Slashdot Mirror

The space station got an advanced screening.

http://www.theguardian.com/fil...

The parent poster, therefore, must be an astronaut.

Puts a whole new spin on "walking out".

"It is estimated that the effects of NO 2 on mortality are equivalent to 23,500 deaths annually in the UK" -- UK dept. for environment and rural affairs https://consult.defra.gov.uk/a... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/busi...

"Volkswagen’s rigging of emissions tests for 11m cars means they may be responsible for nearly 1m tonnes of air pollution every year, roughly the same as the UK’s combined emissions for all power stations, vehicles, industry and agriculture, a Guardian analysis suggests." http://www.theguardian.com/bus...

The space station got an advanced screening.

http://www.theguardian.com/fil...

The parent poster, therefore, must be an astronaut.

Shoot they did a PSA sheet on it after some deaths:

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

The little images are classic, my favorite is the person who appears to be jumping in front of a train while taking a selfie.

I agree that it seemed like the police, etc just took the obvious bait and/or overreacted idiotically - as you said it wasn't useful and served no purpose but to inflame. Though I disagree that the blogger said it was "justified" - he basically said the reaction was "understandable" given the current overblown paranoia in schools these days. It's possible to understand the reasoning behind an overreaction, but disagree with it. Just look at the many reasonable people duped by Bush, etc. over the Iraq War...

But overreaction doesn't mean there still isn't a chance it was an intentional fake. Richard Dawkins had a fairly objective comment (that was nonetheless shouted down by many who didn't want to hear alternative "theories", ironically) when hearing that it was just a Radio Shack clock: "If this is true, what was his motive? Whether or not he wanted the police to arrest him, they shouldn’t have done so." And that's the key - can the kid explain why he claimed the clock was his "invention"? Was he just taking credit for something he didn't do, or did he know that it looked suspicious? (some comments he has made indicate he may have).

http://www.theguardian.com/sci...

Actually, they are (self) genetically engineered.

http://www.theguardian.com/sci...

Some sherpas do take oxygen. Some don't.

Financial disclosure laws. If you are a US citizen and have a bank account in a foreign bank the foreign bank is required to comply with US disclosure laws. http://www.theguardian.com/mon...

Why does it make sense? By saying that you invalidate the feminist argument that differences between the two are simple social constructs that need breaking down.

Oh, we already have feminists trying to micromanage men in their bathrooms.

two random google hits..
http://www.theguardian.com/com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

What's up with the mods? How is this obviously weak argument a 5? The data was solid for cigarettes and it is solid (and has been) for AGW.

http://www.theguardian.com/env...

This isn't about censorship. It's about massive and deliberate deception that causes harm. Cigarettes killed people for 40+ years AFTER the evidence was clear. Clear data showing cigarettes caused disease and death wasn't enough because the cigarette companies launched a massive campaign to cast doubt among people. The same thing is happening now, scarily often from the same groups and people (Heritage Foundation, Fred Singer). "Merchants of Doubt" contains impressive research on the subject, for those who want details.

http://www.theguardian.com/env...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

http://www.theatlantic.com/bus...

I'm not ignoring anything. I know that that CO2 is increasing. I know it causes some warming, current studies put climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 at around 1.1C. Which means that much of the observed warming in the last 100 years cant be attributed to CO2 alone.

It still has to be demonstrated that a warmer planet is harmful to humans.

About the sub, your right, its not east Antarctica per say, the following article shows exactly where they did their measurements:

http://www.theguardian.com/env...

I'm a great fan of back-of-the-envelope calculations... but these aren't calculations; they are merely assertions. And worse, not merely assertions, but assertions that seem to be based on random pseudo-facts not really understood.

Europe has the longest history of solar panel installation, and has good data for energy payback time. Energy payback time for silicon panels is between 0.5 and 1.4 years. Depending on location, it can be as high as 3 years in northern Europe.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/...

plus the whole poisoning China thing with harvesting rare earths

Do you even know what rare earth elements are? Almost all solar panels manufactured today are crystalline silicon. Silicon isn't a rare earth element.

