Slashdot Mirror

Editor's note: Submitters and editors should note that it is best to open a private browsing window and manually remove session ID gobblegook from URL to test a link. Greetz BugMeNot, works sometimes.

For small pocket devices WE HAVE EXCEEDED PEAK LI-ON BATTERY AREA and especially LENGTH. Samsung should retool the G7 to contain two or three smaller 'proven' Lion battery packages with separate charging circuits. It is possible that a manufacturing variance ultimately related to area is fooling the charge circuit and making these more susceptible to overcharge. There is also physical stress, another trigger. Batteries should not straddle the middle of the device where the most butt-pocket deformation will occur.

Hmm. Wonder why the iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7 and 7 Plus don't have these issues, even though they are just as thin (implying just as "butt-bendy") and, as this picture clearly shows, don't "segment" their batteries. Oh, I know: They don't try to charge their battery to 2X recommended temperature just to claim a "Fast Charge": with a huge battery, in an attempt to compensate for their power-hog design.

Basically Wikileaks has nobody there who is competent enough to actually implement a security framework for the site.

So, as a result, it basically becomes a dumping ground for all this crap.

Thus, when examples are pointed out to them, all they can do is nix the examples.

Wikileaks has withstood countless efforts to get their site offline, sometime by dedicated groups and/or state sponsored actors. You may remember how all hell broke loose with cablegate, including DDOS and Senator Lieberman's call to Amazon. Calling Wikileaks incompetent at security is completely ridiculous.

I bet that the whole thing went down like this: author of this backchannel article wanted to rag on Wikileaks for their dissemination of personal details, and wanted to bring up email #117 as prime example (medical bill!!) and got infected herself for lack of security competence. Author then contacted some security outfit to perform a security evaluation, security outfit performed a simple virus scan. Author then cooked up a click bait article, how Wikileaks is out there to recklessly infect everyone with malware.

Let's face it: Wikileaks is plenty competent securitywise, as evidenced by their very presence for so many years. They expect their readers, especially professional journalists scouring their site to bring at least a moderate skill set to the table, and Mrs. Upson apparently failed miserably.

There is too much division around Trump for him to get enough votes.

The trend in the polls is moving in Trump's favor, with some polls showing Trump even with Clinton, or outright ahead. CBS/NYT is a tie, Rasmussen is Trump with a clear lead, Economist/Yougov within a margin of error.

Of course, Clinton had a bad couple weeks, so that may a temporary thing, but it could also be part of a longer trend. I really think things will start to crystallize once the debates happen, because that will push people into their animalistic "us against them" mode.

Only ten items? I'm blocking these items on the current page: (and that's not to mention what Ghostery blocks)

##.adwrap, ##.comment_share, ##.nav-social, https://a.fsdn.com/sd/js/scrip..., https://ads.pro-market.net/ads..., https://s.ntv.io/serve/load.js, https://www.gstatic.com/images..., https://a.fsdn.com/sd/all-mini..., https://a.fsdn.com/sd/classic....
https://a.fsdn.com/sd/classic/...
https://a.fsdn.com/sd/css/app....
https://a.fsdn.com/sd/font/sdi...
https://a.fsdn.com/sd/font/sdi...
https://a.fsdn.com/sd/sdlogo.s...
https://analytics.slashdotmedi...
https://cdn-social.janrain.com...
https://cdn.taboola.com/libtrc...
https://consent-st.truste.com/...
https://d3ezl4ajpp2zy8.cloudfr...
https://images.slashdot.org/hc...
https://images.slashdot.org/hc...
https://news.slashdot.org/favi...
https://rpxnow.com/js/lib/logi...
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws...
https://slashdot.org/images/js...
https://tag.crsspxl.com/s1.js?...
https://www.googletagservices....

Here's what Adblock shows me for this page. Yeah, some of it is totally innocent, but the rest of it? Why do all of these things need to be loading? (I removed a lot of extra crap that seemed benign to get by the "you need more characters in your message" filter.)

And who thinks that gstatic.com isn't using their Google Plus icone (gplus-16.png) as a beacon?

https://a.fsdn.com/sd/js/scrip...
https://ads.pro-market.net/ads...
https://s.ntv.io/serve/load.js
https://sourceforgemedia-compu...
https://analytics.slashdotmedi...
https://api.stacksocial.com/v0...
https://ask.slashdot.org/ajax....
https://ask.slashdot.org/favic...
https://cdn-social.janrain.com...
https://cdn.taboola.com/libtrc...
https://consent-st.truste.com/...
https://d3ezl4ajpp2zy8.cloudfr...
https://rpxnow.com/js/lib/logi...
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws...
https://slashdot.org/images/js...
https://tag.crsspxl.com/s1.js?...
https://www.googletagservices....
https://www.gstatic.com/images...

