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!



Ford, GM Sued Over Vehicles' Ability To Rip CD Music To Hard Drive

tbannist Unbelievable (282 comments)

I can't believe this idiocy is still going on. This seems to be clearly format shifting for personal use which should be entirely legal. I hope this lawsuit gets tossed out of court and the plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendants legal costs.


The Last Three Months Were the Hottest Quarter On Record

tbannist Re:The study focuses soley on Japan (552 comments)

A Japanese agency does not have a global (as in the entire Earth) reference for 1891 with which to compare global (again, the entire Earth) temperatures for 2014

Why not? What prevents them from requesting data from other national science bodies? Is there some sort of science embargo on Japan that I don't know about?

about two weeks ago

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

tbannist Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (497 comments)

New York still hasn't flooded

Are you sure about that? I mean sure not reading the article is pretty common on Slashdot but not reading your own sources is pretty lame. The article you linked says that New York will experience more flooding under storm conditions. The top category of flooding in my linked article for the flooding damager during Hurricane Sandy in New York City is 6-18 feet of water, because the top recorded flooding level was a little over 17 feet of water. There seems to be more than a few buildings in that top category. And the article says the average flooding level in New York city will rise by an estimated 4 feet of water by 2032 (20 years after the article was published). I don't see how that can be considered good evidence for your claims no matter how I look at the issue.

about three weeks ago

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

tbannist Re:That is not how conspiracy theories work. (497 comments)

The guy should have just opened up his email voluntarily. He could then remove anything personal, which I'm guessing is his primary concern.

If he had removed anything they'd just claim that the removed emails contain the evidence that they were looking for, and more people would be inclined to believe them because they now have evidence that he's hiding something. Frankly, I suspect even if he opened up his email voluntarily and didn't remove anything personal they'd claim that obviously he'd already hidden the evidence they were looking for. Witch hunts don't end just because you're co-operating with your would-be executioners.

about three weeks ago

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

tbannist Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (497 comments)

Why can I simply multiply the temperature of the earth at 1 atm pressure by 1.176 to get the temp on venus at the same pressure?

Using the numbers from Venus Atmosphere Temperature and Pressure Profile:
Average Earth temperature: 14 degrees x 1.176 = 16 degrees Celcius
Average Venus temperature at 1 atmosphere (49.5 km above the surface): 66 degrees Celcius

It appears that you shouldn't be able to do so, and that's ignoring the question of whether the surface temperature on Earth should even be directly comparable to the temperature 49.5 km above the surface of Venus.

about three weeks ago

Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

tbannist Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (497 comments)

Anybody who denies AGW catastrophism is termed a "denier" and the 97% number is trotted out to refute them.

No, generally speaking anyone who denies that global warming is occurring is labelled a "denier", because the evidence is conclusive that it's happening. The people who deny that catastrohpic climate change could occur because of global warming ir more properly lablled as a "luke-warmer", because they generally don't believe it will get "that hot".

So it's fair to point out that the number 97% is "nonsense" when used for that purpose.

No one (but you) is using it for that purpose.

Even if the paper wasn't shoddy in its methods, its conclusion would be useless for the AGW alarmism debate, because pretty much everybody believes that climate changes and that humans "play a role".

Surprisingly, close to half of Americans don't actually believe that, they think that there's no consensus on whether global warming is occurring. Probably because their primary news sources are under the control of Rupert Murdoch who personally stands to lose money from his portfolio if it's widely acknowledged that global warming is occurring and that human emissions are a key factor. Rupert, in case you didn't know, has a lot of money invested in coal companies which would bear the brunt of the effects of regulation, carbon taxes, or carbon trading markets.

about three weeks ago

Study: Global Warming Solvable If Fossil Fuel Subsidies Given To Clean Energy

tbannist Re:How about (385 comments)

Actually, the graph you posted was quite cherry-picked, I moved the start date of each trend to the start of the indicated year or to the previous year (if it was already at the start of a year) and now they all show an upwards slope.

You're just playing games with the data.

about three weeks ago

Study: Global Warming Solvable If Fossil Fuel Subsidies Given To Clean Energy

tbannist Re: How about (385 comments)

Shouldn't you have already left for Galt's Gulch, then?

about three weeks ago

When Beliefs and Facts Collide

tbannist Re:Not surprising. (725 comments)

I was first introduced to the issue by Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", and pretty much accepted what he was saying... except that there was some nagging doubt due to things like unlabeled graphs and the like in his presentation.

