Slashdot Mirror

I'm American and assumed that "scuttlebutt" was some kind of Britishism. Sure sounds like something a Brit would say, what with your Cockney and your Scunthorpe and, well, all this.

Why a $5 box-cutter instead of a wrench and some drugs?

https://xkcd.com/386/

https://xkcd.com/538/

YOur issue is a non-issue. Human civilization began and has flourished in a fairly narrow band of climatological conditions. While, in the space of geological time, those conditions will change, the nice about geological time is that it is a LONG FUCKING TIME. What we're doing now is leading to major climactic changes in a very SHORT FUCKING TIME.

Which could have happened before. Probably happened before. If the theories about methane and permafrost are true, definitely happened before, and without human intervention, and on a far grander scale than any human affect so far. But we have zero evidence either way. Proxies more than a thousand years old simply don't have the granularity to show changes on the order of decades. This lovely XKCD is totally deceptive because it hides any and all fluctuations in the historical record that were on the order of the current fluctuation because they're invisible. No proxy can reconstruct them. The only one we can see is the current one. We have no proof whatsoever that it's unique. None.

Otherwise all your advocating is we fuck over our grandchildren because we're too stupid and evil and selfish to work towards the solution now.

Do you hate the future that much? Do your kids fill you with such loathing that you would just dispense with their welfare and pretend we can do nothing? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Hyperbole. Useless, stupid, blind, overblown, absurdly ridiculous hyperbole. A trend that's a mere few decades old doesn't even qualify as a change in climate. It's fucking weather. A trend, but still weather. Humanity has existed in a more or less recognizable form for 100,000 years. We survived the onset of an Ice Age. (Barely.) That is climate change. We survived the aftermath of the Ice Age. Flooding like you would not believe. (Possibly the origin of the pervasive Flood myths in human cultures the world over.) That is climate change. Oh, the snow is a two weeks late in Minnesota? Stop whining, asshole.

It's people like you that inspire climate change denial, in precisely the same way your political counterparts inspired Trump supporters. You rant and you rave, you attack and you berate, because you've internalized hysterical media that bears no fucking resemblance to the considered opinions of actual climate scientists. No, he doesn't hate his kids or yours, and you're a shithead for suggesting it.

You're a fucking End Times lunatic who has just picked a different hobby horse than the usual Second Coming bullshit, and you have just as much credibility. Take off the strap sandals and the white toga, put down your picket sign, shave off that scraggly-ass beard, and rejoin reality.

No, everything that humanity cares about will not flood. No, storm damage will not become universally catastrophic the world over. No, wildfires will not wipe out every forest on Earth. No, giant deserts will not form in the most inconvenient places possible and wipe out all food production. This is not the end of the world, no matter how much you might wish it. This is barely even NOTICEABLE .

Do you not get that? The changes are argued about because they're TINY. Within the margin of error of thermometer accuracy for any given year. There is no catastrophe to masturbate over here. They're having to wear jackets in Virginia this week, when they used to be in shirt sleeves. Boohoo. They're not wearing jackets in Minnesota yet this week. Boohoo. Get over yourself. The world will continue spinning, warm and green and fertile and habitable, long after your panic-stricken self is dead. We'll make adjustments as we go, and as needed.

I bought an electric lawnmower this year, which radically reduces my emissions of noxious fumes. What have you done, Internet Warrior?

ObXkcd:
https://xkcd.com/1732/

I'm sorry but tolerating hate is not tolerance, it's cowardice

It doesn't matter, the USA has enshrined freedom of speech in its Constitution. Or is this freedom only good when liberal elites use it to their advantage ?

Freedom of speech doesn't mean that a particular non-government platform has to tolerate your speech on their site.

here it is explained by Randall Munroe: xkcd
(don't forget to read the mouseover text).

It's really just a $5 investment...

A magnetized needle and a steady hand.

http://xkcd.com/378/

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Andy May (at Watt's Up with That)

Andy May

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Precisely. To sum it up for the lazy, below is a copy/paste of my Comment from about two weeks ago (in response to the same XKCD comic):

(1) Global warming is a fact. Go measure the temperature every day for 13,000 years.
(2) Plot your data.
(3) Report back after you have completed your assignment.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

obligatory https://xkcd.com/250/

This really isn't surprising though. He can't remember anything from the half of his time he spent on the right side of the Ballmer peak.

