Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MasterCard Transactions To Be Mined For CO2 Data

Posted by timothy on from the strip-mined-with-acid-I-hope dept.

seamus1abshere writes "In the latest twist from Big Data, MasterCard and Brighter Planet today announced that cardholder transaction data will be mined for clues about CO2 emissions. Initial coverage will be of flights, car rentals, hotels and other purchases for which the credit card company stores extra metadata. Interestingly, the science behind the offering is all open source."

124 comments

  1. Oh, sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let's give the greentards access to private financial data. What could possibly go wrong?

    1. Re:Oh, sure. by guruevi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't worry, the anonymized it by removing your name and address. All they use as an identifier is that random 16-digit number on your card. They have to keep the expiration date as well so they can properly put their data on a time line.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Oh, sure. by truthsearch · · Score: 2

      Mastercard has been giving aggregate data back to its member banks for at least 20 years. This is just another set of aggregate data, but given to corporate card holders. Even if they gave card numbers, names, and addresses, it's only going back to the owners of the cards.

      I worked with Mastercard's data warehouse for 5 years. So if anyone has any questions about what *really* goes on there I might be able to answer (although I can only speculate about this particular program).

      --
      Developers: We can use your help.
    3. Re:Oh, sure. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      thank God they're only using that plus the three little numbers on the back as a kind of checksum

    4. Re:Oh, sure. by NevarMore · · Score: 1

      So whats the typical process for getting data like this? What data do the internal people have access to? What data is filtered out before being given to the requester?

    5. Re:Oh, sure. by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Informative

      The short answer is that data is somewhat compartmentalized by department. Each CC transaction first comes through the mainframes, which are very restricted, mostly just for IT. That data is fed nightly to the data warehouse (basically one massive database). A lot of IT get direct access as needed. Some business / reporting applications are then written to query directly from it, limited to the departments that would require it. Any department which needs aggregate data has separate database servers, with data warehouse IT staff facilitating the automatic feed and aggregation of the data.

      Requests for data from outside the company are taken case-by-case. So, for example, when I had to write reports for a particular bank (a Mastercard member), I was careful to only pull that bank's data. I didn't filter anything that was specific to their cardholders. For applications which got aggregate data, individual transactions and CC-specific data was never sent to the application's database servers. It was carefully aggregated first at the warehouse, then transmitted. I have to say there wasn't much general oversight, but it's simply enforced by management throughout the company.

      --
      Developers: We can use your help.
    6. Re:Oh, sure. by ikeman32 · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, the anonymized it by removing your name and address. All they use as an identifier is that random 16-digit number on your card. They have to keep the expiration date as well so they can properly put their data on a time line.

      As some one that processes credit card transactions on a daily basis, I know for a fact that all you need to run a credit card at a terminal is the 16 digit number, 15 if it's american express, and the four digit expiration date. The terminal never asks for the card holder's name and only rarely askes for the three digit security code on the back of the card. All they need to complete their pointless and meaningless study is a transaction date and number, and maybe the transaction amount. There is absolutely no need to know who the person is or any other personally identifying or sensitive information.

  2. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So the crazy loons are pulling the same stunt spammers do.

    Thank you, assholes. Oh, wait. Thank you, crazy assholes.

    1. Re:So... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Speaking of spammers (yes i know bad segue but damned if i can think of anywhere to ask this) has anybody else noticed that those "porntube" style sites have figured out how to get your Yahoo address book from your browser somehow?

      I have a customer that loves those porntube style sites and I keep getting these weird spams from him that consist of a single web link that has obviously been generated at random. since I had just cleaned his machine and knew it was good I asked him WTF was going on and he swore he had only been going to those porntube style sites, nothing else.

      So i figured I have NoScript, Avast, and a fresh disc image in case anything goes wrong so what the hey, I'll try. so I started clicking random links on porntube style sites, DrTuber, Xhamster, etc and sure enough about an hour later I got an email from myself and so did everyone in my address book from the looks of the To: field. Now since I had only been using that Yahoo mail address as a spam dump I really didn't care about that, what I DID care about is this means that Yahoo must be storing my addressbook somewhere on my drive unencrypted! Either that or they have figured out how to read it from memory in BOTH Chrome and FF 4, as I had it happen in BOTH browsers! So has anybody else been seeing this weirdness?

