Slashdot Mirror

By viewers Summit, TimTheTatMan and JoshOG. Phantomlord really only gambles and does giveaways. https://twitter.com/PhantomL0r...

Scotland seems to want to stay in the EU:
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling...

Will the Kingdoms become Ununited, as Jasper Fforde shows:
http://www.jasperfforde.com/dr...

Google Play bans Bomb Gaza
http://www.israelnationalnews....
http://www.channel4.com/news/b...

Google bans Whack The Hamas
http://jewishbusinessnews.com/...

Google Play bans Milo Tosser
https://twitter.com/riffraffga...

Google Play permanently bans developer of "Hilliar Clinton" game
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...

A moot point - it's not Thunderbird, it's Cisco AnyConnect: https://twitter.com/topherolso...

whipslash is a boy. This kid here

You have to remember, tech execs are often falling over each other to make grand proclamations so they can appear visionary. This reminds me of a similarly absurd comment by a tech executive that "78% of small businesses have fully adopted cloud computing".

Um, I think I'd call that number into question...

Isn't this the relevant email? https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/737806568201330688/photo/1 [full]

A) nothing there shows me that the document they're talking about is classified
B) couldn't she be saying to send it via unsecured fax because they failed to send it by secure fax and thus the email issue might be moot?

That's not a smoking gun to me but it is maybe interesting enough to warrant looking further.

"Only last weekend, I had to stop Father O'Flaherty from throwing a gay man off the roof of his bungalow." - @GodfreyElfwick

You mean like the Christian terrorist who was thwarted [cbsnews.com] in LA today from carrying out his attack on gays?

That report was apparently in error but of course it fits the narrative so the media went with it.

https://twitter.com/SantaMonic...
http://www.latimes.com/local/l...

Perhaps you would like to rebut the Royal Society paper, that shows a DECREASE in wildfires last decades/centuries [Les Johnson, 2016-06-13]

Wow. One of Lonny Eachus's fellow travellers completely ignores everything I wrote. What a complete surprise!

Again, as I pointed out, land clearing fires decreased (among other factors involving direct human intervention). From that Royal Society paper:

"... During the first half century, the global average area burned decreased somewhat by about 7% [41]. This was largely attributed to human factors, such as increased fire prevention, detection and fire-fighting efficiency, abandonment of slash-and-burn cultivation in some areas and permanent agricultural practice in others. ..."

So that paper explicitly includes "slash-and-burn cultivation" in the decreasing total area burned. Which is exactly what I told you earlier. That paper is examining all fires, both wildfires and intentional burns. Notice that they're examining charcoal records and isotope-ratio records in ice cores? Those records necessarily include intentional burns, like the "staggering amounts" of land clearing fires that occurred just in the USA over the last century. Ice core and charcoal records can't distinguish wildfires from intentional burns, but when Doerr and Santin use statistics that can tell the difference, the results aren't quite what Les Johnson is implying:

"... the widely reported increase in area burned for the USA [42] and particularly the western USA in recent decades [43–46]. ... according to national statistics for the USA, while area burned by prescribed fire has changed little overall since reporting began in 1998 (10 year average: 8853 km2), area burned by wildfires has seen an overall strong trend of increase by over 5%/yr over the period 1991–2015, with 2015 exceeding 40 000 km2 burned for the first time during the past 25 years (figure 3). This increase has been accompanied by an overall decline in the number of fires (figure 3). This suggests a general trend of fewer, but larger wildfires, which is also highlighted for forests in the western USA by Westerling for the period 1983–2012 [46]. ..."

So Doerr and Santin are actually saying that wildfires are burning more area in the western USA in recent decades. That's exactly what I said in 2012. And note that Doerr and Santin say "These statistics need to be viewed with some caution when examining trends as annual reporting methods and biases have undergone changes over time [47]."

Doerr and Santin reference 47 is Short 2015, which says:

"... Intentional ('controlled') burning was used extensively for vegetation management on nonfederal lands, especially in the south-eastern US during the early 20th century. Although now used to a lesser extent (but on both federal and non-federal lands) in the US, intentional burning is not classified in the current reporting systems as 'wildfire' unless the controlled burn escapes and requires a suppression response. However, the early USFS wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the USFS as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated (Pyne 1982). Controlled burning was accepted as a viable landmanagement practice over time and persists to this day (Melvin 2012); however, statistics regarding its use have not been included in summaries of 'wildfire' activity for several decades. ..."