Those nagging doubts? They're the manifestation of your political identity conflicting with the science.

It was when I started digging into the science that I started changing my mind. I found irresponsible handling of data, bizarre secrecy where there shouldn't be any, and so on. And all this has mushroomed in recent years.

And this is how you rationalize your refusal to accept the science. You use selective thinking to focus on minor issues while ignoring what should be the glaring obvious parts.

Case in point: the recent admission by NCDC that certain USHCN data had been derived and used improperly, and they had known it for a long time. They said they had "intended to fix it" at some undefined point in the future, but the question is: why was it not fixed already, and why had they not told anyone (including scientists) about it, even though they knew about it?

Are you referring to this? It seems like a rather minor bug.

And how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people?

Except that it hasn't been shown to be "nothing but statistical bullshit". I have yet to see a credible refutation of their claim that 97% of the published scientific articles that take a position on climate change support the consensus position that global warming is happening and driven by human activity. The argument that I'm assuming that you are referring to is the one made by Anthony Watts that they should not have excluded papers that do not discuss global climate change or global warming. However, it seems fair to me that when you are looking at positions taken on a issue to only look at papers which discuss the issue.

The IPCC's latest report states clearly that the science supporting their position is weaker than ever... yet they're even more certain that it's true. WTF?

That's a very interesting interpretation of the IPCC report, but one that most people do not get after reading the report. I strongly suspect it is a result of more selective thinking. You place undue emphasis on minor details of the report like a decrease in confidence of the link between severe weather and global average temperature and the lower of the top end of reasonable climate sensitivity, while ignoring the increase in the bottom end of reasonable climate sensitivity to conlcude that the "position is weaker than ever" while I think unbiased readers generally come away with the impression that uncertainty has decreased (because both the upper and lower limits have tightened).

Personally, I didn't believe in global warming when I first heard about it in the 90s, but since then I have been convinced that it is true. My experience with so called "skeptics" like yourself has played no little part in that belief. I have found that the actual scientific proponents tends to have well researched and detailed explanations for why and how it's happening, but the so-called skeptics tend to have arguments based on emotion and finger-pointing. Time and again you, in particular, have disappointed me with claims that were poorly backed up. Invariably when I investigate your claims I find them to be blown out of proportion, mistaken, or referencing some kook's incomprehensible arguments*.

I could, in theory, be falling for the same blinded by personal ideology issue (in your case, I believe it is your libertarian political beliefs), but fortunately (in this case) I don't have many strong political beliefs, I don't identify strongly with greens, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists or communists. So I'm inclined to believe that my personal views aren't filtering my view on this issue. Are you sure you can say the same?

* My personal favourite was when you linked to a kook who claimed the greenhouse effect didn't exist because greenhouses are encased in glass and the planet is not.

about three weeks ago

Mt. Gox CEO Returns To Twitter, Enrages Burned Investors

tbannist Re:Denial of use (281 comments)

Copyright infringement leads to loss of revenue to the content owner, therefore it is a form of theft.

"Loss of revenue" is not a recognized crime and for good reason, if it were, you could charge a reviewer with "theft" if he didn't give you a "good enough" review. You could charge your competitors for "stealing" your customers with their lower prices. You could charge window shoppers with "theft" for not buying what they're looking at... I could go on, but if you've got half a brain you should already understand the problem.

Either way, without using the word theft, according to you and your buddy, not paying for IP is okay, since the owner is not being deprived anything he originally had.

Neither of us said anything of the sort. You are creating strawmen. What we said is that copyright infringement is not theft, because nothing has been taken. Copyright infringement is violating the copyright holder's right to restrict who can make copies of the protected work. Notably, in most juridisction, copyright applies regardless of whether you are selling copies of the work or not. So for instance, a diary is no less protected simply because the author had no intention of publishing it, and copyright can be infringed in other ways that just copying. For instance, the copyright owner's moral rights prevent unathorized modifications to the work.

The original point was that the loss of bitcoins at Mt. Gox could actually theft because the bitcoins have been taken from the owner without permission, as long as we consider bitcoins to actually be property. Adn yes, theft is a more serious crime than copyright infringement because in theft the owner has been deprived of their actual property, where as copyright infringement may potentially deprive the copyright owner of hypothetical profits that they might have otherwise earned.