      As for TFA I'll listen to the "greenies" when they kick out Mr Al "My house has its own BBall court" Gore, who has the balls to tell us to ride the bus while he farts around in his private jet, which he has the brass balls to say is "carbon neutral " because he pays himself carbon credits from his company!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:So... by thijsh · · Score: 1

      When you are logged in or have auto-login enabled for Yahoo it is more likely some smart XSS exploit that loads Yahoo in a hidden IFRAME and posts the address book to their servers by means of the XSS payload. Typically this works with all mayor browsers and does not require your address book to be stored locally or your memory to be read directly.

    3. Re:So... by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      I think this would make a nice "Ask Slashdot" question. It's a very interesting question and can maybe be easily answered (JavaScript Drive-By attack or something). But I think one possible explanation is our good old friend flash.

      It could also be that this is not directly related with the sites, but rather a rogue advertiser.

    4. Re:So... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      In this case it would be a CSRF attack.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    5. Re:So... by thijsh · · Score: 1

      A CSRF can perform an unwanted action, but to post content back to the attacker another method needs to be used (the attacker might request the contact list in the IFRAME but will have a hard time to read it since modern browsers prohibit this). When the attacker has the ability to execute arbitrary JavaScript by means of a XSS exploit this becomes much easier, so this would basically be a CSRF with a XSS to get the result from the request forgery.

    6. Re:So... by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      A CSRF can perform an unwanted action

      You mean an action like yahoo.com /send.php?subj=look+at+my+porn&body=porn+porn+porn&contact[]=Ok&contact[]=Ok&contact[]=Ok&contact[]=Ok&contact[]=Ok...

      I wouldn't be surprised if someone wrote a "send to contacts" page that worked exactly like that, without checking to see if a request was via POST or GET.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    7. Re:So... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      If you can tell me how to post it I'm all ears, as I made a journal entry but damned if I can find a button to add it to ask /. Man I hate this new layout! Oh and I tried this with and without NoScript, with and without private browsing, it doesn't seem to work on GMail or LiveMail but seems to work on Yahoo mail no matter WHAT the user does! I even used CCleaner to clean the machine first, no dice!

      I'm starting to wonder if the new yahoo mail beta isn't storing the address book unencrypted on the machine somewhere for speed, because I even tried logging out of the spam dump first and no dice. I know it is during the browser session as you can almost set your watch by it. Don't go there no email. Go there and within 15 minutes you WILL be seeing those 1 link random generated emails! It is just nuts!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    8. Re:So... by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      I think this is it.

  3. Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    The same people that invented a constitutional right to privacy in order to justify abortion now want your credit card usage info to condemn you for global warming. Consistency would be super.

    1. Re:Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are consistent: abortion means less population growth which means less pollution and less of global warming.

      Btw.who's they?

    2. Re:Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they yank one out and it cries momma and asks for a cup of milk I've got your back. Otherwise quit the crazy already.

    3. Re:Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A woman currently has the right to kill her baby, that is the law

      We respect your right to decide (for yourself --not for us) whether a clump of cells is a thinking, sentient being, with the full protection of law, but we'd like to reserve our right to a difference of opinion. It would be easier to stomach your point of view if you had any compassion for people after they're born. But... Once they're out of the womb, god forbid they or their unwilling parent get any welfare money, right? Only the unborn deserve any "right to life."

      It's a fascinating irony that until science gave you stupid fundies some knowledge, you didn't believe the fetus had a soul or was even alive in any meaningful way during the first four months of pregnancy. (Read up a little on Quickening)

      It's not like you or I should really have a say in the matter anyway --we aren't in a position where some jerk could impregnate us and ruin our careers (I'm assuming you're male from your callous attitude). Perhaps you'd like to protect the rights of a malignant tumor in your body to keep dividing. More power to you.

      .

  4. Kewl... Oh, wait by pitterpatter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I would dearly love to have Al Gore's data from this enterprise, I'm not so sanguine about him having mine.

    1. Re:Kewl... Oh, wait by __aagujc9792 · · Score: 2

      The science is open source. But the raw data has been "lost"...

