Slashdot Mirror

Am I the only one who finds this truly frightning; that the photocopier has a bug in a sub system that is basically reading the content of the documents being photocopied?

Yes, you should find that frightening. That's not new, though, pretty much all photocopiers these days don't actually "photocopy" the document, they scan it to memory and then print the scan. Your documents are saved to memory on the photocopier. Yep, that's a security flaw.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/digital-copier-security-461009
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-6412439.html
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=60313

Science News ... from universities, journals, and other research organizations
Can Organic Food Feed the World? New Study Sheds Light On Debate Over Organic Vs. Conventional Agriculture

6 Surprising Facts About Organic Foods
Organic food continues to show strong growth, despite a weak economy. Find out what's behind the label.

Maybe. Almost any recyclable plastic explains what kind of plastic it is with a number referencing the type.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/latest/recycling-symbols-plastics-460321#slide-1

Here is a page with pictures explaining some of them.

They both grow in dirt (organic and conventional), they are the same plant, they don't, on balance, have more or less of anything than the rest of the fruits and vegetables

Aside from the fact that your claim is completely, utter and demonstrably false, it neglects to take into consideration that most of the soil on commercial farms in the U.S. has not only been depleted of essential trace elements but has also been so thoroughly abused and mismanaged over the years that even the basics need to be supplemented by appliying synthetic fertilizers.

Bottom line if you want to pay 3X as much for your food buy organic.

Yes, sometimes there's a 200% (or greater) premium for organic produce but in many cases, it's more like 25 to 50%. A more useful metric would be determine the value that buying organic adds, and that depends on the item. For example, the growing methods for conventional and organic tropical fruit (pineapples, mangos, bananas and avacados come to mind) likely don't differ much if at all; it's about the auditing, certifying/verification. etc. In other cases, (peaches, strawberries, leafy greens), it's common-knowledge that the quantities of pesticide resides in convenionally-grown varieties are through the roof (no doubt a non-issue for a shill such as yourself but for those of us watching our health or that of our children, it's something we might want to take into consideration). Of course, these are the very same items that often require exhorbitant premiums like you stated - but you get what you pay for (where have we heard that before?).

And don't forget, we can't feed the world's population organically. Can't be done!

This is a partial truth which ignores the bigger picture (which, of course, at the end of the day, means it's still a lie): doing things the way "Big Ag" currently does them, yes, you're right: organic farming simply can't be scaled up and achieved using the wasteful, petroleum-dependent methods and practices that are currently employed (as I said above, the dirt just won't allow it). Nope; you'd have to change how you go about it (imagine that).

For those who aren't paid shills and have a genuine interest in the subject, I suggest looking through some of the following:

http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/latest/organic-foods-benefits-460110-5

http://eartheasy.com/blog/2011/10/7-ways-organic-farms-outperform-conventional-farms/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/07/10/us-farming-organic-idUSN1036065820070710

http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/organicfarming.htm

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4060

http://youngagropreneur.wordpress.com/

http://theurbanfarmingguys.com/our-story

http://seedstock.com/2012/02/01/wisconsins-future-farm-sustainable-cow-powered-aquaponics/

http://bioponica.org/

Fortunately, it isn't a ban.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/republican/incandescent-light-bulb-ban-0711

One thing about this article submit is that it only tells part of the story.

BPA lining is not only present in the soda can.

BPA lining is also present in CANNED FOOD - yes, inside the cans that are used for CANNED FOOD

http://www.thedailygreen.com/going-green/tips/bpa-in-canned-foods

A climate model does the same thing but with many more dimensions. The legislation is based on the notion that climate doesn't change and hence historical trends will be sufficient for predicting future climate. This, as another poster accurately quipped, is like a GPS based on travel times from a 100 years ago.

1. Receive half a billion dollars in federal grant money.

Seriously. Half a billion dollars is a LOT. We could fund our military and its wars for like a whole DAY on that much money!

1. Receive half a billion dollars in federal grant money.

2. Spend it on expensive lawyers to defend your "brand" overseas in the UK despite having sold less than 2000 cars in the whole world since the company started.

3. ???

4. Er, profit? It will take off any minute now. I promise.

We can fix that little problem.

... On the other hand, there's every chance Scott Shoemaker's kid was chewing on shitty chinese-made Cadmium-laced or lead-laced toys. Or chewing lead paint from the house's walls.

Blaming the vaccines is stupid.

Yes, but they got the Low Price Always[TM]! And isn't that the only thing that really matters?