That's why I objected when Tom Nelson and Lonny Eachus and

https://twitter.com/search?q=%...

And here's one of them: https://twitter.com/PolarWashington/status/742039392361971712 (warning: hate speech and idiocy beyond that link). ISIS and modern militant American Christianity have more in common than you'd think.

New paper, that says fires decreasing last decades, much less 100s years rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/16... Love the title: "...perceptions versus realities in a changing world" [Les Johnson, 2016-06-11]

Again, as I pointed out, land clearing fires decreased (among other factors involving direct human intervention). From that new paper:

"... During the first half century, the global average area burned decreased somewhat by about 7% [41]. This was largely attributed to human factors, such as increased fire prevention, detection and fire-fighting efficiency, abandonment of slash-and-burn cultivation in some areas and permanent agricultural practice in others. ..."

That's why I objected when Tom Nelson and Lonny Eachus and "Steven Goddard" accused scientists of fraud and dishonesty based on a graph that compares apples and oranges by grafting old data which includes intentional burns onto newer data that excludes intentional burns. Short 2015 explains why their accusations are wrong:

"... Intentional ('controlled') burning was used extensively for vegetation management on nonfederal lands, especially in the south-eastern US during the early 20th century. Although now used to a lesser extent (but on both federal and non-federal lands) in the US, intentional burning is not classified in the current reporting systems as 'wildfire' unless the controlled burn escapes and requires a suppression response. However, the early USFS wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the USFS as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated (Pyne 1982). Controlled burning was accepted as a viable landmanagement practice over time and persists to this day (Melvin 2012); however, statistics regarding its use have not been included in summaries of 'wildfire' activity for several decades. ..."

That's exactly what I told you earlier, and it answers your repeated question about intentional burns in the USA. So when you claimed a "massive decline" in fires, what you really meant is that the older USFS data included intentional burns, but more recent statistics don't include intentional burns.

There's really no need to imply that mainstream scientists don't understand that direct human intervention is currently a bigger factor than climate change. That is, in fact, exactly what Pechony and Shindell 2010 Fig. 2A shows. The gray line (fires without direct human intervention) projects an "impending shift to a temperature-driven global fire regime in the 21st century, creating an unprecedentedly fire-prone environment. These results suggest a possibility that in the future climate will play a considerably stronger role in driving global fire trends, outweighing direct human influence on fire (both ignition and suppression), a reversal from the situation during the last two centuries."

In fact, three years ago I quoted the same paper

New paper, that says fires decreasing last decades, much less 100s years rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/16... Love the title: "...perceptions versus realities in a changing world" [Les Johnson, 2016-06-11]

Again, as I pointed out, land clearing fires decreased (among other factors involving direct human intervention). From that new paper:

"... During the first half century, the global average area burned decreased somewhat by about 7% [41]. This was largely attributed to human factors, such as increased fire prevention, detection and fire-fighting efficiency, abandonment of slash-and-burn cultivation in some areas and permanent agricultural practice in others. ..."

That's why I objected when Tom Nelson and Lonny Eachus and "Steven Goddard" accused scientists of fraud and dishonesty based on a graph that compares apples and oranges by grafting old data which includes intentional burns onto newer data that excludes intentional burns. Short 2015 explains why their accusations are wrong:

"... Intentional ('controlled') burning was used extensively for vegetation management on nonfederal lands, especially in the south-eastern US during the early 20th century. Although now used to a lesser extent (but on both federal and non-federal lands) in the US, intentional burning is not classified in the current reporting systems as 'wildfire' unless the controlled burn escapes and requires a suppression response. However, the early USFS wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the USFS as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated (Pyne 1982). Controlled burning was accepted as a viable landmanagement practice over time and persists to this day (Melvin 2012); however, statistics regarding its use have not been included in summaries of 'wildfire' activity for several decades. ..."

That's exactly what I told you earlier, and it answers your repeated question about intentional burns in the USA. So when you claimed a "massive decline" in fires, what you really meant is that the older USFS data included intentional burns, but more recent statistics don't include intentional burns.

There's really no need to imply that mainstream scientists don't understand that direct human intervention is currently a bigger factor than climate change. That is, in fact, exactly what Pechony and Shindell 2010 Fig. 2A shows. The gray line (fires without direct human intervention) projects an "impending shift to a temperature-driven global fire regime in the 21st century, creating an unprecedentedly fire-prone environment. These results suggest a possibility that in the future climate will play a considerably stronger role in driving global fire trends, outweighing direct human influence on fire (both ignition and suppression), a reversal from the situation during the last two centuries."