    2. Re:Kewl... Oh, wait by pnot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I would dearly love to have Al Gore's data from this enterprise, I'm not so sanguine about him having mine.

      As I'm sure you noticed from R'ingTFA, this programme basically involves some extra annotation on a system Mastercard's been running since 2002 allowing corporate clients to analyse spending on their cards. So yes, if you're working for Al Gore and spending his money on your company card, he will (shock horror) be entitled to data-mine your transactions for anything he damn well pleases. Get over it: you don't have any expectation of privacy when you're spending company money on company business.

    3. Re:Kewl... Oh, wait by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      As I'm sure you noticed from R'ingTFA, this programme basically involves some extra annotation on a system Mastercard's been running since 2002 allowing corporate clients to analyse spending on their cards. So yes, if you're working for Al Gore and spending his money on your company card, he will (shock horror) be entitled to data-mine your transactions for anything he damn well pleases. Get over it: you don't have any expectation of privacy when you're spending company money on company business.

      Are you seriously under the impression that they'll only provide this information to the owners of the corporate cards?

      Once they've identified this as data that people are interested in, and willing to pay for ... they will likely do what every other company with your private data does ... sell it to third parties to make even more profit.

      In fact, my money is on them already having done so.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Kewl... Oh, wait by superwiz · · Score: 1

      But not to worry, any "wrong" conclusions will discarded as a result of "lack of programming skills."

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    5. Re:Kewl... Oh, wait by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      So you're trying to tell me, that just because I'm using a company credit card, that means that when I hire hookers to entertain clients, my boss must be allowed to watch them have sex?

      That would totally ruin our ability to attract clients.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    6. Re:Kewl... Oh, wait by pitterpatter · · Score: 1

      As I'm sure you noticed from R'ingTFA

      +1 Funny

  5. Re:Cue slashdot denialists... by mug+funky · · Score: 2

    you beat me to it!

  6. Matching products by improfane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I imagine that the most important piece of information regarding the transaction is the supplier and a transaction number. The amount is worthless. How would you match an amount to a product, especially if more than one product is purchased? Many customers pay different amounts for the same product, how will they factor this in? They'd have to ask the supplier what was actually purchased with some kind of order number.

    Some services are bought but not redeemed later in the future such as a flight or a cruise ship. They need to work out when a servie is actually utilised.

    Somehow I think they'd be better of analysing public transport systems. Such as buses, trains, planes and traffic. If 10 people buy a bus ticket, the bus will expel the same amount of CO2 than if the bus was full. Same with trains, they are quite often under capacity.

    --
    Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
    1. Re:Matching products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually do the physics...Full load vs no load means a huge difference in CO2 output.

    2. Re:Matching products by uncqual · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This seems a little hard to believe for a train or a cruise ship or even a bus. I'd buy this on planes though.

      For example, a popular school bus line weighs up to 36,200 pounds (without fuel I believe) and transports up to 90 passengers. In my experience, school buses cram about as many people as possible into the available space and have the lowest level of amenities so I would expect them to have about the lightest weight "per passenger capacity" of any bus. Anyway, this works out to an empty bus weighing about 400 pounds per passenger -- then add the passengers. I would be surprised if adding another 50% (assuming each passenger is 200 pounds - probably high when discussing urban transport where there's no real luggage) weight would result in a "huge" difference in CO2 output between an empty and a full bus.

      I would expect that municipal buses and train cars would have even less discrepancy between their weights when fully occupied vs. empty.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    3. Re:Matching products by improfane · · Score: 1

      Divide the CO2 produced by the number of people on the bus.

      It's more efficient if you have more people on bus. With nobody on a bus, it will generate X amount of CO2. Add more people to the bus and increase the CO2 maybe a little due to added weight but it's still more net efficient as those people share the CO2 contribution.

      I'd hazard a guess that bus engines are so powerful that a couple of people would make little difference to CO2. People are not THAT heavy. When you compare full load versus no load then maybe you'll see a difference.

      --
      Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
    4. Re:Matching products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you consider each individual bus, there will be several tours that emit more pollution/passenger than an individual car, however you need to consider the whole system. If bus frequency is increased in a sufficiently high-density (and walkable) community for instance, more people will find the bus convenient and will take the bus, it is likely that a few of the new trips will have few passengers, but overall the total increase in pollution divided by the total increase in passengers will produce a net decrease in pollution.