Neither of us have said anything about whether "not paying for IP is okay" because that is a completely different and multi-faceted issue. Effectively you're like the guy who's yelling that his computer doesn't work because "the CPU is full of RAMs and Gigs", you have very effectively demonstrated that you know next to nothing about what you're writing about.

about a month ago

Mt. Gox CEO Returns To Twitter, Enrages Burned Investors

tbannist Re:This just in. (281 comments)

So if "straw man" was incorrect, I'm happy to accept "misinformed" or "willfully ignorant"

Those charges are reasonable, though I'm not sure that I'd agree. I seem to remember quite a few self-proclaimed libertarians talking about the glorious benefits of an absence of regulation... This episode seems to indicate some of the often overlooked benefits of regulation...

On the other hand, I do not know what contracts they had, or thought they had with Mt. Gox, or what the "system they would have used to address their grievances" would actually be.

about a month ago

Mt. Gox CEO Returns To Twitter, Enrages Burned Investors

tbannist Re:Denial of use (281 comments)

Suppose copying and using intellectual property is not stealing.

That would be good, because it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. That's why we call it copyright infringement, because unauthorized copying infriges on the copyright owner's right to restrict who can make copies of the copyrighted work.

Therefore it is okay and legal to pay $0 for intellectual property.

No more than murder not being called "life theft" makes it legal to murder someone.

about a month ago

Mt. Gox CEO Returns To Twitter, Enrages Burned Investors

tbannist Re:This just in. (281 comments)

This here is what's known as a straw-man.

It could be a strawman, if he were debating you. However, I'm inclined to believe he's just mocking those outraged libertarians who are reaping what they've sown.

Not everything is a debate.

about a month ago

Elon Musk's Solar City Is Ramping Up Solar Panel Production

tbannist Re:The man has vision (262 comments)

It's pretty simple, Bill Gates built two things: Microsoft and the Gate Foundation. Most of the innovative things that Microsoft has done have come from company's that Microsoft bought. Furthermore, Microsoft's (and Gate's) money comes mostly comes from anti-competitive and illegal agreements that shut competitors out of the PC marketplace and the monopoly rents those agreements enabled. The money came from overchanging PC manufacturers for an operating system, and those manufacturers, in turn, passed that cost onto computer purchasers. Microsoft skimmed money from the entire computer industry for over a decade by hiding the cost in the price of a new computer. They required every computer to have Windows on it. If a distributor didn't put Windows on every computer or at least charge for it on every computer, then Microsoft would prevent them from putting Windows on any computer. Ditto if they promoted any computer that didn't have Windows on it.

So because Gate's wealth was won mostly through deception and illegal practices, and Microsoft has a habit of buying new and interesting things and then letting them die, Bill Gates simple does not seem praiseworthy as a visionary. Jobs, on the other hand, was an asshole but it's reasonable to credit to his obsession and micromanagement as being integral to the success of the iPod and iPhone, which earns him the visionary credit (even if we ignore his role in the original idea that personal computers could actually be a thing).

So Bill Gates can be legitimately viewed as a con man because most of his wealth was earned through anti-competitive practices and extortion. Furthermore, as Bill Gates has been moving into charitable work, there have been disturbing indications that he's been repeating the boot stomping that Microsoft did while it was trying to be "the only company in computers". The rumours of NDAs or other agreements requiring research exclusivity with the Gates Foundation, for example, seem to indicate a greater concern for control and credit than results.

I suppose it comes down to the simple question: Can you actually name anything revolutionary that Gates has done? If you can't (and I can't), it's very difficult to justify calling him a visionary.

Personally, I tend to view Bill Gates as a very successful parasite, more than a con man.

about a month and a half ago

Geothermal Heat Contributing To West Antarctic Ice Sheet Melting

tbannist Re:Queue the deniers (387 comments)

I don't know what that can possibly mean.

It means there is a large and growing body of research that has collected diverse and disparate lines of evidence that support the major governing theory on the topic. In particular, it's enough that we can say with a high degree of confidence that the fundamental aspects of the theory of global warming are well founded and reasonably accurate.

Science, last time I checked, does not work that way.

That's what some pendants would like you to think. They want you to ignore the fact that science is both a process and the body of knowledge collected (and verified) through that process.

about a month and a half ago

America 'Has Become a War Zone'

tbannist Re:War of government against people? (875 comments)

I'm pretty sure the quoted rates are per-capita, making them closer to 1/40th and 1/70th the unadjusted rates.

about 1 month ago

Fixing China's Greenhouse Gas Emissions For Them

tbannist Re:Who is being taxed, exactly? (322 comments)

So let me get this straight, you are saying that if we do nothing about climate change, costs are going to increase some unknown amount naturally so we need to artificially increase costs with a known amount to combat it?