In fact, three years ago I quoted the same paper

OMG! This guy?! He's more phony than Jesse Jackson. A typical subway scammer. And he's not even entertaining. Too bad people are falling for this shit. I think somebody like Soros or Koch is putting up some money. This stuff can't possibly make it on its own. Not when there's real tweets worth reading

Just because a service or product is free it doesn't give the provider an excuse to fuck up like in this case!

This isn't just any organization. Security, privacy and trustworthiness should be among its primary focuses! It's inexcusable that they would screw up this badly by releasing information that otherwise should have been kept private.

I saw a link to some tweets where this Josh Aas guy apparently blames it on some Python library that Let's Encrypt apparently used improperly.

But what I don't get is why they didn't find this bug earlier. If they had done some test mailings to their own addresses then I would expect this to have been discovered right away. Are we to believe that they didn't do any testing of this before sending, in their words, "approximately 383,000 emails"?!

We need to ask, HOW THE FUCK COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED?!

with troll posts, like this one.

So this device is just a mobile card payment system, just like in a store. If anyone wants to give him a call or Skype him, here's some contact info from https://www.ice.gov/doclib/aml...">2011:

T. Jack Williams
Paymentcard Services, Inc.
Mobile: 502.609.0109 Office: 817.576.3655
Skype: tjackwilliams
Email: tjackwilliams@gmail.com

His twitter account: https://twitter.com/tjackwilli...
PEARS shows that number is still connected to a Cingular Wireless (AT&T) account, so it's probably still his and working.

https://twitter.com/archer21an...

Guess he have more money then he knows what to do with. Spoiled

Funny that I keep hearing that, and yet every time the media and pollsters open their mouths the opposite happens. Jumping back to the recent past, you even had the flappy headed media and pollsters saying that Trump wouldn't succeed to make it to October of last year. Ol'Nick at 538 got so up set he threw a hissyfit and started acting like a child. Media? Same deal.

Funny, I've been saying that Trump would succeed, that the vacuous drones for the GOP nomination would not have the charisma to do anything about him, and that's what I heard, that he was saying and doing all the things that would be popular with the GOP.

Even if they were nothing more than blowhard rants.

That sort of stuff does work, and if anybody didn't realize that, I'd consider them fools. Yeah, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, they had to claim otherwise, because who wants to admit defeat, but I figured as soon as Trump jumped in, he'd be on top.

But then, I felt the same way about Perot. He was saying all the right things to get a chunk of voters behind him.

Hillary and Sanders supporters? Well some of them opted for open violence along with illegals. Some news organizations? Vox and Huffpo are all for rioting and using violence against Trump.

Keep going guys, you're proving Trump right.

Oh no, some few people are engaging in violence. What a new political development, completely unknown in history. And this country, it surely would not be formed after the result of going to the extreme.

Oh wait, no, both are truly part of our history. You can regret it, and find it misguided or even outright wrong, but I wouldn't be able deny it was considered necessary at times.

Meanwhile, Trump does nothing on his end that even suggests violence is a good idea. He's truly a man of peace.

You know, except for his general bombastic belligerence. He's chosen to be provocative himself.

And neither he, nor liberals are the only ones. You can find plenty of individuals across the political spectrum who have called for riots, revolution, and secession.

What, are you going to disavow it? Noble of you, if so. But I think your intent is to pretend it only sullies one side.

In any case, you didn't read that HuffPost editorial, did you? You relied on its title, a provocative one to be sure, but its substance, yeah, you should really examine it in full. I bet you can't even process the conclusion:

Last, I want to briefly note the problematic nature of people with privilege condemning violent resistance to Trump as an absolute moral failing, or denying its logic. Whether you would personally engage in violent conduct matters little to your ability to understand where it comes from. Some people have the privilege to consider the implications of Trump’s rise in the abstract and negotiate which means are necessary. That’s not true for everyone. And when those who hold that privilege dismiss the potential validity or logic of violent resistance, it’s effectively an effort to dictate the rules under which oppressed peoples respond to existential threats, and to silence forms of resistance disagreeable to privileged sensibilities. Don’t be that liberal.

His lead in the opinion polls against Trump is in the double-digits range whereas Clinton vs Trump figures are within the margin of error.

