Slashdot Mirror

It's a pity that they didn't enroll little Bobby Tables in that website. That would have taught them to sanitize their SQL input.

Fourteen different ways to determine language popularity weren't enough -- we need a Fifteenth to Rule Them All.

XKCD produced this graph http://xkcd.com/1732/ to shows how temperature has changed over the last 22,000 years

xkcd is great, but the data he referenced follows the infamous "hide the decline" trick. The 'trick' is nothing more than using the instrumental temperature record to fill in gaps or quality in data. For the proxy records cited going back 20k years, the accuracy and precision over the last 100 is poor and the authors themselves state as much. Thus, to complete the data set through to today the instrumental record is included from 1900 onwards.

Nothing really wrong with that. The only caveat is in how you interpret the graph. If you look at the graph and observe that there is an unprecedented trend set off at 1900, the beginning of the industrial era you have to be careful. The unprecedented trend ALSO coincides with a change in methodology and data source in the graph. Ruling out how sensitive the proxy data is to short term spikes like today is vitally important to interpreting that part of the graph well, and we're still working that.

https://xkcd.com/1444/

captcha: infamous

You should read this.

Do I really need to rehash it all? The higher cost is due to increased safety concerns, direct and indirect, implicit and explicit. The fuel already exists in abundance (decommissioned nukes, possibility of breeding Pu, etc.) You're saying it's more expensive to plop that fuel underneath the water tank that leads to the turbine than it is to build a smokestack and pay for miners to dig up thousands of tons of coal and haul it there and burn it underneath the same (in principle) water tank? You do understand that those coal miners and truck drivers don't work for free? You do understand that no one is going to build the extra smokestack for free?

When expenditures due to safety concerns are tracked separately, nuclear is intrinsically cheaper especially when given an existing supply of fuel, because that fuel is just so goddamn dense. The expense comes from--it must come from--safety concerns, concerns which (given the track record of hydrocarbons vs. nuclear) seem clearly overblown except to the extent that we need fail-cold reactor designs to prevent economic damage if nothing else.

If you want to argue that the safety is indispensable and therefore nuclear will always remain too expensive you're free to try. Or you can just keep saying "uh, it's too expensive because this piece of paper says it's too expensive"... which is a marvelous way of winning any argument, I suppose.

"The global warming scientists" seem to be virtually every climatologist out there, most of who were not working in the 1970s - 1979 was 37 years ago you know. Maybe they have all been brainwashed by their deluded mentors while in grad school, but working scientsts or age 40 in 1979 would now be 77 years old - and they would be the amoungst youngest of those group. Thus it seems unlikely that todays climatologist would be the "same scientists" you speak of from the 1970s.

Of course regardless of what you think of their predictive power, the actual climate change over the last ~20k years does seem pretty slowly changing - except for recently: http://xkcd.com/1732/

XKCD produced this graph http://xkcd.com/1732/ to shows how temperature has changed over the last 22,000 years

One of my favourite recent xkcds.

Do you know how little volume a metric ton of metal and concrete occupies? Do you know how energy-dense uranium itself is?

If we're generating so much waste that we can't store it on site, immediately adjacent to the current reactor and equiment, then someone somewhere is doing something terribly wrong. Yes, there is neutron embrittlement and normal wear and tear, but this is not something you need a full-sized landfill for.

The storage issues, if any exist, either result from plant closures or from the unscrupulous owners or managers of the plants convincing moronic regulators to allow them to move the materials off-site (which they might do to decrease their workload, I suppose. Or it perhaps it allows them to be much sloppier about the stuff they expose to intense radiation. Either way, there's no excuse for it.)

XKCD produced this graph http://xkcd.com/1732/ to shows how temperature has changed over the last 22,000 years

Painfully ignorant. Do you understand that nuclear power works in exactly the same as coal except instead of trucking in tons of coal you simply put a pile of fissile material under the water and let it sit there for a very long time before you need to refuel ? The only expense is the initial refining of the U235 but after that you can breed more fuel.