In the end, I have faith in the species to adapt or to invent technologies that actually will be helpful. We're not there yet. Band-aid solutions in the short term are meaningless..

I agree with you there. I'm a technological optimist; if we can identify problems, we can solve them. However, ignoring and belittling the existence of problems isn't going to help, and dismissing possible solutions with slogans and sound-bites is counterproductive.

So are gotcha-type articles about Exxon.

The point of this article was that Exxon was a major funder of the campaigns to discredit the science of global warming in the '90s and early 2000s, even though a decade earlier their own scientists were telling them that this was significant. They spent about $30 million dollars funding climate denial.

On the other hand, they did stop most of their funding to the climate-change deniers in 2007, so it does seem to me to be mostly an article about a company that isn't really the problem any more.

http://www.theguardian.com/env...
http://www.scientificamerican....
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/17...

How many times will they make articles about this as if it was something new?

http://www.theguardian.com/env...

I know we are leading up to COP 21 in Paris and they feel there is a need to spread the propaganda thick, but this is getting ridiculous.

Contrary to what the media is spreading, Exxon and other oil companies have been funding both sides fro decades.
i.e. http://news.stanford.edu/news/...

Rockefeller has been behind this push and drive on climate alarmism from the get go. Funding research and organisations like 350.org.

Those that believe the fallacy that big oil is all alone and behind only the "denier war machine" are keeping their heads in the sand.

Besides, the governements of the west outspend the supposed denial money by 10 to 1.

For the record, the woman didn't just make the shirt for him out of the blue - he asked for it. As well as making sexual references about the Rosetta spacecraft, of all things.

But you know, Taylor could be a trendsetter. Why stop at just a shirt? He should do the press conference with "Booth Babes" showing off the data. Maybe use a naked woman as a table too.

I have read several recent studies that demonstrate women are currently make more than men in the same fields with the same credentials once things like amount hours worked are accounted for. Men tend to work more 50 hour weeks where women tend to work more 40 hour weeks. Women tend to be more worried about work life balance (which is great IMHO), where men will focus exclusively on careers (often due to society pressure, more on that in a moment). This is reflected in the workplace violence rates, suicide rates (15times higher than women), homeless rates (84-94% depending on the study), and a few other areas. Clicky

Men have pressure to provide, often due to divorce. Once again, men have almost no chance of getting custody and face severe punishments for not providing child support. I think that last part is great, but women who do not pay child support receive virtually no punishment. Men are ignored in the majority of cases of domestic violence, where rates of abuse match that of women. "Equality" still does not exist, but we see the effects of the shift in the opposite direction growing.

Another interesting finding in one of these studies was that women with careers do not marry down, but men have traditionally done so. Meaning, a woman doctor will not generally marry someone who is not a doctor, or equivalent in income (not necessarily education). Men however do not, and have not, held such practices. This has extended the gaps between income brackets and seems to be related to numerous social issues like reduced birth rates and declining marriages.

Yes Jeremy Hunt (the UK health secretary) seems to believe in homeopathy. It really shows the quality of your government when someone so unsuited to this job (or any position requiring the application of rational thought) is able to set health policy.

They do tend to bring only cases they think they'll win - there aren't any plea bargains (which is a huge improvement over the current US justice system). That said, they also have a big problem with police/prosecutors relying on (often coerced) confessions to win convictions.

Also, there has been something of a tradition that many judges are inclined to trust the prosecutors/police, that's only more recently been whittled away at with some of the evidence that's come to light in old cases with DNA evidence brought in. Consider Hakamada Iwao, who was found guilty of murder, only to be exonerated 45 years later when DNA testing proved his innocence. One of the original judges reportedly considered committing suicide out of shame over it:

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03...

That's a sensationalist mis-translation that the western TV decided to run with.

As for Israel not killing Muslims abroad, that's ludicrous. And at home there's evidence that the Israeli government has a tendency to "link" every attack of a Jew by a Muslim with organized terrorism. In the incident that lead up to their 2015 bombing campaign, Israel's claims about Hamas involvement were exposed as bunk. The fallacious nature of the claim didn't stop them from surging into the strip (an open-air prison packed with state-less people) which led to an escalation in hostilities.