Nope. After IE hit about 90% market share, Microsoft figured they'd conquered the market and killed off all competitors. So they decided they'd earned a well-deserved rest and did... nothing. They stopped all development work on IE. For about 13 months they didn't add any new features to IE - the only updates were security updates (this was around 2001-2002 if I remember). This was an eternity in web browser development at the time. When Netscape and IE were competing, they were rolling out new features semi-annually or even quarterly.

That window was what allowed Firefox to take hold. Can you imagine browsing without tabs? Firefox introduced tabs, and that feature alone made it immensely popular. FF made IE look so much like a lump of coal that FF quickly jumped to about 25% market share. By the time the EU browser choice requirement was implemented (Dec 2009), FF was already over 30% market share. Google's Chrome browser had already been steadily growing in popularity for most of that year, and FF actually decreased in market share after the EU-mandated browser choice.

So it'd be more accurate to say Microsoft blew it big time by choosing to stand still because they had a monopoly, but that only cost them about a third of their monopoly. It took another quasi-monopoly (Google search + apps) to break Microsoft's OS-browser monopoly for good. I'm not sure the EU browser choice window had any effect. IE was already on the way down at the end of 2009 when the EU mandate was implemented. And the rate at which IE declined in market share didn't change appreciably from before 1Q 2010 to after.

(That's not to say I disagree with the EU mandate. I was actually more anti-Microsoft back in those days and felt they should've been broken up into an OS company and an apps company. But the problem with government regulation in software is that it just takes too damn long, and by the time it's finally implemented the entire software landscape has already changed for other reasons.)

We've had this in Sweden for a few years now. It's fantastic :)
(Not at McDonalds though, but a Swedish chain named Max which also happen to server way better burgers imo)

Image: http://d14xf0em16qfin.cloudfro...

Background checks won't reduce gun deaths by a dramatic amount as criminals do not get their guns from legal sources:

https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfr...

A counter-argument:

* http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-criminals-dont-follow-laws-myth-2-0-how-criminals-respond-to-gun-control/

About 60% of the gun deaths in the US are suicides:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10...

Additional background checks are unlikely to put a dent in that number as suicidal people use legally bought and lawfully owned firearms to do the deed.

About 24 studies show that a firearm in the home is a strong risk factor for suicide:

* http://www.armedwithreason.com/643/

If you have children, you probably owe it to your family not to have firearms (also search for "suicide"):

* http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/5/e1416.full

Background checks won't reduce gun deaths by a dramatic amount as criminals do not get their guns from legal sources:

https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfr...

About 60% of the gun deaths in the US are suicides:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10...

Additional background checks are unlikely to put a dent in that number as suicidal people use legally bought and lawfully owned firearms to do the deed.

Your link doesn't really back up your claim. . .

Someone who has learned enough economics to use terms like "diminishing return" should also have been taught that knowledge capital does not apply. Does lighting someone else's candle diminish your own lit candle? It is as if you are saying that water boils at 100 C, so evaporation can only occur at 100 C. I could go to the trouble to explain/prove everything myself, or I could just point you to the textbook ("Authority") saying otherwise for brevity. At the end of the day, the onerous is on you to prove that generally accepted facts and theories are wrong.

If you could go back in time and ask people in the early 20th century what the early 21st century would be like I think they'd be surprised not by all of the technology that looks like magic to them, but with how little has really changed.

Thanks, this goes back to my point of, "If they are so advanced, then where are their giant horses!?" Technological advances have occurred in the most important areas for them to occur. That people have failed to realize where these were going to be in the past is merely a testament of their limited knowledge/foresight and says nothing of the technological progress that has taken place. Your comment here says more about yourself than anything else.

Some technologies (like nuclear) are extremely centralized, government regulated, and monopolistic. Then there are technologies that are on the opposite spectrum. The latter is improving exponentially .

There's also at least one study by the Texas Transportation Institute that faults the font in certain circumstances.