Funny that I keep hearing that, and yet every time the media and pollsters open their mouths the opposite happens. Jumping back to the recent past, you even had the flappy headed media and pollsters saying that Trump wouldn't succeed to make it to October of last year. Ol'Nick at 538 got so up set he threw a hissyfit and started acting like a child. Media? Same deal. Hillary and Sanders supporters? Well some of them opted for open violence along with illegals. Some news organizations? Vox and Huffpo are all for rioting and using violence against Trump.

Keep going guys, you're proving Trump right.

If you're suffering the chilling effects of not sharing media because you think you might get in trouble, that's a second-order effect of censorship.

...or you're just being considerate. Not every stray thought that flitters across your brain needs to be shared. For example, if you have opinions on a political candidate's spouse's looks, fantasies about something happening to a female who you happen to disagree with, or any opinion at all on a Kardashian, the world is much better off if you don't share. Really. We're fine.

For reference, see Elon's Law

From twitter:

â@laginimaineb May 29
Just managed to extract the Qualcomm KeyMaster keys directly from TrustZone! Writeup coming soon :) (1/2)
@laginimaineb May 29
@laginimaineb And wrote a script to decrypt all keystore keys. This can also be used to bruteforce the FDE passphrase off the device! (2/2)

Farewall, $14,000 phone. We hardly knew ye.

And then instead of being ashamed about getting references to the reef removed from the UN's report on climate change, Australia's (Anti) Environment minister then gloated about it on Twitter:

"Under Labor the U.N. put the Great Barrier Reef on the In-Danger 'Watch list'...Thanks to the coalition it came off"

I wish this was satire but unfortunately it's not.

Sure, sending a text message or making a phone call is fine, but 51 percent said they'd be uncomfortable sharing personal data with an AI system.

Well, that's something Google is going to have to overcome, considering that their I/O developer conference pretty much was a heads up for "hey folks, we're going to really start using AI for everything we do."

The two big consumer products that come to mind are (1) Google Home (or what @Pinboard called "Stasi in an Glade air freshener form factor) and (2) Google's 97th (?) chat app Allo which has end-to-end encryption turned off by default and seems to be stoking the anti-AI fears with creepy here's-the-answer-you-would-have-said predictive texts. mean, Allo seriously looks to me like a rush to jam cool technology into the uncanny valley of personal communication.

I have a feeling Google is going to have to consider the age old "just because we can, does that mean we should" considerations when it comes to AI. Especially regarding the optics. Sure, they know they can be trusted (everyone trusts themselves, after all), and the tensor flow/neural network/machine learning stuff they're doing is awesome, amazing, and has incredible to-be-discovered cutting edge applications.

But I kinda feel like the predictive texting thing off the bat feels like a solution looking for a problem-- Wave 2.0 if you will-- and the public is obviously very wary (and doesn't really know what "AI" is or how it works..) As Dan Kaminsky put it, "Maybe people would be less weird about AI if we called it automated statistics.".

All the effort to brand Hangouts, and they're throwing it out the window?

Why not do this for the perfect text app:

1. Keep the Hangouts brand.
2. Bring back jabber/XMPP interoperability and support OTR with non-Google users.
3. Add Signal's end-to-end encryption as default
4. Make the Allo AI stuff opt-in for now (necessarily sacrificing privacy)

Sure, sending a text message or making a phone call is fine, but 51 percent said they'd be uncomfortable sharing personal data with an AI system.

Well, that's something Google is going to have to overcome, considering that their I/O developer conference pretty much was a heads up for "hey folks, we're going to really start using AI for everything we do."

The two big consumer products that come to mind are (1) Google Home (or what @Pinboard called "Stasi in an Glade air freshener form factor) and (2) Google's 97th (?) chat app Allo which has end-to-end encryption turned off by default and seems to be stoking the anti-AI fears with creepy here's-the-answer-you-would-have-said predictive texts. mean, Allo seriously looks to me like a rush to jam cool technology into the uncanny valley of personal communication.

I have a feeling Google is going to have to consider the age old "just because we can, does that mean we should" considerations when it comes to AI. Especially regarding the optics. Sure, they know they can be trusted (everyone trusts themselves, after all), and the tensor flow/neural network/machine learning stuff they're doing is awesome, amazing, and has incredible to-be-discovered cutting edge applications.

But I kinda feel like the predictive texting thing off the bat feels like a solution looking for a problem-- Wave 2.0 if you will-- and the public is obviously very wary (and doesn't really know what "AI" is or how it works..) As Dan Kaminsky put it, "Maybe people would be less weird about AI if we called it automated statistics.".

All the effort to brand Hangouts, and they're throwing it out the window?