Do you want a security system or a hobby? Find a professional and let them worry about whether it's been designed and more importantly installed properly.
That said, before you turn your home into a fortress might I suggest you buy a copy of Ground Control a book about British urban planning which has a lot to say about the downsides of "secure" homes.

old news:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

new news:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

It appears that what the original charges were based on was violating a non-disclosure agreement.
And the new evidence is that a group of physicists hired by the defense lawyers were able to determine that the multiple emails were for a newly invented device that does not violate the NDA.

They don't say what the new invention is, but I'll bet that it was related to thin-film superconductivity because that was his field.
If my supposition is correct, it's not surprising that it required a team of other physicists to determine that the new invention did not violate the previous NDA.

This sounds like exactly the kind of thing that courts and lawyers are for. He was not doing anything wrong, but he was skating so close to the edge that he got arrested. The situation was investigated and he was exonerated without a trial.

I do blame Temple for removing him as department head before a trial. That's just wrong in a case like this.

old news:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

new news:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

It appears that what the original charges were based on was violating a non-disclosure agreement.
And the new evidence is that a group of physicists hired by the defense lawyers were able to determine that the multiple emails were for a newly invented device that does not violate the NDA.

They don't say what the new invention is, but I'll bet that it was related to thin-film superconductivity because that was his field.
If my supposition is correct, it's not surprising that it required a team of other physicists to determine that the new invention did not violate the previous NDA.

This sounds like exactly the kind of thing that courts and lawyers are for. He was not doing anything wrong, but he was skating so close to the edge that he got arrested. The situation was investigated and he was exonerated without a trial.

I do blame Temple for removing him as department head before a trial. That's just wrong in a case like this.

How's that working for ya, Hillary!?

Just fine, it's being determined she did nothing illegal. Not sure we can say the same about this Ashley Madison guy yet.

OMFG!

BWAAAA HAAAAH HAAAAA HAAAAA!!!

LMAO - at you.

Holy crap! There's someone who actually seems to believe Hillary! did nothing wrong.

Next, I'll find a unicorn.

And no, it HASN'T "been determined she did nothing illegal", you credulous simp. The DoJ saying she can delete emails doesn't mean having classified material on HER server wasn't a felony.

How's that working for ya, Hillary!?

Just fine, it's being determined she did nothing illegal. Not sure we can say the same about this Ashley Madison guy yet.

Where are the death squads and ditches full of dead bodies?

• https://www.iraqbodycount.org/
• http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database#

Where are the crying survivors hoping to find their disappeared loved ones?

• http://www.cbsnews.com/feature/protests-over-police-violence/
• http://theantimedia.org/4-victims-come-forward-chicago-secret-prison-man-tortured-weed/

What is scary is that you even thin you can get away with asking the question given that the answer is so obvious.

The National Geographic Society president and CEO, Gary Knell, will serve as the board's first chairman.

The new joint venture will give the National Geographic Society the "scale and reach to continue to fulfill our mission long into the future", Knell said in a statement. The transaction is expected to close later this year. "As media organizations work to meet the increasing demand for high-quality storytelling across multiple platforms, it's clear that the opportunity to grow by more closely aligning our branded content and licensing assets is the right path" he said.

http://www.theguardian.com/med...

*sigh* This discussion is so pathetic unless there's some actual evidence of manipulation or fraud on Hampton Creek's part.

Well, in TFA, there is a link to an article describing precisely that.

I don't think there's some sort of big conspiracy or even intentional act to trick the average consumer into buying "Just Mayo" when the consumer really wanted eggs.

I wouldn't call it a "big conspiracy" -- it's just a company trying to sell a product. You call your product "Just Mayo" and put a picture of an egg and a plant on the front. You get the vegan crowd who has heard of your product, plus you might sell more product to people looking for "healthy" or "natural" mayo.

The vegan market, while growing, is still quite small. (Polls and estimates generally put the proportion of vegans in the U.S. at less than 1%.) The number of people who buy regular mayonnaise is probably a couple orders of magnitude larger. You could probably sell more product to normal mayo seekers trying to find "natural" mayo than you could sell to dedicated vegans.