Beyond these relatively small fixed costs, nearly every single dollar that nuclear costs more than coal is due to increased safety regulations. Some of those regulations we obviously need. One of those safety concerns (namely, security and proliferation concerns) is actually quite worrying. But it is completely wrong to argue that nuclear is intrinsically more expensive than paying to dig up and cart around thousands and thousands and thousands of tons of coal.

Hold on a second "nearly every single dollar that nuclear costs more than coal is due to increased safety regulations. Some of those regulations we obviously need." yes we do. Do you care to identify the safety regulations that you think we do not need that is adding to the cost of nuke?

Also: "One of those safety concerns (namely, security and proliferation concerns) is actually quite worrying." -- yes, I agree that is the major concern for me. Breeder reactors are generally frowned upon because of their refinement proliferation potential and our direct allies have also shutdown their breeder programs. The only states still operating them are proliferation states. The additional downside to breeder reactors is the increased nuclear waste and higher potential for radiation exposure. These are not marginal concerns, these are quite frankly life altering and life ending concerns.

My reasons for opposing nuclear power is not because of the science (I understand the science) my concern is I do not trust corporations to operate in the common good. Davis-Besse which is not far from where I live is one of the major concerns I have. You state that increased safety regulations have increased the cost of nuclear power, yes it has, but the operational negligence of operators over the years have required increased safety requirements and Davis-Besse is a prime example of a major lapse in safety culture.

Other than the safety issues reactor design has come along way since the old 1950->1980's era reactors (for those that disagree ask the US Navy) and modern designs are a lot safer and more reliable. The sticking point is the safety culture surrounding them.

Nuclear power has gone from too cheap to meter to too expensive to matter and it has nobody to blame but itself.

Painfully ignorant. Do you understand that nuclear power works in exactly the same as coal except instead of trucking in tons of coal you simply put a pile of fissile material under the water and let it sit there for a very long time before you need to refuel ? The only expense is the initial refining of the U235 but after that you can breed more fuel.

Beyond these relatively small fixed costs, nearly every single dollar that nuclear costs more than coal is due to increased safety regulations. Some of those regulations we obviously need. One of those safety concerns (namely, security and proliferation concerns) is actually quite worrying. But it is completely wrong to argue that nuclear is intrinsically more expensive than paying to dig up and cart around thousands and thousands and thousands of tons of coal.

Nuclear would never fail if left to its own devices. Which is not to say that we should blindly deregulate it, but...

Look, let's actually examine how nuclear works: you put a pile of fissionable material near some water. It turns the water into steam, which turns a turbine. This is goes on for an extremely long time before you need more fuel. This is demonstrably and obviously much cheaper than constantly mining coal and trucking it in and burning it to boil the water to turn the same turbine. Over the long term it's cheaper than building tricky wind turbines or solar panels, too.

The higher costs of nuclear are entirely the result of safety regulations which far exceed what we demand from coal or oil, which have already done tremendous damage to the planet and are even as we speak actively poisoning us with mercury. Mercury poisoning just isn't as scary as radiation, though.

Mr. Munroe recently posted an excellent comic about the whole 'ice age' thing. You sound like either an oil shill, or a deliberately misinformed denier. Posting in the hopes that you are the latter.

Why would you fail to be concerned about the eventual extinction of the human species? This is everyone's responsibility.

No, this is the best xkcd ever...

https://xkcd.com/339/

This is free speech working the way it should work.

  I refer you to the XKCD panels about the First Amendment.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/fr...

Each has strict DoD based password criteria including expiring every 60 days, no repeats, etc.

The way that I deal with idiotic requirements like this is to append a four digit date in MMYY format to the end of the PW, and just update to the current date. So if I am required to update a PW this month, the new PW will be correcthorsebatterystaple0916.

I always use "correcthorsebatterystaple" for the base of the PW because I have heard that is an extremely secure PW.