How about instead of playing five knuckle shuffle while attempting to funnel more money into the government coffers we instead look at ways to sequester the carbon emissions and perhaps replace them with naturally economically viable solutions?

Apparently we can't do that either because somdumass opposes anything that would "artificially increase costs". Oh wait. You appear to already be opposed to your own solution for the same reason you oppose tariffs. Or maybe you think magic fairies are going to pay for carbon sequestration? The carbon is already sequestered, it's far cheaper to stop burning it than it is to try and re-sequester it after we burn it.

I mean seriously, all the regulations and mandated emissions crap (which is mostly a good idea BTW) on cars has increased the cost of purchasing a new one by about 1/3 from between 1967 and 2001.

Somehow I doubt the veracity of that claim. After searching for a bit I only found one reference to what that amount actually is, and according to the chart that I found on the ICCT site, it's about to $200-400 per gasoline vehicle which is simply not going to be 1/3 of purchase price of any new car.

about 2 months ago

The Ethics Cloud Over Ballmer's $2 Billion B-Ball Buy

tbannist Re:Racism or Thought Police? (398 comments)

What is said was wrong, but I think it should be emphasized the recording *is* illegal and the man is due no less legal rights/protection than anyone else. For the NBA or anyone else to penalize him based on this thought crime and an illegal recording is wrong in its own right.

I actually sort of agree, in principle, that a private conversation should not be grounds for forcing an owner out of the league. However, this case is more than that. The NBA isn't actually penalising him for his racist views, they're penalising him for being publicly caught and therefore costing them money (if they don't punish him). If they tolerated his racism, they'd possibly face a player and/or fan boycott of the team, and potentially a larger one against the league for tolerating him. To make matters worse he said he didn't want black people in his arena or seeing his team. I suspect if he hadn't said that, and then gone on National TV and attacked one of the most famous basketball players ever instead of apologising and making nice, he would have gotten away with some token sanctions.

But he did what he did, and now the other owners have to choose between their money and a senile old guy they probably never liked in the first place. Is it any surprise they chose public acclaim and money over the angry old senile man? Particularly, when keeping him around would virtually guarantee a repeat performance and more lost money?

about 2 months ago

The Ethics Cloud Over Ballmer's $2 Billion B-Ball Buy

tbannist Re:Crusade against capitalism (398 comments)

Actually there are not heavy regulated areas where there is anything more competitive than oligopolies.

So you would say that there is no real competition between restaurants in most cities? They are fairly heavily regulated to provide for the safety of their customers.

about 2 months ago

The Ethics Cloud Over Ballmer's $2 Billion B-Ball Buy

tbannist Re:Crusade against capitalism (398 comments)

Oh and nobody said anything about no governments. Governments have 3 very good motives to exist and should focus on those 3 things only:

- Keep the slaves in line (police and criminal justice);
- Serve as arbitrator in disputes between the slave owners (civil justice)
- Protect the slave owners from foreign slave owners (military)

A cynic might point out that the only three things you think the government should do could be easily turned against you. The Coyote said "A libertarian is an anarchist who wants the government to police his slaves". I wonder if you understand what that means.

about 2 months ago



Game of Throne Premiers

tbannist tbannist writes  |  more than 3 years ago

tbannist (230135) writes "The long anticipated Game of Throne series adapted from George R. R. Martin's epic novel finally premiered last night on HBO. Like many of HBO's other dramatic series, the show seems to combine strong acting and excellent production to bring the novel to life. Personally, I was rather impressed by the first episode and hope that series will continue as strongly as it started. According to metacritic, I'm not alone. They list average ratings of 82 out of 100 from critics and 9.5 out of 10 from users."
Link to Original Source

tbannist tbannist writes  |  more than 7 years ago

tbannist (230135) writes "According to Gamasutra, a survey of Tokyo Game Show attendees indicates the PS3 is the most anticipated system with 58.3% indicating they were most interested in it, the Wii came in second with 33.8%, and the Xbox 360 trails with a mere 7.9%. On the other hand, only 10.5% of of the respondents indicated they intended to buy a PS3 at launch, while 17.8% indicated they would buy a Wii at launch, and for some reason 1.4% indicated they would buy a Xbox 360 "at launch" as well."


tbannist has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>