It's not a grand "conspiracy." It's a marketing decision -- one that is potentially deceptive, if you actually believe the mayonnaise should have a standard definition. The FDA generally has limitations on what can and can't go into certain foods, to avoid situations where a consumer thinks he/she is getting X, but it's actually Y or a severely diluted form of X mixed with crap.

Really, if that's the real complaint, then the Egg Lobby should have pushed the FDA to demand better labeling.

Uh, the FDA did take action.

(To be clear, NONE of this excuses the actions of the Egg Board, which seems deplorable. But that doesn't mean there isn't some deception going on on both sides.)

That sounds more like incompetence than malice, or excessive cautiousness...

Vegans won't eat eggs, and will avoid products which contain them.

A lot of products are advertised as "may contain traces of nuts" when they usually dont, the companies are over cautious incase there is a trace of nuts and someone has a severe reaction.

While that's a nice story, that's NOT what GP was talking about. As detailed in a previous Guardian article, the company calls its product "Just Mayo" and has a picture of an egg on the label. The FDA has (rightly) accused them of false advertising, because they (1) imply their product is mayonnaise with their name, but doesn't contain necessary ingredients for the normal definition of mayo, (2) include ingredients that are not allowed in products claiming to be mayonnaise, (3) show a picture of an egg and plant on the label, leading to an impression that the product contains eggs and is likely a "natural" version of mayo, and (4) also implies on the label that their product is "heart-healthy" while not meeting the FDA standard for such labeling.

We have food definitions for a reason. It prevents you from going to the store and buying a thing labeled "ground beef" and getting a bunch of ground-up cat mixed with oats and tofu. There are definitions for mayonnaise, too.

I have no problem if this company wants to sell a vegan product similar to mayonnaise -- that's great. Maybe it's tasty or healthier -- great. But they should either choose a name that clearly indicates it is NOT traditional mayonnaise and/or have an explanation on the label indicating explicitly how it differs from traditional mayo.

Instead, this company wants to try to mislead customers into thinking they are buying a "more natural" and "pure" version of actual mayonnaise ("Just Mayo") by using a deceptive label.

This is definitely not "incompetence." It's clearly deliberate.

The problem is a fraud on the public. Advocating a position that is based on who pays you, without regard to reason or truth or the benefit to mankind, without so much as a notice of your bias, causes massive amounts of harm to the public by sustaining inefficient practices.

It is perhaps the single most harmful activity to society a person can engage in--it wastes other people's lives. It perpetuates the spread of misinformation.

Yes, yes, yes. Thanks for your rant -- and I agree with you.

On the other hand, if you RTFA, you'll find out that both sides in this fight are trying to mislead.

Another Guardian article (linked in TFA) details how the product information violates standards of mayonnaise definitions without explanation on the label, choosing to call itself "Just Mayo" and featuring a picture of an egg on the label.

Another article linked in TFA interviewed former employees and describes shoddy science and misleading claims by the company, including things like claiming shelf-life longevity before the product had actually been tested that long, putting in ingredients (like preservatives) that violate its other advertising and claims, mislabeling ingredients to make the product look more "natural" and less "processed," etc. In sum:

Over time, though, the former employees came to believe that the company was less concerned about the science and more about delivering a product as fast as possible to meet whatever contract was due, which disappointed many of the former employees we spoke with.

"The entire time I was there we weren't aware of how it emulsified," a former employee said, referring to the eggless mayonnaise. "We weren't able to prove how it works. Josh liked to convey this notion that we had a great understanding of the science."

Another former employee said: "It was supposed to be a science research company, and it's not a science research company, and that's a very big disappointment."

So, if you're going to go around yelling about "frauds on the public," let's be clear what we're talking about here. Both sides are trying to mislead to make profits. Both sides are misusing "science" for their own agendas.

Is it deplorable? Yes. Is it new or even that noteworthy? Not really.