Did he have heavy metal poisoning? If you look up the symptoms you'll see they are quite similar.

In order to get heavy metal poisoning from vaccines, you'd have to get vaccinated on the order of multiple times daily. There are much easier ways to get yourself an accumulation of toxic metals.

On the other hand, there's every chance Scott Shoemaker's kid was chewing on shitty chinese-made Cadmium-laced or lead-laced toys. Or chewing lead paint from the house's walls.

Blaming the vaccines is stupid.

What about cruise ships?

Estimates are that a 3,000-passenger ship generates the air pollution equivalent of more than 12,000 cars in a single day.

[A modular house is] going to be ultimately worse because [i]t's been built on a standardized basis. This basis is based on cutting costs, so there are corners cut for the sake of manufacturing cost efficiency. Undersized floor beams/trusses, or low R factor insulation, for instance.

Standardization efficiency isn't based on cutting corners, it's based on economies of scale and the ability to use assembly-line manufacturing techniques. There's no inherent reason why a modular home would be low-quality; modular homes come in low-end and high-end varieties just like site-built ones do. What you can probably expect is for the standardization to cause the modular home to be somewhat less expensive than a site-built house of equal quality. Do these modular homes look low-quality to you (excepting the tiny shed-like M Finity ones)?

Also, modular homes aren't necessarily as standardized as you might think, since you can often customize the arrangement of the modules (not to mention the finishes, etc.).

Moving these modulars is difficult, and there are often a substantial number of repairs necessary before they can be considered "habitable".Joints get twisted, and the frame as a whole will get torqued and bounced about on the truck. Insulation comes loose, and square frames become slightly off.

These things are designed to be shipped to the installation site! You think the designers are so stupid they'll make the individual modules too big to move relatively easily? You think the frames aren't designed stronger to prevent damage from shipping loads (again, assuming high-quality)?

Tesla is the government's sweetheart and this is what investors are betting on. Piling losses and insolvent CEO don't matter, as long as the government and the taxpayer have your back. Too "green' to fail? http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/blogs/cars-transportation/tesla-funding-460609

From a little bit of web surfing ([1], [2]), the impression I get is that there is a huge range of variability in how ecologically good or bad paper production is. Recycled paper (like newsprint) is much better than non-recycled, because it costs a lot less energy to produce, causes a lot less water pollution to produce, and keeps more paper out of landfills. Loggers like to say that they practice sustainable forestry, but some logging operations are actually a lot more sustainable than others. In some cases, the amount of carbon being sequestered in trees is kept constant, because the trees of a certain size are just being steadily replaced with more trees that grow to the same size before being harvested; but in other cases, older, larger trees are harvested, and replaced with young ones that contain a lot less carbon.

Actually, I forget the details. They may not be particularly restricted during the artificial sweetener phase. I really should go locate that story again . . . okay this is kind of a lousy summary, but it's the study I'm thinking of: http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/eat-safe/fake-sugar-study-44031708

Yes, and never with any specific examples... just a broad accusation. Surely since you believe these accusations, you could point me towards a source? So that I'm not hypocritical, I'll direct you toward what I consider a very thorough defense of climate science. It's two years old now, but still relevant.

HA! That article talks about computer models being used for investment. Tell me, how well do you think THAT worked out for them? Also, check out the comments section there. Those guys do a better job of refuting it than I can, as there are some computer scientists in the computer modeling section. There is also a lot of interesting discussion in the "CO2 Levels Lag Behind Temperature Changes" portion. There are some posters who claim that water vapor accounts for 99% of heat retention. Having moved from 100% humidity southeast Texas, where the High temp is often 95, while the low is only 80, to low humitidy Lubbock, where The high is 105 and the low 50, not to mention the fact that a generally warmer planet will put more water vapor into the air kind of intuitively busts the "CO2 as main actor in Global Warming" thing. Thanks for posting that article. There is a lot of great stuff there, although most of it points in the other direction from your argument.

Yes, you do. Epicycles, before they were abandoned, did the best job to date of explaining the motion of the planets. Until a better model arose, it would have been silly to abandon it.

Unless people think it's right. You have to show that a scientific theory is lacking. Epicycles NEVER adequately explained planetary movements. Not even close, really. They would be sort of close for a few days out, then it would all go to hell, and that was simple, non-chaotic movement. In this world, a tiny error (like overestimating the "blanket effect" of CO2, or underestimating the amount of time the water spends in the atmosphere) would ensure that you got wildly erroneous results.