Indeed, the original study and design were were funded through a grant provided by 3M. There were evaluation studies performed by the Texas Transportation Institute that were FHWA funded, such as this one.

I call cherry pick on several different fronts. 1) "legally purchased" is counted even if the weapon is stolen (like Lanza from his mother), 2) "mass shooting" excludes the vast majority of gun crime

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...

They have some good data there on stolen guns (which by definition, is illegal). So when an article says "legally purchased", they don't necessarily mean "legally purchased by the shooter" (although certainly, there are examples of that in mass shootings).

Also see:

https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfr...

"*Our respondents (adult offenders living in Chicago or nearby) obtain most of their guns from their social network of personal connections. " (that's called "illegal")

Since GG never said that there were reviews,

Tell me, my man, if GG never called it reviews, then why did you, yourself refer it to as a review right here, in your very own words?

http://developers.slashdot.org...

Now I appear to have caught you either in a lie or an impressive case of self delusion.

Your post reminded me of this:

http://d1o2xrel38nv1n.cloudfro...

Oh yes I'm sure she doxxed herself. I searched for "dox" in the wall of text you linked to. Not present.

I like how you're bringing alleged events that happened after gamer gate broke as an excuse for bad behaviour when gamergate broke. "Zoe Quinn did something bad in the future so let's harass her now".

That's so astonishingly ethical I don't even...

That ONE single post she quotes as an example of "Lots of people" went like this (retyped for your reading pleasure):

This is some weird haphazard branding. I think they want to appeal to women, but are probably just appealing to dudes.
Perhaps that's the intention all along. But I'm curious people with brains find this quote remotely plausible and if women in particular buy this image of what female software engineer looks like. Idk. Weird.

The post never questions whether she is an engineer OR what an engineer should look like.
It questions a trite marketing-lingo quote ("My team is great. Everyone is smart, creative and hilarious.") - which was at the center of the puns aimed at the campaign poster before SJW's showed up...
...and a stereotypical image of a representation of a female techie - when supposedly aimed at women, but actually aimed at "dudes".

E.g. Young (no witches), thin (no fatties), "foreign" (Janie can't tech), handsome (no uglies) and that old staple - glasses because glasses==smart.
That last bit is made even more obvious with her "everyday" photo in her post where she clearly doesn't wear glasses at work.
But is still young and pretty... but not nerdy. Sorry. Can't use THAT photo cause women need such guiding symbols to know that she is a techie.
Stereotypes... Some of them are true. Like what marketing drones think that a representation of a "smart" female SHOULD look like.

It's not about whether someone is an #engineer but what a female engineer SHOULD be like.
Because that is what ads do - unless there is an explicit "NO!", ad is an idealized representation of what something SHOULD look/be/act like.
So... While a female should comment about creative and hilarious teams... you know... girly stuff...
B3ard0 has the autonomy to get things done while "foreign dude" secures data of Fortune 500 companies with his code.

Now, while one would have to really be looking for an excuse to find that post to be representative of "solid examples of the sexism that plagues tech"... from her own words... "socially-accepted, 'smart' and 'normal' guys" and definitely "not bad people" do this:

- I've had men throw dollar bills at me in a professional office(by an employee who works at that company, during work hours).
- I've had an engineer on salary at a bootcamp message me to explicitly 'be friends with benefits' while I was in the interview process at the school he worked for.

One of these things is not like the other...
Now... I may be overacting a bit... but I'm pretty certain that those are NOT "not bad people" and that such acts would earn that someone an immediate and permanent injury where I live.
From the "object" of their "attention", not some self-righteous crusader for societal justice.
At the very least a scene noticeable from a radius of at least several kilometers. Which would include some light physical "attention".
Like a slap, punch, kick or having something significantly harder than a dollar thrown at the culprit. And I'm not talking Euros.

A more civilized society might get them a lawsuit or a cardboard box to take their belongings in while being escorted out to the gate.
But certainly, THAT would not be "not bad people" and "normal guys" or "socially-accepted".

But... she thinks THAT is fine and OK, while a rather neutral post is... "solid example of the sexism that plagues tech".
Now... I can't say I'm a mind reader...
But, while that blog post (from August 1st) about reaction to a marketing campaign has all that HASHTAGsexism HASHTAGiLookLikeAnEngineer HASHTAGonlineActivism... there's this bit:

My stories have become such a source of inspi

The reason people got upset about the ad is because it's clearly trying to use her attractiveness to get attention.