The main concern about this whole incident from the actions of the pro-egg folks is that some of their funding comes from the government. Your rant may be well-intentioned, but it's basically a fact of life in the corporate world. I think GP is correct to point out that if we're criticizing the SCIENCE, we should present the SCIENTIFIC flaws (and misleading statements/policies) of both sides, of which there are many.

But the only reason to single out the pro-egg side as "more guilty" here is because of the connection to government. That's the legitimate concern here.

And it is fundamentally contrary to the ideals of Nerds, Geeks, and those who believe in the potential of science and information to help mankind get out of the mess we've made of our world and our societies.

Yes, and if we had a story for every company that was putting out misleading propaganda about its products, we might as well turn Slashdot into a business news site, because we'd have dozens if not hundreds of stories like this every day. I'm not saying we shouldn't criticize it, but acting like these practices are somehow unusual or even noteworthy (other than the connection to the government) is a bit weird.

Take heed for Google have finally fixed this problem with Android M.

> an already paused state of global warming I've got bad news for you: http://www.theguardian.com/env... âoeThere is no slowdown in warming, there is no hiatus,â

Sorry, but considering that tens of thousands of pages have been written on the subtle nuances of wine flavors, yet blindfolded wine experts couldn't actually distinguish between red and white varieties, I'm guessing the fine distinctions of whiskeys are pretty much the same.

http://www.theguardian.com/lif...

It's certainly credible that a chemical reaction taking place in an environment without convection or gravity, etc might proceed differently in some respects, but I'm going to file this one down around "monster sound cables give you cleaner sound" in the authenticity-file.

Yesterday I wanted to get a small file from one computer to another, didn't want to use a thumb drive (didn't have cloud storage on one as well) so I just figured I'd Hotmail myself (via its web interface) an e-mail with the attached file zipped and encrypted (it was a tax doc) to another e-mail address of mine...no problem right? So I try to attach the file and Microsoft decided it had to be able to scan and identify (and log?) what I had in that zip file before it would allow it to be attached (since it was encrypted it wouldn't allow it to be attached...tried it several times...the NSA must be pleased)....so much for user's privacy.

With all the information, since Snowden, about Microsoft working hand in glove with the U.S. government I have to laugh a little at them being included here - as it seems a PR stunt on their part.

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

Stonehenge was for music. BOOONG said stonehenge. Stonehenge goes BOOONG. BOOOOONG. BOOOONG. You are Stonehenges. Say BOOONG. Say BOOOOONG you stonehenges!

Yeah, it's not even a new rerun - http://www.theguardian.com/sci...

But that's the way it is with patents; they're like survey questions, it's all in how they're phrased. Maybe this time someone will actually produce something with the idea?

Did you even watch the last vice-presidential debate? When Ryan was speaking, Biden was babbling, laughing, and almost drooling.

I think you may be misremembering.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/po...

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

But people can watch for themselves. That's the beauty of the Internet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I have yet to meet a motorist who stricly adheres to the speed limits. Or one who doesn't run a yellow light even though he could stop safely. Motorists seem to be very aware of the rules that bicyclists are breaking while they shrug off their own lawlessness as both normal and acceptable. At the same time, motorists kill thousands of people per year in the US alone and are most often at fault when a bicyclist gets hurt.

Nope, other way around. Paved roads were lobbied for by bicyclists. Automobiles were invented a few decades later.

Give me a break, it's just a couple of thousand people.

True, for values of couple in the region of 750.

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

http://www.theguardian.com/env...

Which consensus ?

It's really nice to see we have entered the era of prediction and fact free science. At least the Pharaohs could predict when the Nile would flood it did.

You can read the individual statements of the science academies. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) They go much further than simply stating that radiative physics is a real thing. Most state that the IPCC represents the consensus view and that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

I wouldn't expect a science academy to make judgments on the economic impact. For that you could go to economists: "There is a strong consensus among the top economic experts that, in fact, climate change represents a real danger to important sectors of the U.S. and global economies. Moreover, most believe that the significant benefits from curbing greenhouse gas emissions would justify the costs of action." - http://resources.ofdan.ca/docs...