Exactly my point... the people presenting a contrary view are not building models. There is plenty of money. Here's an article about the well-funded deniers. How you can claim that the problem is money is beyond me. The big money would overwhelmingly prefer that global warming were a non-issue.

Businesses are focused on debunking global warming, not improving climate science. As such, they haven't funded climate research that could go against them.

So no sources, then? I thought so. Put yourself in my position... you are asking me to change my mind on an issue based on an unsubstantiated claim from a random poster on slashdot.

My company's website has some information on our cancer work, which comes from the same principle. www.selenbio.com

Then why are they funding the deniers?

They don't, not really. They try to get the most bang for their buck, so they pay people to publish newsletters and do PR. They aren't particularly interested in research that they can't control.

Do you have any proof of this? I'd assert that they aren't getting government money because they aren't interested in building a model. In fact, if I want to go all crazy conspiracy, I'd say that they know building yet another model will force them to come to the same conclusion as everyone else who has built a model, and the money will stop flowing their way from the denier gravy train. Here is a pretty hilarious list of the "scientists" who deny global warming. Sorry about the clearly biased source, but the list is too hilarious to pass up.

I have a few links:

Well, considering the criticism I just posted is so well known that it is posted as a standard "denier" argument,

Yes, and never with any specific examples... just a broad accusation. Surely since you believe these accusations, you could point me towards a source? So that I'm not hypocritical, I'll direct you toward what I consider a very thorough defense of climate science. It's two years old now, but still relevant.

You don't have to build your own model to point out the epicycles don't explain planetary movement.

Yes, you do. Epicycles, before they were abandoned, did the best job to date of explaining the motion of the planets. Until a better model arose, it would have been silly to abandon it.

If there is so much money out there for competing models, show me. I haven't seen any.

Exactly my point... the people presenting a contrary view are not building models. There is plenty of money. Here's an article about the well-funded deniers. How you can claim that the problem is money is beyond me. The big money would overwhelmingly prefer that global warming were a non-issue.

The results were never published, due to politics.

So no sources, then? I thought so. Put yourself in my position... you are asking me to change my mind on an issue based on an unsubstantiated claim from a random poster on slashdot.

Those types of companies would like to disprove global warming, but the development of a new model for climate science is well outside of their field of interest.

Then why are they funding the deniers?

Only the government has any money right now, and they have blacklisted all climate change "deniers".

Do you have any proof of this? I'd assert that they aren't getting government money because they aren't interested in building a model. In fact, if I want to go all crazy conspiracy, I'd say that they know building yet another model will force them to come to the same conclusion as everyone else who has built a model, and the money will stop flowing their way from the denier gravy train. Here is a pretty hilarious list of the "scientists" who deny global warming. Sorry about the clearly biased source, but the list is too hilarious to pass up.

You have a good nose, without reading your entire link that particular group has become known as the Inhofe 400 (random link that I breifly scanned, I believe the list is also on WP somewhere). It's not the only machevelian stunt the senator has performed wrt AGW.

Your nose is probably sensing phrases in the link such as "these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide" rather than "these scientists represent prestigious institutions worldwide" as is the case with the IPCC. They cannot claim that because most of the institutions who house these people do not agree with them and would come down on them with an army of lawyers to protect their reputation. The fact that they tolerate people such as Dr Ball flies in the face of accusations that there is some sort of conspiracy to repress them.

Not all of the people on the list are hacks, many are simply misrepresented using out of context quotes, like Ray Kurzweil who does not dispute the IPCC consensus but thinks the problem will soon be solved by nanotechnology (exactly how I'm not sure), a few people on the list have also contributed to the IPCC reports. Anyway I will leave it to you to compare what the qualified scientists on the list actually say to Inhofe's cherry-picked quotes.

Desterification is happening in California, Africa, and Madagascar. Lake Chad drying up is directly attributable to human activity, though not necessarily due to CO2. It's a form of anthropogenic climate change, in any case. And it's also happening to Lake Superior.

Meanwhile, Oceans are acidifying all over (the chemistry involved is directly attributable to CO2). Polar caps are melting, putting pressure on the polar bear population. Being the alpha predator of the region, this will remove the ecosystem's ability to keep prey species in check, causing far-reaching problems elsewhere.

None of this is from some sketchy model formed up by some graduage student as a doomsday scenario. It's stuff we can go out and directly observe right now.

"Gee dear, should we just never buy any toys for our baby?"

"I don't know honey bun, perhaps we should just not buy a ChinaCo brand toy."