I suppose you could get that if you were looking at her ad in isolation, but it appears to be a series of ads that includes two guys of whom nobody probably questioned the validity of their acclaimed professions. It's not her fault that she's easy to look at.

Thanks. And here is the Ace + Emu story in more detail (turns out Ace did ask but was its 'pulp' was rebuked by Tolkien). The grassroots anti-Ace campaign is worth a read here, it was something the publishing world had never experienced. Also a good photos of the Purple Emu Fellowship I owned which showed more of the drawing. It was a nice illustration. The artist pegged the landscape pretty well but could not have known that Tolkien was fastidious in his portrayal of Middle Earth and kept its flora and fauna strictly Earthlike in appearance, save a few notable exceptions. No emus or lion-things.

To counter the "What the hell does all this have to do with 'news for nerds'?" while discussing Tolkien,
How It's Made: Books

Won't tell it, but for until next time, you can look at these cute calves:
https://d3h9j6pjreamyv.cloudfr...
http://static1.squarespace.com...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Wjum...
http://cdn.cutestpaw.com/wp-co...
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x...
http://goo.gl/AXG9B0

How can this be legitimate research when he didn't even test the taint?

https://dfzljdn9uc3pi.cloudfront.net/2014/338/1/fig-1-full.png

Careful with calling oreos "biscuits" around Americans, lest they become tempted to start dipping them in gravy or eating them with bacon ;)

In our defense, bacon does make everything better.

Careful with calling oreos "biscuits" around Americans, lest they become tempted to start dipping them in gravy or eating them with bacon ;)

No, YOU are arguing against US military doctrine.

As to your pathetic and laughable attempt to associate me with white supremacy by insinuation or to suggest my position is immoral while of course you're virtuous. I'm going to just assume that wasn't intentional. However, if you do it again, then I'm going to have to conclude it was intentional. and that is going to open you up to some pretty righteous rebuttals from me. So... Try to avoid that land mine in the future... It is unsupportable and will blow your legs clean off.

As to linear advantages... I never said anything about that. That point is a strawman.

As to open warfare, we had it in gulf war 1... and its happening in Ukraine right fucking now. So you know nothing. What is more, the exception is the urban warfare. That is recent and unusual. And it only happens because we don't want to kill civilians and the enemy is hiding behind women and children. All you need to do to negate the situation is either not care if you kill civilians which was basically the doctrine during WW2 when we nuked cities and carpet bombed cities and fire bombed cities. I think 60% of the direct causalities of war in WW2 were civilians. The other thing you can do is separate the civilians from the war-fighters (aka combatants... the term "solder" being a legal one that the terrorists rarely qualify for lacking rudimentary requirements like "uniforms"). And there are ways to do that. One thing you can do is lightly attack an outlying area to draw enemy combatants to you. Then fight them there. Another thing you can do is cause the civilians to flee the area which can be done with propaganda, non-lethal gas, destroying an area near them to spook them... whatever. The point is to separate the sheep from the goats. And then you can slaughter the goats and move on. What the enemy is doing is in the historic view of our culture... immoral. Hiding behind women and children... Come out and die instead of cowering under your daughter's skirts. THAT is the historic and cultural opinion of my culture regarding such behavior. What you'll say about that I can only imagine but that's our view on the matter. Either fight, surrender, or run away. But using civilians as human shields? Dishonorable. That said, if that's how they want to play it, they'll find that using babies as armor only works to a point.

https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfro...

As to killing armor rolling down tight city streets... Armor doesn't need to do that. That is also the worst possible situation armor could be in and using that as your example shows you need to use unrealistic contexts to support your position. Your argument is very weak. And really, why you think that's the point of armor is beyond me. This city fighting is bullshit... especially against the disorganized rabble we've been fighting lately doesn't require armor. There was an amusing situation in Iraq 2 where a Scottish platoon was cut off and out of ammunition. They fixed bayonets and charged the Iraqis. Guess what happened? The Iraqis ran away. So into that situation you're talking about these people having the discipline to encircle an armored column going single file through a city and destroy the first and last tank? Not going to happen. For one thing the tanks would have infantry escort and for another thing the tanks simply wouldn't be used that way unless they felt the area was secure in the first place.

The tanks under current doctrine like to move FAST, unpredictably, engage at range, and ideally operate where our superior optics make our forces the only ones that can even see.

