Slashdot Mirror

Actually, it's DROP TABLE PEOPLE;
http://xkcd.com/1409/

It's only unbreakable through a computer science approach, it's still vulnerable to social engineering.

Or like the all too familiar XKCD

Actually, I typed this with a butterfly.

Correlation does not imply causation!

Well, maybe.

Sorry, but this reminded me of http://xkcd.com/1095/ :-)

(I gotta say, I use MacOS and Windows more than Linux these days; but even when I was a heavier Linux user I didn't care THAT much)

You are looking at the wrong end point. Yes, the planet will survive. Very few people are worried about that. You have to be a real doomer / gloomer to stay away worrying about Venus level runaway heating. But you can have a number of other scenarios that can be considered less than pleasant:

- Intensifying the sixth major extinction event. The other five really changed the planet around, much to Randall's comfort. The planet will survive this next one but since apex predators tend to be significantly effected and humans are the ultimate apex predator, this might be considered a Bad Idea.
- Increasing temperatures increase arable land (generally). The problem is that of time frames. It may take hundreds of thousands of years to convert warm swamps into farmland. Most Americans can't handle fasting between gas stations, much less millennia
- Increasing resource stresses - you may have noticed that humans are having a bit of a problem creating stable geopolitical structures during geologically and biologically stable periods. Add big swings in weather / climate, no matter which way, creates more stressors and more reasons for us not to get along with each other.
- Which segues into another bit of bad timing. Changing climate while simultaneously cranking human population to over seven billion. For a number of important resources it can be argued that we have exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet. The degree and speed of upcoming climate events may well overcome our ability to feed, water and house all of us.

So, it's not even a big issue which way the climate goes. The only way climate can mitigate the other problems is if it stays relatively constant. That doesn't appear to be happening.

http://xkcd.com/397/

I often agree with Randall, but in this case I think he's (mostly) wrong. Yes, ideas are tested by experiment. Properly constructed experiments. That means repetition, controls, statistics, the whole nine yards. If scientists used Mythbusters-style experiments we'd still think light objects inherently fall faster than heavy ones (after all, most lighter objects do fall slower than heavier ones, thanks to air resistance). You don't think people in the "unscientific darkness" didn't actually try out a lot of the things they got wrong? Of course they did. They got it wrong because they ran their experiments improperly. And Mythbuster's often does as well. To be fair, "it didn't work this time, lets try it out 99 more times to make sure" doesn't really make entertaining television, and that's generally all Mythbuster's is: entertainment. They have the seeds of science (experimentation), but science is far more than that alone. The problem is, when people look at what they do as actually being science, they end up thinking you can confirm a scientific theory with a single experiment run with 20 minutes of work. And the conclusion to that thought process is looking at the weather report and dismissing global warming because it's a particularly chilly summer. Or saying "hmm, well [some action] didn't kill me this time, it must be perfectly safe."

Scientifically educated people don't come to that conclusion, of course, but those people aren't the problem.

http://xkcd.com/397/

You can find all sorts of weird correlations if you look for them but the mere existence of a correlation is meaningless by itself. In this case my first question would be about money. States with more money will be able to afford both faster internet and better schools. Other factors that need to be controlled for include population density, local industry, demographic makeup, etc to be able to put some meaning to this.

Basically this is a meaningless correlation which provides no context to draw useful conclusions from. Obligatory XKCD.

http://xkcd.com/552/

With the same argument there would also plenty of incentives for many small actors to work on becoming a multi-billion world leader in cold fusion. See also âoeThe Economic Argumentâ https://xkcd.com/808/ The simplest explanation for the absence of a small company somewhere in the world already producing cold fusion reactors is that it doesn't work.

Wiktionary is just as bad. They have a whole category devoted to words that exist but seemingly don't. If you want to put the kangamangus on those dotnoses, ozay; head to urban dictionary instead.

It hadn't occurred to me to nominate it, and unfortunately didn't occur to enough other people, so it missed the short list for Best Dramatic Presentation Short Form by about 3 votes (usually only the top 5 nominees get onto the ballot, occasionally 6 if there's a tie or fewer than 5 if not enough works meet the "5% of nominations" threshold.)

An actual astronaut, in space, performing a classic science-fiction-themed song, named after one of the most influential SF movies? It so totally belonged on the ballot, because [expletive deleted] we're living in the future!.

Of course, a few other works I liked, and works I haven't read yet by authors I like, also didn't get on the ballot, but that's normal.