    5. Re:Matching products by lxs · · Score: 2

      You can get even more gains If you assume that every passenger not taking the bus uses a helicopter to go to school.

    6. Re:Matching products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Same with cars, they are quite often under capacity.

      FTFY.

    7. Re:Matching products by Kim0 · · Score: 1

      How would you match an amount to a product, especially if more than one product is purchased? Many customers pay different amounts for the same product, how will they factor this in?

      I use least square matrix methods for this.

    8. Re:Matching products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seem to recall seeing somewhere that the break-even point for carbon emissions on a bus is 7 people. So a bus creates about the same emissions as 7 cars. I also would love to live in the same fairy-tail world as you where you can take an empty bus, add over 10000lbs of meat, and not use any more gas.

    9. Re:Matching products by Americano · · Score: 1

      Especially considering many buses operate in high-traffic city areas, where they are constantly accelerating and decelerating. That extra 10,000 pounds of meat takes more energy to get moving from a standstill, and more energy to bring to a stop from 30 miles an hour. If that extra weight required no additional energy, then a Volkswagen Beetle would be able to tow a 30 foot trailer.

  7. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What is the benefit of doing this? I'm pretty sure we can calculate how much CO2 is emitted by various activities without invading people's privacy.

    1. Re:Why? by Mashiki · · Score: 0, Troll

      Because according to the cult of global warming, you have no privacy. They're doing this for *your* best interest.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Why? by pnot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because according to the cult of global warming, you have no privacy. They're doing this for *your* best interest.

      I find the psychology interesting here. Companies have tracked spending on corporate credit cards since forever; after all, it's their money you're spending, not yours, and they don't want you to spend it on booze and hookers. I don't remember ever hearing anyone complain about the principle of this. But as soon as Mastercard start to offer carbon emissions analysis to their corporate customers -- because 80% of those customers wanted it -- we have a dozen outraged comments about "invasion of privacy" and "the cult of global warming".

      Just try this: storm into the accounts dept. and tell them you're not going to submit receipts for travel reimbursement, because it's none of their damned business whether you rented a hummer or took the train, and if they say otherwise they're members of the cult of global warming. Maybe you could get the ACLU to take on your case.

    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure it'll be handy to calculate future CO2 taxes. They can even charge your CC directly too, convenient!

    4. Re:Why? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Companies have tracked spending on corporate credit cards since forever; after all, it's their money you're spending, not yours, and they don't want you to spend it on booze and hookers.

      Those are just two of the many reasons I'm my own boss.

    5. Re:Why? by snspdaarf · · Score: 2

      Companies have tracked spending on corporate credit cards since forever; after all, it's their money you're spending, not yours, and they don't want you to spend it on booze and hookers.

      "Entertainment Expense"

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    6. Re:Why? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it's the fact that I live in a part of the world where I have the right to privacy, not the exception to privacy. Amazing what happens in a world when your right's are infringed. So yes, the reality that they're trying to tie things to an unproven science in order to create a fake market for the evils of carbon, really does lead to them doing it for your best interest. You have no rights in doing what you want.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  8. Inquiring minds want to know by frovingslosh · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How much computing power will be used to mine all of this data? How much energy will be spent on this project? How much CO2 will be released as a result?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Inquiring minds want to know by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the most idiotic and trollish response that always gets thrown about. Expending energy to figure out how to save energy can easily be a net positive. I'm sure automotive engineers expelled a great deal of energy designing cars that get 30+ miles to the gallon instead of 15. Electrical engineers spent energy designing LED lighting that is far more efficient than incandescent. But you aren't thinking about that, nor are you thinking at all. You're just trolling, because you've been trained to hate anyone who suggests that CO2 can have a negative impact on the climate.

    2. Re:Inquiring minds want to know by Psychotria · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is the most idiotic and trollish response that always gets thrown about. Expending energy to figure out how to save energy can easily be a net positive. I'm sure automotive engineers expelled a great deal of energy designing cars that get 30+ miles to the gallon instead of 15. Electrical engineers spent energy designing LED lighting that is far more efficient than incandescent. But you aren't thinking about that, nor are you thinking at all. You're just trolling, because you've been trained to hate anyone who suggests that CO2 can have a negative impact on the climate.