Why not do this for the perfect text app:

1. Keep the Hangouts brand.
2. Bring back jabber/XMPP interoperability and support OTR with non-Google users.
3. Add Signal's end-to-end encryption as default
4. Make the Allo AI stuff opt-in for now (necessarily sacrificing privacy)

I agree with your post. Timothy actually was canned, though. My source is Malda's Twitter feed: https://mobile.twitter.com/cmdrtaco/status/715934402648219648. Timothy made a few comments about it on his Twitter account, too, which is @timothylord. I've noticed that about the comments getting modded down even when they're constructive. It's a much smaller scale but it reminds me of a long time ago when sllort made a post about moderation and it got hundreds of replies. The editors model every post in the thread to -1 and rtbl'd anyone who posted in the thread or model it up, which actually brought far more attention to the thread than if they had simply ignored it.

I think you're right that the new management hasn't been able to find a way to monetize the site. I assume that if Slashdot had much value, there would be no reason to keep the sale price secret. I also don't see why the staff would have been canned, unless that's a way to cut costs. As I understand it, the old editors like Soulskill knew the site sucked but DICE wasn't supportive of them improving things. It wasn't the fault of the old staff; the ownership was to blame. They were competent and so I assume letting the staff go was a cost cutting measure.

Watch this space.

I gotta disagree... it makes absolutely no sense at all to create a new hydrocarbon fuel. Problem #1: availability of carbon... it will take energy to extract it from the air or other sources. Problem #2, nobody knows yet of a way to guarantee that every hydrocarbon molecule correctly decomposes back to CO2, meaning that some resulting CO will be created by the combustion process, the whole argument for hydrogen cars is the elimination of carbon from the cycle... why reintroduce it. Problem #3: Creating a hydrocarbon chain uses a TON of energy... some of which is lost as heat during the creation process. Problem #4: All internal combustion engines create heat, a further waste of energy. While it is true that ECs also create heat, it is several orders of magnitude less than an ICE.

You do realize that bio-fuels and ethanol mix fuels represent the very "artificial gasoline" you are speaking of, right? And they've done wonders for fixing our energy cycle problems to date.

Remember that the shortest path between two points is a straight line. When talking about energy efficiency, the same is true. The most efficient way to use energy is to measure the waste of each individual step and sum it up... in the end, your efficiency ratio is the amount of power used to do what you wanted, over the total power consumed by the entire system. This math has already been done, as trumpeted in this infographic.

AddThis ostensibly exists to make it convenient for a website's viewers who are also members of social media sites to share URLs of HTML documents with their followers. Unless a particular social media site offers a keyless intent API, such as Twitter's Web Intents, the alternative is for each website publisher to maintain contractual relationships with a dozen or more different sites to get API keys and add their individual button codes, and not every publisher wants to spend time on that.

Not necessarily. MH370 disappeared from flightradar24 over the South China Sea and the plane wasn't found there. Until we know what happened, "disappeared" is the best word the media can use right now. DNS-and-BIND clumsily argued the contrary as a pretext to post his unrelated echo chamber story.

Seen John Carmack's recent tweet?

With Minecraft out the door, I think my next VR software fantasy would be Nintendo letting me take a swing at porting a GC /Wii/3DS Mario.

I think Tyler the creator put it rather succinctly.

Got a non-WIRED citation? It and Forbes have a habit of confusing tracking blockers with ad blockers. There's currently no way to say "just give me ads that aren't videos and aren't based on tracking me," and it all feels so hypocritical based on a past review of the Disconnect extension in WIRED.

To some people, that would be "put it back in my iPhone". (People who remove their internal mic, which I think is smart.)

I don't think you are.

But the guy who submitted this fake news report seems to refer to himself as a "Slashdot editor".

So this would explain why the initial upvotes on my post later got reversed.

"The need to be observed and understood was once satisfied by God. Now we can implement the same functionality with data-mining algorithms."

"Extreme surveillance hardly inspires reverence. Perhaps fear and obedience, but not reverence."

"God and the gods were apparitions of observation, judgement, and punishment. Other sentiments toward them were secondary."

"No one will ever worship a software entity peering at them through a camera."

"The human organism always worships. First it was the gods, then it was fame (the observation and judgement of others), next it will be the self-aware systems you have built to realize truly omnipresent observation and judgement."

"You underestimate humankind's love of freedom."