This was a big part of why US tanks crushed Saddams tanks in Iraq 1. There were dust storms and mixed into US forces were a lot of Bradly troop carriers. The Bradly has pretty good optics... better than the Abrams. And the various craft are linked together so if the Bradly sees something the Abrams sees it too. Point was that there were dust

... to protect entrenched special interests from competition/audit/legal action/defunding/etc... using "health", "safety", and/or "the children" as the reason monopolies, cronycapitalism, campaign donors, and other shill like behavior has to be protected from... literally anything that would clean house.

Name anything broken in government or the economy and I shit you not... every last bit of it is armored in babies.

Baby armor.
https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfro...

And why does this work? Because voters/readers are lazy and don't look past the surface. They just see the baby armor and the guy taking shots at it. they don't look closely enough to see the babies are mostly plastic, and there is some cynical shit giggle in the middle of the babies that have been tied to his body while he's getting away with pretty much whatever he wants because after all... baby armor.

I'd cite specific issues outside of the fucking taxi companies but then I'd endure endless comments from fuckwits that don't realize they're enabling systemic corruption/dysfunction because... baby armor.

My MacBook has a sleek and nearly seamless case.

But a few years ago, MacBooks had a seam for removable batteries. Who looks at the bottom of another person's MacBook anyway?

https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfr...

Yep, there are a few transformative angles you can take.

First thing to note, is that it is unlikely that Richard Prince would sue. I guess that for the price tag, each print is unique. Why would he print twice the same thing when it takes him all of 10 minutes to find a decent image, screenshot it, print it and sign it (apparently for the Instagram copies, his comment is the signature, he doesn't even bother to sign) ? There is no loss of sales for him, and he's able to find suckers for his "unique" prints. Why would he risk losing a case ?

But in the hypothetical case... the courts say that an use is transformative (Firefox's spell checker doesn't like that word...) when it is "altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message".

About the expression, given that Suicide Girls have the original image, they could "reinterpret" the print by enhancing it with the original quality instead of the screenshot quality, and argue how it's adding depth, or adding contrast with the surrounding low-res text or whatever.

Or if it is about the context changing its meaning, at first it was an Instagram post, then it was a part of an art exhibition, then it is a re-appropriation for a charity. Hence I'm arguing that Mark Meyer's comment on how "While Prince’s use of Mooney’s photos adds new and significant context, Mooney is simply selling copies of Prince’s work with no additional contextual commentary" is wrong. In the end, the "context" is only about your capacity to convince that, really, "it isn't what it looks like". And Richard Prince is much more seasoned at that game than Mooney ever will.

About the message, I was thinking along the same line as you did. Something like, this is the actual message (the $90,000 / $90 poster), and the sold prints are only parts of the overall artwork, as so many parts of the message. With both Prince and Mooney, it's the same relation between the individual print and the "meaningful context" (art exhibition / re-appropriation for a charity).

However, I agree with Mark Meyer on that point, the "we added the "suicide girl true art" message" is probably not going to cut it.

Your numbers on the multiple CCIE holders are off quite a bit.The count is over 3500 and growing. Not to take away from your other points but I think it shows that the field is much more heavily saturated then some people think.

http://d2pvz33nyw2w7z.cloudfro...

Of course there is a technical value. Have you ever wondered why these laptops are so thin? Take a look at the Macbook Pro's battery.
https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfr...
I bet it would be a lot harder to make one of these swappable. It's as wide as the laptop, almost half of the height of the machine and about goes almost halfway through. Add the non-regular shape, and you've got something hard to swap in and out.

I think it's more an effect of the people we see pictures of most, celebrities, put a lot of work into appearing young, so we don't expect people in the public eye to age as quickly. Tom Cruise ages slowly because his career demands it, Barak Obama on the other hand probably looks more serious the older he looks, so there's less reason to make himself appear young.

Even compare to Jon Stewart in 2008 vs now. There doesn't seem to be a huge difference, until you realize the gallon of makeup applied to Jon Stewart's face, it's hard to appeal to GenXers and Millenials looking like you're over 50.

I'd actually be curious to see how this algorithm does with celebrity photos.

So let me get this straight rich gits with chauffeurs get priority over everyone else because why, why the fuck, why?

Because "people being chauffeured around" represent such a small proportion of rush-hour traffic that basing a decision around this particular concern would be far more emotional than pragmatic.