      No the parent is not trolling. "How much energy will be spent tracking this" is a perfectly valid question. If I spend x+10 energy on monitoring to save x+1 energy then that's a problem. It's a bit like saying that electric trains are "cleaner" than diesel trains. They're not. The pollution (or expenditure of energy) is just transferred to somewhere else.

    3. Re:Inquiring minds want to know by artor3 · · Score: 1, Troll

      But the parent doesn't care about the answer, and you know it. He's just JAQ'ing off, as all good trolls do. Ask a seemingly reasonable question with the implication that the answer is a bad thing.

      Tell me, do you really think that the computing power used to mine this data would offset even a single trip by private jet?

    4. Re:Inquiring minds want to know by Psychotria · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my "gut feeling" is that you're correct. But my gut feeling isn't science.

    5. Re:Inquiring minds want to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the way virtualization in data centers works, these servers of MasterCards will be running either way.

      But you don't need to worry, they will be charging all the businesses whom purchase this service from them to pay for all of that electricity.

      Of course what the businesses DO with the data about their CO2 emissions that MasterCard will help them track, is totally up to them and out of MasterCards hands.

      If even one of their customers ends up finding ways to cut their emissions, it could easily dwarf the additional emissions caused by the running servers, which would be running anyway.

    6. Re:Inquiring minds want to know by Charcharodon · · Score: 0
      I'm going to call you a name because you disagree with me.

      The troll calling the troll green.

      I haven't been trained to hate anyone who suggests that CO2 can have a negative impact on the climate I just hate hypocrites.
      Take your own advice to reduce your CO2 emissions by stop breathing so much (at all) please.

      I'm going to go driving around in my truck and look for an endangered animal to kick.

    7. Re:Inquiring minds want to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But my gut feeling isn't science.

      Clearly you're not a global warming scientist.

    8. Re:Inquiring minds want to know by Americano · · Score: 1

      Actually, electric trains are, as a rule, "cleaner" than diesel trains. A giant power plant generally operates at much higher efficiencies (generally ~2x the efficiency of a typical car motor, if I recall correctly) than your automobile engine - less fuel is consumed to produce the same amount of energy, which means less pollution is emitted.

      The giant power plants also have the option to generate some or all of their capacity from "clean" (or at least, "cleaner") sources. Diesel engines are... diesel engines, no matter where they're installed.

    9. Re:Inquiring minds want to know by greed · · Score: 1

      It depends a lot on your electricity supply.

      Sure, in the U.S. with a lot of coal power, electric can be pretty dirty.

      But in Quebec, with 95% hydroelectric, advertising that "you'll reduce CO2 emissions by switching to these CFLs" is an outright lie. Diesel is guaranteed "dirtier" than electricity.

      Similarly, Ontario has typically no more than 1/3 of its generating capacity from combustible fuels (fossil and bio). It's usually closer to 1/4; so even if the diesel train and the station-to-rails efficiencies were equivalent (which leaves out the energy in getting the fuel to the train or power station), using electricity would be 1/3 as dirty as diesel directly. You could actually have the electric train 2x less efficient (net) and still be cleaner.

      (On an generating capacity of ~23,000 MW, Ontario has 1900 MW of coal generation remaining; of which it is rare to see more than 4 MW operating. Though that's still more than 1.21 GW of coal capacity.)

  9. open source science? by kubitus · · Score: 1
    science is per definition open soource:

    Wikipedia: knowledge in the form of testable explanations

    if it is not independently testable, it is not science!

    1. Re:open source science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Independently testable? That doesn't make something open source!

      'Free' or 'open source' software requires (amongst other things) users to have access to the source code used to create the program. I'd only be willing to call it 'open source' science if researchers have access to the raw data used to create the conclusions.

    2. Re:open source science? by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      science is per definition open source.

      You haven't been looking at the U.S. Patent System lately, have you?

    3. Re:open source science? by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2

      if it is not independently testable, it is not science!

      Good point. The problem is that we're talking about global warming.