I expect the Clinton sequel to be as successful as The Matrix sequel ...

Crash. Wham. I forgot how good that movie was. Too bad they didn't make any sequels.

You just need one of these

Well, you'd think so. But it doesn't have a USB-C adapter!

https://xkcd.com/927/

This one is more appropriate (but it's missing USB-C, heh).

You just need one of these

You should read this.

This is wisdom presented as humor.

The very nature of climate and the history of this planet is not enough evidence to prove that climate changes, sometimes DRASTICALLY without humans even existing?

... The data shows that the earth has cycles, some attribute it to solar cycles, some to other factors.

OK, I'll handle just one of your points; the rest I'll leave to you to work out for yourself.

Yes, climate scientists have known about the solar cycles you speak about -- the Milankovitch cycles -- and have known about them since the 1920s. This in fact was the basis for the 1950s consensus that the Earth was heading in a cooling phase. The changes were are experiencing are going in the opposite direction than what the orbital factors that drive ice ages would predict. As for other changes in solar output -- those are measurable with instruments, particularly orbital instruments, which we have had in place since the 1970s. These show very minor fluctuations in luminosity -- on the order of fifteen hundreths of a percent.

Climate change is real. It's always BEEN real. The part about us "breaking" the world is what we need to put on the shelf and talk about CLIMATE change, rather than it being "our fault." You attract more bees with honey than with vinegar.

What people would like to be true (honey) and prefer not to be true (vinegar) is irrelevant. It's not a case of "breaking" the world, it's a case of changing the world faster than we can adapt to it. I refer you to the obligatory xkcd explanation.

That does hurt my "narrative", but it does not defeat it because there's over 11 million [wikipedia.org] illegal immigrants in the country right now. Deporting two million is a nice start. But Obama has had eight years to get the job done and he has not. It's not even something he needs congress' cooperation for-- it's his JOB to enforce the LAW.

No, actually he DOES need their cooperation, they're the ones who pass the budget. I don't expect INS workers to do the job for free, and Obama can't just start up conscription for it. It was somewhere around 12 million when he started, according to that, so he's been making progress. But how many people could he reasonably be expected to deport in a year? What are his resources?

If you want Congress to provide more resources for Obama, go ahead, but me, I don't expect miracles. How would you expect any President to deport all of the illegal immigrants without the necessary support of Congress? They can't just wave their hands and get it done. And that bit about "Self-deporting" was just a joke of an idea that let them ignore the costs.

I didn't say "tumor" I said "a little cancer". Also, let's see how you react when someone tells you that you've got cancer.

Carefully, and without going into a panic. It's actually worse when it's a child though. But others don't, they react with hysterics, which is again, why oncologists are often assuring people that their tumor is non-malignant and treated with minimal intervention.

Patently false. Cancer will kill you. Successfully treating it will save you. Your logic would say that using a known attack on a cryptographic algorithm would take longer than brute forcing it-- which is wrong by definition.

No, my facts (that is, pointing out reality) would point out that chemotherapy and radiation therapy are well-known to be very difficult on the body, and quite dangerous themselves. Your analogy would certainly apply if algorithmic operations had a chance of damaging a CPU. I will grant that the FOOF bug will cause a crash, but I don't think it will damage the CPU. It is disruptive of your work though, so I could see a connection. However, I think that's a somewhat rare circumstances. Meanwhile, Alkylating antineoplastic agent are well known to be quite cytotoxic, it's just that the margin is worse for the cancers, giving them a medical purpose they can achieve before they kill you. Other drugs like 5-FU are even closer, and ones like doxorubicin have effects where you can only take so much in a lifetime. And the victims of Therac-25 errors show the risks involved, not that other people with routine therapy are necessarily fine and dandy. And of course, surgery does have some level of risk, naturally. There are some people in such ill-health that a doctor will advise against surgery as that would be more of a risk.

A more correct analogy, if you want to use computers, is to point out the risks of overvolting, overclocking, and disabling thermal protections.

Of course, as XKCD says, the easiest way is brute force.