"Well, farty pants, it appears that - in addition to ChinaCo brand toys - we also have to worry about toys sold with the Fisher Price and Mattel brands, as well as toys not even made in China. Maybe you should just let me make the purchasing decisions from now on.

They do? Citation please

Daily Green : Gore calls for 90% CO2 Reduction

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/3083

Oooh, I see, so the government is out to impoverish everyone.

http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=33

And is not only environmental web site saying this. Most hard core enviros are in fact looking for policies that would impoverish humans to help bolster, gasp, the eco-system.

Umm... what? Correlation is a *necessary condition* to prove causation.

Correlation is only good if you think you have all the variables involved. If you are missing one, you could be completely screwed. Work with me on this thought experiment..

a -> b + 1
b -> when odd a then d
b -> when even a then c
c -> 4 or 5 randomly
d -> 4 or 5 randomly

If you have a system where you know about a, don't know about c, and are looking to infer b's behavior from a, you could conclude that they aren't correlated at all.

The case I came up with here might actually be not good, but I should think that for any given correlation detection algorithm, a case can be constructed that allows a genuinely causal relationship to escape it. The same sort of information laws that say that there can't ever be a universal virus checker also means that there can't ever be a universal cause detector.

"Attn: 400 scientist worldwide have come forward and denounced global warming theory. Some of them are actually listed on the IPCC's original report."

I am sorry, but I highly doubt it. "serviced in the field"? Ya, that is really going to happen. That doesn't even happen in the "developed world".

I already has happened:
http://blogs.ubuntu.org.au/shenki/29
http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/eco-friendly/olpc-laptop-repair-460201

The only reason it does not happen in the 'developed world' is that our products are deliberately designed to prevent this; one-way screws, hidden catches, draconian warranties ("opening voids warranty, no user servicable parts inside").

Remember the XO keyboard problem? Most "developed" customers winged and whined about lack of warranty. The kids in the field just opened the things up, cleaned them out and went right on learning.

This is why a for-profit product (hardware (like the NDS) or software (like XP-lite)) are the WRONG CHOICE for OLPC; they are designed to generate a revenue stream rather than maximise user benefit.

well, LEDs were invented in the 1960s, so perhaps your dismal world view is the more likely one, but at least in the Christmas light arena LEDs are picking up steam, although there are some pretty awful horror stories about LED Christmas lights, at least one (flicker) can be rectified by building your own full wave bridge rectifier with $5 in parts from Radio Shack and Home Depot... just use google to get the plans and then head over to radio shack to get the parts..

still a quick google about energy efficient leds bring up numerous websites either selling high efficiency led bulbs or articles mentioning companies promising to deliver energy efficient led lighting to the home.

one such article claims that a 5.8 watt lamp will deliver the equivalence of a '60 watt bulb' worth of lighting
http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/eco-friendly/led-efficient-lighting-461128
if this company isn't all hype, then they've already gotten an led to 140/lumen per watt (or else they're shaving lumens and it's really less bright than a 60 watt bulb)

we won't have long to wait to find if the company is real "Hunter said he hopes to debut the brighter and more efficient lamps by the end of 2008. The first buyers will likely be wholesale distributors, followed by consumers off store shelves by 2009."

although i do know there are plenty of people out there making claims and promises that are unrealistic (just check my sig) with the hopes of fooling people into investing money in fraudulent ventures, also, not all vendors of LEDs are equal there are things that can be done to manufacture higher quality leds, and processes that can be used to discard/recycle bad bulbs before the customer ever sees them, but not every company out there Cares if they sell a quality product or not. in fact most are just after profit, who cares about anything else. the same problem comes about when buying blank DVDs there are about 3 companies that only sell top grade media (world wide) and there are about 40 companies that sell class anywhere from class 1 to class 4 media, and you can't tell by the packaging what you're going to get either. the companies that themselves produce class 1 media, and buy from a company Known To sell Class 4 media, drive me nuts, class 4 is worthless except to scare birds away or as a coaster, and i unfortunately ended ended my 'winning streak' with tdk lately by getting just one of those class 4 bundles... luckily i bought from new egg, so they let me get a different brand, and there i scored with class 2 or class 1 media. but honestly now I'm considering only buying from the 2-3 companies that only sell class 1 or class 2 media and never buy from the discount companies.

The XO Laptop is serviceable in the field. So easy a 5-year-old can do it. Unfortunately they're hard to come-by, now that the buy-one-get-one program has been suspended. I was able to play with one at my local LUG and was very impressed with its capabilities. I recommend ebay if you'd want a second-hand one.