    4. Re:open source science? by kenh · · Score: 2

      I think the person that wrote this summary meant to say "the applications behind this is all open source" - referring to the computer programs employed, not the "science" - how long before MasterCard offers to automatically calculate and sell you indulgences (carbon credits) as soon as you purchase the 'offensive' item (airplane ticket, fuel, etc.)?

      --
      Ken
    5. Re:open source science? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      if it is not independently testable, it is not science!

      The big bang, string theory, evolution, the curvature of space/time, global warming/climate change, various theories proposed by relativity, etc are not all independently testable. Are they not science?

      (Please do not troll with some test that produces evidence for one of above theories. For example, the only way to independently test the big bang would be to recreate the universe. Using an atom smasher to create a model doesn't cut it.)

      Fact is that not everything in science is "independently testable", yet it is still science. And there are some theories that rely on probabilities that simply could not be reproduced, evolution, for example. You could not reproduce the conditions that made creature A evolve to creature B, and even if you could, you might end up with creature C. Inconsistent results do not necessarily violate the theory.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    6. Re:open source science? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      One time events (like weather measurements) are not independently testable by definition. You can still do fact finding without a full scientific process. It just needs a different review process. Peer reviewed fact finding only works if you have reproducible results. One-time events have to reviewed through an adversarial review rather than peer review.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    7. Re:open source science? by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      (Please do not troll with some test that produces evidence for one of above theories. For example, the only way to independently test the big bang would be to recreate the universe. Using an atom smasher to create a model doesn't cut it.)

      Glad you see it that way and agree with the OP. All the data for global warming is exactly that: a model.

      And it is subject to Garbage In, Garbage Out.

      See here: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/

      for the explanation why the models have been so off base.

      However, there is an independently testable case for Earth: Mars

      Totally lacking in humans, with more hard data about the ice caps than Earth's ice caps, you can look at drawings made since Newton's time.

      Mars has shrinking icecaps and no humans. Therefore humans are not the primary cause.

      But it does not match the climate scientist "narrative" so it is not discussed.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    8. Re:open source science? by kubitus · · Score: 1
      so science theoreticians and philosophers - go on with your work and define science either

      anew

      or we may have to learn a little bit from this fellow:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

      who introduced a good measure of common sense into the philosophical debate on knowledge and science:

      "we trust a theory we can not proof to be wrong or limited

      until we or somebody else shows us that it is:"

      wrong

      limited

      or completely misunderstood

      .

      but still the question remains: is a theory nobody could contradict 'knowledge'? which is the meaning of scienctia? -

      or is it that we trust some 'Augurs' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augur more than the others?

  10. As usual... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Summary written by a troll.

    Press release is about business services. They are releasing a service to help business track their travel expenditures. RTFA if you want the real story.

  11. Cut off comment lines?? by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Informative

    Is it just me or is the text on most comments cut off to the top half? I tried with Firefox, Chrome, and IE and it's the same with all of them...

    1. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      I'm seeing the same thing, or not seeing as the case may be. If the comment isn't expanded it's not all there

    2. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by perpenso · · Score: 2

      Is it just me or is the text on most comments cut off to the top half? I tried with Firefox, Chrome, and IE and it's the same with all of them...

      Oh no, its not just you. And Safari on Macs are doing it too.

      I expect a .css file will be reverted shortly.

    3. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by artor3 · · Score: 1

      It's been like this all day. Apparently Slashdot has moved to the "users == testers" school of software design.

    4. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by pitterpatter · · Score: 1

      Looks fine to me. Firefox 4.0.1 under Natty Narwhal.

    5. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm seeing this. Posted on another thread regarding it, too - is there anywhere where a list of changes to the slashdot system can be found? There wasn't any noticable updates in the last couple of days and the comment system has gone from being cluttered (with non-expanded comments appearing with no vertical space between them) to being cut in half for no apparent reason.

      In addition, as this (and OP) are offtopic, is there anywhere where discussion of the slashdot site itself can occur without being modded troll / offtopic? Questions like this should have somewhere to be on-topic about and not have to hijack threads to be asked.

    6. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by PaK_Phoenix · · Score: 1

      Just trying to save some CO2 emissions.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    7. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there isn't anywhere that Slashdot itself can be discussed without been moderated/censored to hell. Some quite famous examples of this in the past. It used to be much more apparent when you could see the number of mods each post had.