Apparently the rich and powerful matter enough that they already built a 'whitelist' feature into these camera systems so that their license plates will prevent the system from storing their pictures. Here's an actual field study paper: http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/2901-S.pdf. Boy is that ripe for abuse to keep the powerful free from FOIA requests.

Also interesting that
1) they simply took people's word that FLIR would be easily defeated by window tinting instead of bothering to test it. Feels like somebody was pre-biased to stick with a solution based around recording faces...
2) preliminary results from Georgia Tech show that radiometer techniques could accurately identify the presence of non-visible occupants

They obviously slipped a healthy dose of stupidity into whatever refreshing beverage was being consumed by the Seahawk's Head Coach and Offensive Coordinator.

Great idea. 2000 years ago they nailed someone to a tree for saying that. And I don't think the general attitude has changed that much.

Maybe. The number of deaths over time from war has dropped dramatically, not even adjusting for population growth.

Western Europe has managed to completely give up fighting each other, and that was after millennia of fighting each other. So in 2000 years a lot has improved.

The bulk of those 52% is hydro, solar is still pathetic.

No, you claim is pathetic Hydro produces far less than a quarter of Germany's renewable electricity over the whole year, how the hell could it produce "the bulk" on a peak day?

Not sure how you can make this conclusion based on the Vermont study. I haven't seen the video but looked at the study itself - here it is.

The study was never designed to determine how much calorie intake is going to result in a fixed amount of weight gain or to determine whether there is a limit to weight gain. It didn't do appropriate controls in order to research that (such as control the anxiety levels, activity etc.). It was designed to study the mechanisms in by which the body stores new weight and also how it gets rid of excess weight (their weight loss was controlled as well.)

Their input was rigorously controlled (being prisoners), and their exercise regimen was pretty easy to monitor and control. Most of them gained weight, but almost none of them nearly as much as the standard "3500 kCal is a pound of fat" Standard Model would predict. Several plateaued on weight gain, and a few lucky (?) prisoners were *never* able gain 10% of their body weight when eating nearly 10,000 Calories a day. Simply couldn't do it.

Wrong! Pretty much all of what you write here:
- all 5 subjects gained weight just fine as expected
- the amount of weight gain per calorie intake was never measured
- nobody "plateaud"

Go read the study for yourself!

We have those, bu many of the new communities have started making them like this:
https://d38ls2kcjnhfdj.cloudfr...

You could still use yours, but then you'd have to for sure do some welding inside/atop to make it livable.

Does the US own the moon? The British conquered half the world using the law of flags, so by rights, since the US is the only country with a flag up there...

The Chinese flag is definitely up there too.

... who they got to connect the call?

Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7C cooling through the middle to late Holocene ( 5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios. - http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...

https://d1u1p2xjjiahg3.cloudfr...

Yes. Let's look at Chicago.

Such as this graph: http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfro...

Seems Chicago isnt the hotbed of crime it's been made out to be.
Their gun ban was in effect from 1982 to 2010, when it struck down.
The recent uptick in homocides occured -AFTER- the gun ban was struck down,
so if there is any correlation to drawn (and im not saying there is), its not the one you are trying for.

Chicago homocides peaked in early 90s, with the increase and subsequent decrease matching the peak in crime around teh country, both in locations with and without gun bans. The recent uptick is nothing like the historical crime rates.

Or as summed up at http://thinkprogress.org/justi... :

Most significantly, it is important to understand that Chicago is not an island. Although Chicago has historically had strict gun laws, laws in the surrounding parts of Illinois [incuding the suburbs of Chicago] were much laxer — enabling middlemen to supply the criminals in Chicago with guns they purchased elsewhere. Forty three percent of the guns seized by law enforcement in Chicago were originally purchased in other parts of Illinois. And even if the state had stricter gun laws, Illinois is not an island either. The remaining fifty seven percent of Chicago guns all came from out of state, most significantly from nearby Indiana and distant Mississippi — neither of which are known for their strict gun laws.