Arrogance and condescension from an AC? Hi there, ClickOnThis.

Are you one of those people who gets offended when somebody won't bother to pretend to an identity with you?

Look, do yourself a favor, sit down and think things over a bit.

Obligatory https://xkcd.com/927/

https://xkcd.com/1732/

stop a phenomenon that HAPPENS ALL THROUGHOUT TIME.

Oblig XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1732/

Do you realize you are basically a flat earther at this point?

the climate change natural, but we are out of those bounds, bu a long way.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Below is posted n the slim chance you will realize how much of an idiot you sound like to anyone who actual understand GW science and stop spouting nonsense.

global warming (GW) is a fact.

In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.

1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it passes right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes

Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actually address the facts of GW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?

So now you have to answer:

Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?

Too much is a bad thing for humans. It traps heat, this causes warming, that causes melting and more severe weather extremes.

For humans we want it back down to 300 ppm or so.

GLobal warming is a factor ontop of other long term acquirer trends.

IT's far more simple then deniers make it out to be.

1) We keep create CO2, and other, greenhouse gasses.

2) It's a fact those gases trap energy(heat)

3) it's a fact that about half of CO2 emitted by humans is NOT reabsorbed into the environment.

4) So the question is, how fast will ice melt with the increasing temperature. turns out: faster.

Maybe this will help:

https://xkcd.com/1732/

We know he's the last chance for a long, long time, if ever, to fuck with the oligarchs.

It's not. These kinds of opportunities are bubbling up more and more often, though mainly at the state level. If Trump fails because of his foolishness, another will come along.

Note that it's a constant struggle.......new guys come up, break the establishment, then settle in to become the new establishment. Andrew Jackson was an establishment breaker. Abraham Lincoln was one too, although by the time he became president, the establishment was more-or-less shattered. William Jennings Bryan tried but failed on his heavy cross of gold (reminds you of this comic). Roosevelt2 might have been considered an establishment breaker, although again it was rather broken by his time as well. Roosevelt1 probably was the establishment. Truman deserves a special mention for trying to reform the establishment from within, and to some degree he was successful.

Homeopathy, where more than 15 million/mL becomes less than 1 million/mL (oblig. XKCD).

For damages, sure, but maybe they wanted the genuine *Samsung* battery so they could burn their entire neighbourhood to the ground, but instead got a cheap knock-off and only their house got toasted and are suing for misrepresentation?

Could be worse, at least they didn't get the oblig. bobcat...

same with the USA presidential political polls

That depends on the poll. Professional pollsters tend to be accurate. Polls run by journalists tend to be inaccurate, partly because they are more interested in drama than accuracy, but also because they fail to properly account for bias. So when Hillary does well in a debate, and her numbers shoot up by 5%, journalists report that her support has surged. Professional pollsters understand that what is really happening is that her supporters feel upbeat, and are more likely to participate in surveys, while Donald's supporters feel demoralized, and hang up the phone. So underlying support for the candidates barely budged, it is just that the sampling bias shifted.

Overwhelmed by the design of everyday things. Engineering marvels everywhere, everyone enriched thereby.
What are the odds that this is the only politically neutral post in this thread?

https://xkcd.com/678/

The hippie solution doesn't work because even if you can convince 99.99% of people to be peaceful, that remaining 0.01% can still send the world into nuclear winter.

You need some sort of hybrid approach, where you convince easiest 99% of people to be peaceful, but retain enough military capability to dissuade the remaining stubborn 1% from doing anything nuts. Which is more or less what we're doing today. Except some of those pursuing the hippie part of this hybrid approach have deluded themselves into thinking their approach will work on the entirety of the remaining 1% just because it worked on the first 99%.

That's what hippies don't seem to understand. Even if you temporarily achieved 100% indoctrination into a peaceful, cooperative society and completely disarmed. It just takes one person to be born who thinks differently and builds his own devices and following in secret, and spreads chaos and ruin upon that idyllic and disarmed utopia. You must have some sort of defense against this in reserve. Always. I don't particularly blame hippies for making this mistake - people tend to think that others will act as they themselves do. So if it's beyond their conception as to why someone would want to kill and destroy in order to have power over (parts of) the world, then it will literally be inconceivable to them that someone would ever want to do this. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a bad assumption.