That's only part of the story. The forum is where all the real action was/is. There was/is a religion of sorts. Complete with popes, prophets and pilgrimages. And lingo. (Chirping mustard! The OTT is seaish. and cancercoffeesemenbabies). I assume it is still going, but I refuse to check. I lost a lot of time in that forum, and I had to make a clean break. There were many people whose RL relationships were strained because of this. People were up every hour checking the latest ONG. For those of you willing to go down the rabbit hole, you will want to read the thread from the beginning. That is called blizting. You will be encouraged along your way, and encounter many strange and wonderful things. Randallspeed.

obxkcd link (obnoxious XKCD link)

And of course, the ever obligitory xkcd

The previous comment is a reference to a popular XKCD comic strip. It's your body that gets broken, not the phone.

The "bad for wildlife" question basically comes down to:

* how much mass you have to move
* how much land area you have to occupy

per watt generated.

Coal and hydro lose because they both require a lot of mass (water and coal) and a lot of area (dammed waterway, mines and transport).

Nuclear and geothermal win because they both require very little mass and very little area other than the plant itself - uranium ore has at least 1000 times the energy per gram as coal.

Any kind of solar is in the middle because of the large area needed to capture relatively dilute solar energy.

Maybe not?

Spirit

Obligatory, because it's beautiful.

there are inevitably going to be complaints; that happens any time *anything* changes

Obligatory

https://xkcd.com/598/

This is a record. Godwin's law before the comments!

http://xkcd.com/261/

One site I participated in had a great way to deal with trolls. Once your rating became negative enough, you were put on a global /ignore and no one saw your posts except yourself and others with equally negative reputations.

And further, work done by NASA is public domain, but work done by hired contractors is generally proprietary

Although an outsider, I definitely support your "if the government funds it, the public owns it" open-source efforts.

Re: Games.

Here it's not just proprietary vs open source. Compare KSP and Moonbase Alpha. KSP is an amazingly rich open world simulator that inspires actual "play" and exploration and trial and error. And as you master it, you accidentally learn more about orbital mechanics than by actually studying orbital mechanics. (As former NASA engineer, XKCD cartoonist noted.)

OTOH, Moonbase Alpha is the worst aspects of "grinding" type games, but with no reward. About the most uninspiring game you could possibly create. "Astronaut/Starlite" looks to be cut from the same cloth.

KSP: I built my own rocket and blew it up! Woo! Then I built another one which got to orbit! Now I'm designing a ship for a deep space mission which I'll construct in orbit!
Alpha: I am "soldering" fixed points in someone else's "circuits" against an arbitrary clock. I will see how many circuits I can solder in an hour. And then see if I can beat it.

Moonbase Alpha is mindless drudgery (and I say that as a bookkeeper) that missed not only the entire concept of "a game", but also entirely missed what geeks (and geek kids) like about space.

..this.
http://xkcd.com/799/

The talent behind xkcd is a former NASA engineer.

I think you misspelled "hack".

hacking is applauded on this site and viewed as a skill you might try different terminology next time.

The talent behind xkcd is a former NASA engineer.

I think you misspelled "hack".

The talent behind xkcd is a former NASA engineer.

Big deal. I also worked *at* the NASA Langley Research Center -- with Unisys (1988-92) as a system admin/programmer on the super computing network - Cray-2 and YMP, several Convex systems, etc... and with SAIC (1996-98) as a sysadmin on the CERES project - Sun E5000, SGI Origin 2000, ~100 Sun/SGI workstations, etc...

The Cray-2, Voyager, ended up at the Virginia Air and Space Museum in 1996 btw.

The talent behind xkcd is a former NASA engineer.

Definitely. I think too many pundits use the extreme, exceptional minority of cases of trolling to label all internet commenters who may be contentious, argumentative, and/or enjoy debating ideas and views thoroughly; that's what makes online discussions interesting, engaging, and worthwhile rather than bland agreeable echo chambers. I like the phrase, "Some people can't tell the difference between critical thinkers and haters."

Most people react emotionally to views and opinions that contradict or infringe on their own. Most people have learned to filter their reactions and think others' views and opinions through, i.e. to see your side through their eyes and try to understand how you see them seeing you (If that makes sense?). I guess we call people who haven't learned to do this online "trolls." They may turn out to be reasonable, sensitive people if you meet them in person but somehow that gets lost online: https://xkcd.com/438/

I work in online learning (elearning) and discussion forums play an important and central role in many courses. The main problem there is the opposite and that too many people are "pathologically polite." It takes a lot of coaxing and encouragement to get people to really express their opinions and views and to examine, explore, and even challenge each others'.