It’s also important to put Chicago’s very recent increase in gun violence in perspective. Data from the University of Chicago Crime Lab’s Harold Pollack shows that this uptick, while certainly worrying, isn’t anything like a return to the historic peaks during America’s crime wave. Pollack notes that “Chicago ranks 79th on Neighborhood Scout’s list of the 100 most dangerous places to live in Americathe idea that Chicago faces a unique or unprecedented rise in homicides is incorrect. Our problems are all too familiar and chronic throughout much of urban America.” Chicago, following the national trend, has experienced a significant downturn in homicides in the past decade and a half:

And there was event a report into what caused the the 2012 spike in homocides, which was chiefly a result of an uptick in gang violence:

he points to three factors are particularly important: escalating gang conflict as a consequence of police crackdowns and shifting gang territory, outdated law enforcement practices, and — yes — access to guns.
[..]
Chicago’s streets are flooded with guns: it has roughly six times as many guns as New York City per capita, despite its restrictive laws. So if gang conflict escalates, and the gangs have easy access to guns, the homicide rate should rise. This explanation fits with the fact that 87 percent of Chicago homicides in 2012 were gun-related. New York, by contrast, did not experience a surge in homicides in 2012.

The guns that fueled this fire came from a small number of individuals bringing guns into the city. A study of Chicago’s gun market (which, incidentally, concluded that tight enforcement of Chicago’s gun ban and restrictions significantly disrupted illegal gun markets) found that most of guns in high-crime neighborhoods entered through a small, tight network of suppliers and middlemen: “Gun suppliers report that 60-80% of their sales are negotiated through brokers (we assume the 80% figure) and by our own estimates gun suppliers account for around half of all gun sales in the GB community.” Because most criminals weren’t comfortable going out of their neighborhoods to buy guns, and Chicago had no gun stores in the city, they relied on this network to get them guns from outside of Chicago.

Nobody has proved beyond reasonable doubt -- and I emphasize the word reasonable -- that it has caused ANY harm, at all. Nobody has been able to show, convincingly, that ANY weather pattern, or either singular or collective weather events, have been caused by "CO2-based warming". Lots of stuff has been BLAMED on it, but I'm talking about actual evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-05]

Jane wouldn't be able to recognize actual evidence because he's a Sky Dragon Slayer who strenuously denies that "CO2-based warming" even exists. A reasonable skeptic who took this position would feel obliged to explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury. Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?

... And I'm sure as hell not willing to pay to clean up some CO2 demon which science says is largely imaginary. Not the CO2. That's real enough. But any "harm" is so far only theory, and that theory is looking shakier every day. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-05]

An imaginary and shaky "demon"? Really? Then why did over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable"?

Ironically, Jane probably won't even have to pay when we take action to address climate change. This study calculates that a revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend will save lives and add jobs while increasing Americans' real disposable income. Even though fossil fuel companies pass the cost of the carbon fee onto consumers, that fee is just returned to the consumer anyway.

For a regional analysis, see figure 3.25 on page 38. Out of nine regions, real disposable income per capita only decreases in one (the western north central states). That one regional decrease is much smaller than the increases in other regions like the pacific region which includes Washington.

A 32W RTG would generate about 600W of waste heat, something that is easy to radiate over 3m2 into space, assuming reasonable operating temperatures for the probe (and actually, a smaller RTG is sufficient)

I think this is something that isn't particularly well appreciated - a 32-W RTG does not exist. All the designs for recent spacecraft have been on the order of 100-300 W (electric).

I practically burst out laughing when the article gets around to introducing the notion of powering Philae using an RTG. The image that the author dramatically inserts at this point is the RTG for the Curiosity rover - an assembly that is itself about the size of the entire Philae spacecraft! Cassini, Ulysses, New Horizons - all of the recent RTG-powered probes used the same design, one that is entirely the wrong size for Philae.

For Philae to use an RTG, it would need to have been a new design (something the ESA has no experience in) - a development that could have cost more than the Philae lander itself. Even with a new design, they would have needed to secure the Pu-238 to power it (assuming they didn't use some other isotope, which would have been yet another costly design effort). When the craft was being designed and built, the supply of Pu-238 was already more or less spoken for, and it would have been an enormous program risk for them to commit to an RTG without a guarantee that they could fill it.

And that's... bullshit. A fantasy.

Judging by images like these, today's business class is pretty much what economy class used to be in the 70s.

Hoo boy. Do you have any idea how much more expensive flying was in the 1970s, before deregulation?

In 2011, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (who worked with Senator Kennedy on airline deregulation in the 1970s) wrote:
"In 1974 the cheapest round-trip New York-Los Angeles flight (in inflation-adjusted dollars) that regulators would allow: $1,442. Today one can fly that same route for $268."

Of course that factoid cherry picked the 1974 fare to coincide with the Arab oil embargo. But current oil prices are actually higher in inflation-adjusted dollars, and a cheap ticket between LA and NY is still around $350.