Just this: http://xkcd.com/1732/

You were ninja'd by Randall -- https://xkcd.com/1720/

Electron? Please. Real programmers use butterflies.

I've always loved this XKCD. Good to know it wouldn't have mattered either way, and we can safely ignore both the first and the second, apparently. War is peace.

Today xkcd is appropriate - https://xkcd.com/1736/

That's not nearly as effective at getting Computer Scientists to listen to whatever boring story you have to tell, though:
http://xkcd.com/1323/

Surprised this hasn't been posted yet.

https://xkcd.com/678/

Researcher Translation.
https://xkcd.com/678/

Let's see - if we look at the most recent terrorist incidents, we find a large number associated with radical Islam and middle-eastern states, and none associated with radical Christianity or Finland. So, which should factor most into generating a blip on the terrorist RADAR?

Oh my, a single month, wow, at this rate...We'll all be Middle-Eastern Terrorists.

Besides, this guy would have gotten away with it, and sometimes we don't even have actual bombs.

Oblig: https://xkcd.com/1656/

Oblig XKCD http://xkcd.com/927/

If you change enough, then it's almost like a new standard

https://xkcd.com/378/

I'm not a huge xkcd fan, but I can't believe no one has brought up this one - it's quite literally the first thing I thought of while reading the description of this silly computer.

The context is pretty much identical.

https://xkcd.com/1367/

How in blazes do you reckon that the parents are the victims here? Reading your previous comments on this thread, I know that you're a parent yourself so I guess you're biased in their favor but come on, there's no way they're victims in this situation. I'll try and convince you as to why the girl is in the right and the parents are being jerks (obligatory XKCD comic).

There's a number of issues that nude childhood pictures plastered all over the internet create for this girl:

Bullying from Peers
All it would take is for one of her class-fellows/co-workers to find and share her nude childhood pictures with the rest of her peers to turn her life into a living hell. Not a situation I'd want to be in.

Employment
You do realize that most employers these days do an extensive online background check on any potential employees, I think nude childhood pictures are not something that any of us want to be in the list of things they find about us. I'm a bloke so I am not certain but I think this issue would be even more sensitive for women (correct me if I am wrong).

Romantic Relationships
The pool most young adults find their partners from is mainly comprised of people in their close proximity. I doubt anyone is going to take someone with nude childhood pictures plastered over the internet seriously. This, too, is probably more problematic for women (please note that when I say more problematic for women, I am not implying that its not problematic for men, just that its more of a problem for women because of the way our society is structured). Paraphrasing a previous poster, it can't be fun to have every creepy dude in your school/workplace commenting on your physical features.

Lack of Respect
Even if we were to ignore all the potential societal problems this issue would create for the girl (she does not live in a vacuum but let's be hypothetical), this still leaves the issue of her parents having a complete disregard for her wishes and trying to do what they want with her person. Dunno about you but I think that in and of itself demonstrates a pretty big failing on the part of the parents.

As the summary states, repeated requests to the parents to take down those pictures has fallen on deaf ears, could you please point out what logical or reasonable recourse this girl had besides the one she opted for? Also note that it wouldn't matter if she removed her parents from her friendlist on Facebook, it wouldn't matter if she even deactivated her account (not having a Facebook account apparently raises red flags so not sure if that's even advisable anymore), someone is bound to stumble upon her parents' profiles and find those pictures so this is not an issue that she can just ignore.

related xkcd

Where did you even get this theory? Did somebody explain it to you like that? Did you get it from a book or a website or something? Or did you come up with it yourself? I'm just curious, because it really is completely wrong.

I'm going to stop arguing now. It's not worth my time.

I'm surprised they didn't release an upgrade to intentionally brick all the devices and prevent any more mishaps/lawsuits.