Okay, I hope I've misunderstood you. I work in genomics research, and your post seems, on its face, misinformed at best. Are you seriously suggesting that the computer modeling common to physics and chemistry can be applied to biological systems?

Obligatory, https://xkcd.com/793/

Always keep in mind that physicists operate on a different plane in their own world dealing with quite different formal objects (or aspects) of "things" but they don't know it.

Ah yes, that is the moral of the Words that End in GRY fable.

Obligatory XKCD.

Assuming people who disagree with you are idiots doesn't do you any good. Even if they are wrong, calling them idiots isn't going to get them to listen to you and possibly change their minds. Most likely, they have different backgrounds (perhaps ones filled with misinformation), priorities, or values.

And its logical conclusion.

Careful. Your assumptions are very telling. Did you know college girls are often much more likely to be steered away from "male subjects" by counselors? Or to be questioned "are you sure you want to do this?" rather than encouraged? And to be given menial tasks as grad students rather than challenging ones which, while harder, have greater payoff?

Did you just disregard all of the evidence that supports the above (and yes, there is evidence for it) and replace that with "girls don't like hard work?" Or were you genuinely ignorant of the above? If the latter then this is your opportunity to learn. If the former then I'm afraid you have some critical thinking skills to work on.

Obligatory XKCD even: http://xkcd.com/385/

Obligatory XKCD

http://xkcd.com/1406/

Wow--just in time for today's Slashdot.

XKCD's big converter box points exactly to the problem: yet another USB connector. C'mon--my computer bag is heavy enough.

All you need is one of these puppies:
  http://xkcd.com/1406/

Huh? NO RS-232 (either DB-9 or DB-25)? It doesn't fit my use case.

Already covered... http://xkcd.com/927/

It was a great idea for the EU to legislate "One True Connection", because we now have "One True Connection" rather than eleventy-billion connectors, soon to be eleventy-billion-and-one connectors.

I only need to connect my 'phone to charge it. I really don't give a shit if it's Micro, C-type, Mini or Purple Dildo shaped.

All you need is one of these puppies:
http://xkcd.com/1406/
Also, if you have the Purple Dildo shaped connector and try to pass through airport security screening, you may have an interesting afternoon...

Obligatory XKCD: Fetishes (Gödel's incompleteness theorems)

CAPTCHA: "punishes"

Obligatory XKCD:
Purity
(Gender politics is off somewhere to the left of your screen bezel)

simple, different standard: on the Internet, the average IQ is 160, not 100. It used to be 140 as per IETF RFC-8192, but this RFC was recently deprecated by RFC-8192-2014.

When you see a claim that a common drug or vitamin "kills cancer cells in a petri dish," keep in mind: So does a handgun.

It'd be like first pass downloading interlaced porn from the BBS days...

For those that don't know what I'm talking about...

If the attacker is performing the attack "offline" then you've already lost the security battle. That's the point. If you lose your password database, assume the passwords are all broken, no matter whether you have "must have 3.2 uppercase and 4.35 lowercase letters, 0.6 special characters and as many numbers as you like, so long as it doesn't start or end with a number" rules or let them use plain English sentences. A hashed " " is as meaningful as a hashed "a" so "cat dog run fast" is better than a very random 8-char password. http://xkcd.com/936/ Even if you know it's susceptible to a dictionary attack, it'll be better than most.

But the point is, once they have your hash, you've already screwed up your security. Especially if you don't then change all the passwords.

I was going to post this but you beat me to it. I already use this method, somewhat, for anything that supports 2-factor auth. Weak and/or easy to remember password accompanied by a code generated from my private key.

Anyone looking to change the paradigm needs to remember there's only 3 ways to secure things: something you know, something you are, and something you have. With that in mind what you've suggested is the most user friendly and secure way to go about it.

The only other suggestion I would have is a paradigm shift to passphrases instead of short passwords. But I can hardly take credit for that idea.

From the sounds of it, I could do it in the background while at my real job.

It has happened before. Albert Einstein developed the theory of relativity while goofing off at the Swiss Patent Office.

http://xkcd.com/1067/

I've never understood why passwords can't be sentences, like "I'm going to take my dog, Spot, to the park today."

They can be, but it would be incredibly stupid to use something like that. A dictionary attack would crack that password in seconds.

Are you sure about that?

http://xkcd.com/927/