    8. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by mikestew · · Score: 1

      Mobile Safari, Safari on Mac, same result.

    9. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i see this kind of cutoff frequently when websites specify the div in pixels and the font in something else. Then since I use fontsize always bumped up like 125%, paragraphs run off their cells.

    10. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by operator_error · · Score: 1

      Huh. Things are borked as-described, for me; and I'm using Firefox 4.0.1 using Maverick. But then again I am reading the Slashdots from Europe.

    11. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here. I also get an annoying bug that makes the page jump up to the beginning if I click the score, I had that one just after the design change but then it disappeared, and now it has appeared again. After the design change, Slashdot has had tons of small annoying bugs.

    12. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by should_be_linear · · Score: 1

      You said you dislike Web 2.0 so they cut it to half (1.0).

      --
      839*929
    13. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can add Opera to that list.

    14. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      Is it just me or is the text on most comments cut off to the top half? I tried with Firefox, Chrome, and IE and it's the same with all of them...

      Oh no, its not just you. And Safari on Macs are doing it too.
      I expect a .css file will be reverted shortly.

      And Opera (Windows + Linux). Actually, every browser I've used today and yesterday at home (Linux) or work (Windows) has had the crappy cropped text. And being logged in or not on Slashdot makes no difference.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    15. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i liked the compact mode from yesterday. phone doesnt have so many pixels you know.

    16. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it just me or is the text on most comments cut off to the top half? I tried with Firefox, Chrome, and IE and it's the same with all of them...

      Nope. Everything is mighty fine in my ELinks!

    17. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too am having this issue with Chrome. Annoying. And after at least 5 hours it is annoying.

    18. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      Is it just me or links aren't working either?
      Is /. really "for nerds"?

    19. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THANK YOU! hahaha I was flipping going nuts.

    20. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks fine in lynx.

    21. Re:Cut off comment lines?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And being logged in or not on Slashdot makes no difference.

      Classic mode works great though. :-D

  12. So.... by bmo · · Score: 0

    What's the carbon footprint of the Dragon dildo that Timothy bought?

    What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    BMO

  13. More privacy invasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good goin' Mastercard!

    Guess I won't be using you anymore... (the wikileaks debacle already nudged me abit away from you anyhow)

  14. Ohgodohgodohgod by cyberfin · · Score: 1

    A huge credit card company releasing information (I don't care what kind) to a third party? I hope their servers are decent and users follow protocol... Yeah, I hope.

    --
    "I'm taking this loop off." - Jack O'Neill
    1. Re:Ohgodohgodohgod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What could possibly go wrong?

      ALOT! Pity my bank only offers Mastercard (and I have to pay for it too)

  15. Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How will this really benefit anyone?

  16. Not a privacy invasion, Ignore the trolls and RTFA by artor3 · · Score: 4, Informative

    FTFA: "a new program to help make travel carbon emissions analysis easier ... for the businesses worldwide that use MasterCard corporate cards ... to help businesses more efficiently manage their corporate card programs and meet current and future analytical needs"

    This is a program that companies can sign up for, in which Mastercard will help them analyze their corporate travel programs. Al Gore isn't digging through your receipts at the sex toy shop. Ignore all the Republican trolls.

  17. How far can this CO2 mad hunt go? by Petersson · · Score: 0, Troll

    How far can this can go?
    Once climatofanatics realize how much CO2 is produced by simple fact that human beings are breathing and that they also fart a lot of methane, will they start to kill people in a mass scale? The fanatics could also be vacuum-drying their bodies to change them into mummies in order to avoid burning and creating more CO2.

    It could be an crazy idea for a movie, however nazi concentration and liquidation camps were real and nazi fanatism was also based on crazy ideas.

    --
    I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
    1. Re:How far can this CO2 mad hunt go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its time to realize that CO2 is not the only measure of human pollution to our environment.We should be talking more about paving over green spaces and polluting the great lakes. Besides, if we want to exhaust more C02 by having more humans around, we can always increase the number of green plants to breathe this C02 to make food and oxygen. Maybe we can grow food in the cities on the walls of apartment buildings.

      CO2 is important but let's not forget to keep our land fertile, our water clean, and our air pure.