Some argue that flying has become too cheap. I beg to disagree: flying in a humane manner has not become cheaper, it's just that you'd have to book business class nowadays.

Of course that's exactly what happened. Because back when the LGA-LAX ticket cost $1442, very few people flew. The fundamentals of weight on an airplane and fuel use means the more people you can squeeze on a plane, the cheaper it is (per seat) to operate. So when federal regulation fixed the lowest airline price at $1442 making it inaccessible to the vast majority of people, the planes were emptier and the airlines could get away with fewer seats.

Air travel is in the state it's currently in because passengers prioritized lower fares over seating space, and the airlines found a way to deliver upon passenger desires. If passengers had demanded lush, business-class seating as you suggest, then that's what airlines would have delivered. Most of the seats on airplanes would be business-class sized, and a LGA-LAX ticket would still be around $1442 (actually, probably higher since current real oil prices are higher than in 1974).

i.e. It's not that current seating is "inhumane", it's that your definition of "humane" differs from what the vast majority of people buying airline tickets consider to be acceptable. Many airlines have premium economy seats offering an extra 5-6 inches of legroom at a higher price. A few people are willing to pay for those, but not many. If more people were wiling to pay for those bigger seats, the airlines would put more of them in - unless you're a monopoly, you always make more money giving people what they want.

The fundamental problem with air travel is that it's too fast. People look at that tiny seat and figure they can deal with it for a few hours. If air travel were slower and you were stuck in that seat for a day or two, people would demand more room.

http://d188rgcu4zozwl.cloudfro...

From the Amazon page.

I wonder how you get the job of making these? I could make a better book cover in my sleep.

Portugal reached 100% renewable energy.

I'd prefer a 100% nuclear powered grid (and electric trains and cars, nuclear powered ships, synfuels for the remaining transportation needs, ammonia from nuclear powered SSAS plants for fertilizer) over that renewable pipe dream.

Well then you are really going to hate the future because sooner or later it is going to be 100% renewable.

http://www.renewableenergyworl...

http://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfron...

http://i0.wp.com/cleantechnica...

Let's face it, no-one knows where to put nuclear waste and that doesn't look like it'll change anytime soon.

What do you mean a specific phone or vendor? The Pebble has been around for a long time and has no such allegiances.
And ugly? Have you seen the Steel? It's more handsome than the majority of watches I've owned.

I'm sorry, but are you joking? The Pebble has an incredibly ugly, low-resolution, screen:

https://d3rrgxxoyz0alr.cloudfront.net/assets/landing_pages/steel/steel-silver-front-400-557b315e2898d32cee532579c556d784.png

You want that on your wrist? Well, more power to you. The rest of us will wait for the iWatch, which will no doubt be both color and a beautiful retina resolution.

[Posting as AC from another browser so I don't lose my mod points on this thread.]

Especially since many newer laptops are like 3/4 filled with batteries anyway. The pictured laptop is a Macbook Air. There's plenty of room in there to house an actually fully functional laptop with the same specs but partially reduced battery life, and hide other stuff in there.

Nest was conspicuously absent from Apple's presentation on HomeKit where they list the companies they were working with. Probably due to Google ownership, and in spite of the Nest founder's strong ties to Apple.

http://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/content/images/articles/homekit-partners.jpg

I'm sorry, the link doesn't work anymore.

The article in the 2nd link (1st link only says "abstract" in the link) is a joke. Well, the people who wrote it are serious, but it's a joke. They honestly cited The Onion as a source for one of their points without mentioning that The Onion is a satirical site. Do they even know that? They offer no alternative. They only say that the whole drone strike idea isn't working.

Ert, ert, shill alert! You just redlined my shillmeter there. What you're doing is a common misdirection tactic that is almost exclusive used by shills: if a source illustrates an otherwise well-founded argument with a light-hearted aside, an opposing shill will never fail to rip the light-hearted aside out of context, claim it's the only source of data the argument is built on, and thereby dismiss the whole article, including all of its other sources. Shame until the 7th generation upon the moderators who modded this turd up.

The real point is to kill bad guys. (...) Killing some of them may convince some people who haven't joined that joining them may be a really bad idea. There's value in that.

Oh please grow up. The real world is not about "good guys" and "bad guys". In fact, bad guys don't actually exist, and killing those who you think are bad only makes them stronger.