Mandatory XKCD.

I'm prepared to believe that it is the profit motive at play here and they are paid to look the other way... but I'm also prepared to believe that it is a lot harder than it looks like it should be on the outside. Another peer post suggested it was because they are getting the incoming calls from another network, but chances are there is some catch to prevent that.

After all, if you consider profit motive, imagine how much money any phone company could get by having an advertisement campaign: "Imagine... you never get a robo caller ever again. Switch to our network/pay us $5 a month and we'll make it happen."

Yes it is actually not a lie if you think you are telling the truth. Mind blown.

Your sarcasm is unwarranted, given how frequently people engage in self-deceptive behavior. Religion is an obvious and easy example, but it happens constantly in the workplace, with relationships and even just casually chatting with friends.

There is a whole universe of deception that exists between lying and not-lying and it build on varying types and degrees of self-deception.

Just going to note that here's what this means in terms of how the global average temperatures have been changing, and how rapidly so compared to the past:

http://xkcd.com/1732/

So, are our tools accurate enough to even find any short-term (4-5 decades or shorter) temperature variations 20,000 years ago?

If the answer is no, the recent temperature variations could very well be completely meaningless.

Damn, there I go ago. Bringing the skepticism of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to climate change. Sorry if that upsets you RELIGIOUS zealots.

XKCD has a good image to explain this.

Just going to note that here's what this means in terms of how the global average temperatures have been changing, and how rapidly so compared to the past:

http://xkcd.com/1732/

Here's a link to the actual paper the xkcd graph is derived from.

Before drawing conclusions from the graph trend starting at the year 1900, read the journal article more closely. Specifically the part where it notes that the trend from 1900 onwards is graphing the instrumental record, while the period before 1900 is from their proxy reconstruction. As in, before leaping up and declaring human industrial era began at 1900, also note that the SOURCE OF DATA changed at 1900 too.

Just going to note that here's what this means in terms of how the global average temperatures have been changing, and how rapidly so compared to the past:
http://xkcd.com/1732/

Obligatory https://xkcd.com/385/

No, what they mean is they test it by feeding it the data from 1995, then comparing its predictions to what the weather was actually like in 1996.

Sure, and when one algorithm doesn't work, you try another, and another, and another. Then after 19 failures, you find an algorithm that works on the data from 1995 to predict 1996 weather with a 95% confidence level.

You can do the same thing with jelly beans.

Fingerprints are an inherently insecure way to 'secure' a device of any kind because there are techniques to obtain latent fingerprints, which we all leave everywhere anyway,

If someone wants to get into my device so much that they are willing to find, scan and make replica fingerprints then at this point passwords are even less secure.

Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/932/

Is that really lost business or ... If shop's not available one day I'll wait ...

You're ignoring the "instant gratification" bit. Wait a day -- a DAY? You must be joking, I don't want to wait 2 seconds while the page loads. The only reason i can even stand to wait for it to be delivered is because I can track it in motion.

Proper practice is to have multiple DNS providers. All of the sites that are currently 'down' have failed best practice we had 20 years ago. The great "cloud" has finally come down to this: https://xkcd.com/908/

And "clean" is also relative

It is when you consider the amount of mining, separation, transportation and disposal of the energy-equivalent amount of coal and ash -- 1 cubic centimetre of uranium is about the equivalent of a mile-long train load of coal.

(Or the amount of mining, refining, etc, etc, to manufacture and install the equivalent in solar panels or wind turbines.)

Most people have no comprehension of the energy density of nuclear vs chemical fuels. This might help.

(Fun fact -- the trace thorium in coal has more potential nuclear energy than the chemical energy of burning the coal.)

Works for me https://xkcd.com/241/

Perhaps we can get the USA built and launched Opportunity rover to motor over there and clean up the mess. It might take 25 years to get there, but hell it has been running for 11 years, what's another quarter century?

You forgot the obligatory XKCD. Shame on you.

Obligatory XKCD
I can extract any archive without fail in 2 clicks, everytime. Can you extract any archive, everytime, without fail as easily?

Obligatory XKCD reply to that: https://xkcd.com/323/