Or you could go to Wall Street: "because of savings due to reduced fuel costs and increased energy efficiency, the Action (to slow CO2 emissions) scenario is actually a bit cheaper than the Inaction scenario. Coupled with the fact the total spend is similar under both action and inaction, yet the potential liabilities of inaction are enormous, it is hard to argue against a path of action." - http://www.theguardian.com/env...

In this case, the
actual temperatures greatly deviate from the models and indicate that
global cooling is occuring

http://www.theguardian.com/env...

Oh now I see...

https://stevengoddard.wordpres...

In this case, the
actual temperatures greatly deviate from the models and indicate that
global cooling is occuring

http://www.theguardian.com/env...

So your position is that the entire country (world maybe) should have access to identity information for everyone who currently has a potentially fatal, communicable disease? Knowing their email addresses would hardly be adequate to help people avoid the problems you describe, so you must (logically) be advocating for revealing actual names and work/home addresses.

Hmmm - so what other diseases should be accorded such special status?

Unless you have some kind of unseemly bias, you must be concerned about all diseases that are at least as communicable as HIV, and which cause at least that number of deaths - would that be a reasonable low bar for you?

So...let's see - in the UK, about 6,000 people die every year from HIV/AIDS - and about 25,000 die from influenza.

Oh [citation required] huh? OK - the numbers are here:

http://www.avert.org/uk-hiv-ai... (6,000 people died from AIDS in 2012)
http://www.theguardian.com/soc... (28,000 people died from influenza in just two weeks in January 2015)

How about communicability?

To be infected by HIV, you need to exchange body fluids - pretty unlikely to happen, statistically.
To be infected by influenza, you just need to be standing nearby when they sneeze - incredibly likely.

So - unless your position comes from a specific bias against HIV sufferers *because* of the most common routes of infection - you should reasonably be pressing the government to release the names of all known influenza sufferers instead.

I think we know what your feelings are in that regard - so we can only conclude from your post that it's pure, unreasoning bias.

here's a different perspective from someone who studies mammoths.

Hey, if they enforce this against the NSA, America's freedom might get a win here! http://www.theguardian.com/boo...

The Danish crewman was bringing up some special Lego models that are going to be used as prizes in school competitions, but I'm surprised by the short duration as well...

http://www.theguardian.com/sci...

it seems his mission is a short one anyway...

http://blogs.esa.int/iriss/201...

Closest I can come to finding a "radioactive wasteland" on Earth today are coal-ash heaps outside coal plants. Pretty much nothing grows,and the solid radioisotopes make it as close to a "radioactive wasteland" as you'll find on Earth today....

And ten years later those coal wastelands look a little different, and there are no armed guards who keep you from entering. http://www.theguardian.com/env...

I have a few friends in Turkey. One of them told me a while a go that they are placing bets on when Erdogan will declare himself Sultan. At the time I thought my friend was joking, then I did a Google search on Erdogan and now I have doubts. Have you seen Erdogan's 'presidential palace'?

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

That place makes the White House look like a garden shed and the place where the president of my country lives like a birdhouse.

If you'd stop calling them "nukes", it would help. That word is usually associated with bombing and deaths.

I have to agree. It was purely an anomaly, what happened at Fukushima, Onagawa, Fleurus, Forsmark, Erwin, Sellafield, Atucha, Braidwood, Paks, Tokaimura, Yanangio, Ikitelli, Ishikawa, Tomsk, Cadarache, Vandellos, Greifswald, Chernobyl, Hamm-Uentrop, Tsuraga, Saint Laurent des Eaux, Three Mile Island, Jaslovské Bohunice, Lucens, Chapelcross, Monroe, Charlestown, Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Chalk River, Vina, Kyshtym, Windscale Pile, and Chalk River.

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank

If scholar just means "one who studies", then obviously anyone who studies a religious text for a long time BECAUSE they're a believer is by definition a scholar. I don't think that's what you mean.

If we change "scholar" to "scientist", it's quite clear that scientist is not synonymous with atheist. Pew research found that "just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power". Besides, many would say that science requires repeatable experiments, and many truths simply aren't repeatable (e.g., history).