. That's dishonest. I've pointed that out to you many times, over a period of years. You really need to start reading what people actually say rather than interpreting so heavily.

Oh, and once again: ocean temperatures down to 2000m are different than sea surface temperatures.

Now, THAT is a fair point. I did in fact get surface temperatures mixed up with upper ocean temperatures. Mea culpa.

But I am just curious. Just a straightforward question: are you now claiming, as you seem to be, that the "missing heat" cause of the pause in surface warming is actually hiding in the UPPER ocean, rather than the lower?

3 days ago
top

LinkedIn Study: US Attracting Fewer Educated, Highly Skilled Migrants

Jane Q. Public Re:America's loss is Africa's gain (324 comments)

Most Americans will never comprehend this reality. This is the same mental block that prevents their parents from comprehending that Europeans have built superior internet and phone services. The same thing prevented their parents from realizing that the Japanese were making far superior cars.

You have a point but it is grossly over-stated. First, it is very clear why the U.S. telephone and internet infrastructure currently suck: incompetent (or in some cases corrupt) regulation. When ISPs and phone service providers are allowed to act as oligopolies, they just pocket their money and run, rather than properly investing in better infrastructure. Because they can.

However, there is another issue that is mostly unrelated: the U.S. is less densely populated than most "Western" countries, and the cost of infrastructure for providing comparable service is provably higher. That doesn't excuse the monopolists and incompetent bureaucrats, still it is true. And the U.S. government's attempt to fix the rural infrastructure problem was a comedy of errors, literally ridiculous cost overruns, and incompetence.

So you can lay the blame for a lot of this -- perhaps most of it -- directly at the feet of the U.S. government.

Back when we had a telephone system that was a properly regulated utility, it was demonstrably better than in the vast majority of Europe. Many European countries still had competing land-line services that were wholly incompatible with one another.

Also: in the beginning, the Japanese were not making cars that were "far superior" to those built in the U.S.. What they were making were cars that got better mileage and were inexpensive. The quality left a hell of a lot to be desired. So that statement is just plain wrong.

Over time, the quality got better and the U.S. manufacturers (also effectively an oligopoly, or so they thought) did not keep up. So much is undeniable.

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  |  about a year ago

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 2 years 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  |  more than 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?