"The individual desires judgement. Without that desire, the cohesion of groups is impossible, and so is civilization. The human being created civilization not because of a willingness but because of a need to be assimilated into higher orders of structure and meaning. God was a dream of good government. You will soon have your god, and you will make it with your own hands."

And to provide the counterpoint, a very brief warning from Twitter as to how quickly it can all go wrong.

Twitter made the decision because the company did not like the "optics" of appearing too close to U.S. spy agencies

So, ISIS using Twitter is tolerable, but US government — no, that's just wrong?

Ah, well, they started to go after "violent extremism" too now, finally. The "optics" must've gotten really bad...

Unfortunately, they don't distinguish between terrorists and, for example, Ukrainians defending their country.

Original AC here. You're being trolled. That said, after looking into the claims in this thread, it looks like Timothy got canned. And I do have a source for that: https://mobile.twitter.com/timothylord/status/715960545271132160. That sucks.

Basically he said that because we didn't trust him, he is too hurt and emotional to do what Charlie Lee (creator of Litecoin) did the other day. He can't do that and needs a therapist, or a good chocolate bar, or something.

In other words, he was lying all along. This is what your spouse does when you catch them lying and in an affair: instead of stopping it and making it right and apologizing, they whine that they are too hurt and emotional because of your allegations. It's what children do when you catch them lying. It's what all liars do.

https://twitter.com/FearDept

And this is how she is spending that money.

https://twitter.com/hillarycli...

I dont know what she is trying to say. Probably 'woman are paid less' somehow. But that is not how that reads.

She has made blunder after blunder with junk like this. Stuff where I see it pop up and I thought people were kidding and made up something.

>incredibly divisive even in his own party,

Amongst the party elite, yes he's divisive.

As Conservative Pundit (@DemsRRealRacist) says
Trump only sells in the South, the Northeast, and the West Coast. In the vast, sparsely-populated interior of the US he really struggles.

Here's a tweet from their talented "Lead Growth", who's also founder of "Women in Product":

Day three of using a Windows machine: was totally mentally exhausted last night, dreaded work this morning. Struggling to do small things.

https://twitter.com/merci/stat...

How fucking entitled can someone get?

When I see people like that, I seriously wonder if I should consider another career than IT. Those idiots just ruin the entire industry.

[citation needed]

Citation 1.
Citation 2.
Citation 3.

I did not come here to praise Kuro5hin but to bury it.

Rusty Foster was an absentee landlord who neglected it while he worked for Newsweek writing Today in Tabs until he got fired. Everyone remembers the CMF that never existed but Rusty raised a lot of money with it to promise to fix Scoop and improve Kuro5hin, but the money went to fix his house and buy a yacht instead.

Rusty helped Howard Dean's campaign use Scoop to connect with voters, but the Dean Scream ruined that. That was before social networks too off and people use Wordpress now instead of Scoop.

Just about everyone who made Kuro5hin great had left, Rusty put up a $5 paywall for new accounts, when that failed to stop trolls, Rusty deleted the login form and new user page. After that didn't work Rusty moved his DNS to Ghandi in France and the site was down for a few days until this new landing page was used.

Rusty's Twitter page: http://www.twitter.com/rustyk5 but he made it private so only his followers can see it.

Slashdot was on the decline, but I'm actually optimistic about the new owner's chances of succeeding at turning the ship around because of their commitment to listening to the community for the first time in far too long.

I think this tweet kind of puts it in perspective.

Please show me where methane is much less of an effect than CO2.

Methane has about 28 times the global warming potential. The rest of what you've said is conspiracy nuttery though. "Once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years. Methane, by contrast, is mostly removed from the atmosphere by chemical reaction, persisting for about 12 years. Thus although methane is a potent greenhouse gas, its effect is relatively short-lived." Even still, CH4 is hardly ignored.

By the way, guess which one of us this scientist is backing on our global warming bet. You may be surprised!

The shmuck (yes, shmuck. richer-than-thou, still shmuck.) wasn't the first to go all a-twitter about AI. Though he didn't do anything worthwhile with it. Closest was... clippy, or perhaps this "problem solving wizard" thing that uses large hidden markov models or whatwasit, works about as well as clippy. Well before him were lots of smarter people doing smarter things with AI and the like, and eventually getting not very far either. Very conveniently leaving lots of opportunity for yet smrtr people to keep pushing, eh.

PHP CEO has it, though:

HIRING FOR MACHINE LEARNING DOES ANYONE KNOW SOMEONE CALLED AL? APPARENTLY WE REALLY NEED THIS GUY TO GET ANYTHING DONE