Headline: New Samsung update bricks Note 7 devices
samsunguser1: DO. NOT. WANT.
samsunguser2: WTF Samsung???
samsunguser3: Avoid like the plague.
samsunguser4: First exploding batteries, now this?
ninthbit: Guys, it's just to prevent more mishaps / lawsuits until they have a f...
samsunguser5: It begins. Mandatory device obsolescence. You think it's bad they are not releasing updates to "force" you to upgrade to the next generation of smartphones? Try having it deliberately bricked from an OEM update within 1 month.
samsunguser6: Cyanogenmod for life!

Not that the idea is a bad thing per se, but it does spin very badly for Samsung. I don't think they want this PR on top of an already bad PR.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Even Bob Metcalfe said something like your knowledge is only nlogn above mine.

Nonetheless, enjoy a little https://xkcd.com/949/

Relevant: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/re...

Will we have flying cars too for all of this robotic automation? I seriously doubt it.

At best, we'll see maybe 1 or 2%. CSR jobs aren't going anywhere especially when people immediately hit "0" to speak to a real person. It'll take a lot more time to get self driving cars to become a real thing that don't crash or require a person to have constant attention to the road.

Obligatory XKCD (yesterday's, actually, but very much on-point): http://xkcd.com/1732/

Obligatory xkcd. https://xkcd.com/282/

I rather thought of https://xkcd.com/1022/...

I don't see why sprinkling slanderous claims in with legit ones changes much (read the alt text). There was still a negligently included false claim.

Demonstrates at least a modicum of effort, which covers for a lot in all sorts of torts case. One mistake combined with many correct ones , well, maybe you'd check to see what went wrong, but compared to say, having a list of a hundred wrong identifiers, it is not substantially demonstrative on its own.

Probably can't even make an argument for slander or libel, since it's not meant for public dissemination, even aside from the existing indemnification.

I don't see why sprinkling slanderous claims in with legit ones changes much (read the alt text). There was still a negligently included false claim.

https://xkcd.com/1656/

https://xkcd.com/927/

(do you even need to click it?)

Since 1990? Geez...that's setting the bar pretty low...let's go back a few hundred years, I bet it's more like 80%.

Sadly one of the main culprits almost sounds like a footnote - 'logging' is often done to clear land for livestock, just look at the Amazon. And most of the 'agriculture' is also to support that same livestock. In the US, 1/2 of ALL land is used for livestock - either space they take up, or for producing their food (and 70-90% of all corn, soy and wheat grown in the US is fed to livestock). XKCD has a stunning graphic showing the mass of all mammals on the planet.....and much is (you guessed it) livestock, followed by humans, with a sprinkling of wild mammals. NatGeo illustrates how much land there is on the planet, how much remains 'untouched', and how much we consume. We use up almost 40% of the entire non-ice land for 'agriculture', the vast majority as pastures, and you'll find much of the cropland is also devoted to this area.'Free range' is actually worse, demanding even more space than 'factory farmed'.

If you really care about this issue, consider what you're eating. When it comes to resource use (water, energy, space), livestock are at the top, or near. And it's a change we all can make. (And there's never been greater vegan options to choose from, give them a try if you haven't!)

https://xkcd.com/908/

Mitt Romney was supposed to win the 2012 election. Everyone told him so.

No. The 2012 election turned out exactly where the polls predicted. Anyone who thought Romney was going to win was delusional.

Obligatory xkcd : https://xkcd.com/1098/

They fear them because of the very real and demonstrably accurate statistical fact of black violence. Blacks kill other Blacks at astronomically high levels. Cops would be suicidal to pretend otherwise.

Roughly speaking, black murderers constitute around 0.03% of the black population. Meanwhile, white murderers constitute around 0.005% of the white population. (...) >99% of Muslims are NOT terrorists.

So say I'm a cop approaching a suspect's car, is a 0.03%/0.005% = 600% difference in risk of getting shot trivial or not?

Yes. Because 600% of a tiny risk is still a tiny risk.

Here's a documentary on the matter https://xkcd.com/1252/