  18. Burnt offerings by macraig · · Score: 1

    ... the science behind the offering is all open source.

    Well, what are they offering me? Jet engine exhaust? Vaporware?

  19. Re:Not a privacy invasion, Ignore the trolls and R by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or ignore the slashdot summary and linked article because they've been proven to be habitual trolls, but you already knew that right? Oh wait, so now it's the repubs that are the one's protestting our loss of liberty? Wasn't it just vice-versa a few short years ago? If you could answer this inquisitive citizens questions, I'd very much appreciate it.

  20. Re:Why? or why not? by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    What is the benefit of doing this? I'm pretty sure we can calculate how much CO2 is emitted by various activities without invading people's privacy.

    They're just following Kennedy's suggestion: "Don't ask 'why', ask instead 'why not?'". The 'why not?' would also be merely rhetorical, not needing an answer. After all, everyone else seems to be getting away with it, so there cannot be any valid reasons not to do the same...

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  21. the science behind the offering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's funny that they say this, as if there is much science behind it. So MasterCard give out their APIs for Brighter Planet to access their customers' expense details, without their consent. What's more to it?

  22. Hah! by captainpanic · · Score: 1

    That's gonna shut the green privacy activists up!

    Are there also any fossil-energy-loving privacy activists? Nuclear privacy activists perhaps? We depend on you now!

    1. Re:Hah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is so much wrong with what you just said, that the phrase "put reality back into perspective" should be stricken from your lexicon.

    2. Re:Hah! by rubycodez · · Score: 0

      he captured the essence of the problem, the bovine-fart nonsense being one result showing the problems of agenda-driven funding of education and science

    3. Re:Hah! by TheABomb · · Score: 1

      Well, then let's eat all the cows. Problem solved.

      --
      MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
    4. Re:Hah! by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Let's feed the greenies to the cows, problem solved.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  23. Can't see condensed postings correctly. by cvtan · · Score: 1

    I thought the gray text on gray background was bad enough, but now the text is divided in half horizontally and I only get to see the top half. What gives? Looks like this in Firefox and Chrome.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:Can't see condensed postings correctly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're just previews, to make you click for more!

    2. Re:Can't see condensed postings correctly. by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they need to roll back a step to when they took all the whitespace out, but before they cut into the actual text.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  24. "Detailed estimated data" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup, sounds like climate science

  25. Open Source? by kenh · · Score: 2

    "the science behind the offering is all open source"

    The science of making up numbers and extrapolation?

    Science?

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:Open Source? by Winjer2k · · Score: 1

      The science of calculating the amount of greenhouse gasses released from combusting fossil fuels. It's pretty simple, really. It all comes down to the amount of CO2 released when burning, for instance, 100lbs of jet fuel.

      The source code is all on Github. Here's our flight calculation code, for instance: http://github.com/brighterplanet/flight and detailed documentation, including citations: http://brighterplanet.github.com/flight/carbon_model.html

      For each calculation, you can also view its methodology statement: http://carbon.brighterplanet.com/flights?airline=Continental&origin_airport=MSN&destination_airport=IAH&trips=2

      --
      I sig for world peace
  26. Whew! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Glad I use my Discover card for buying tanks of CO2.

    And yes, I do. I brew beer at home (better than any of the store bought swill any of you drink, really it is. Try home brewing it's easy and produces a far superior beer) as well as keep huge planted tropical fish tanks.. the aquatic plants utterly thrive when I inject CO2 into the water.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Whew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad you took this opportunity to let us know how your hobby makes you better than us

    2. Re:Whew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, it must suck to be someone like you with no friends.
      When are they going to up your ass-bergers medication?

      Dave says hi!

  27. Re:Cue slashdot denialists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep. Why must Mechanical Turk be so cheap?

  28. Re:Not a privacy invasion, Ignore the trolls and R by ArcherB · · Score: 1

    FTFA: "a new program to help make travel carbon emissions analysis easier ... for the businesses worldwide that use MasterCard corporate cards ... to help businesses more efficiently manage their corporate card programs and meet current and future analytical needs"

    This is a program that companies can sign up for, in which Mastercard will help them analyze their corporate travel programs. Al Gore isn't digging through your receipts at the sex toy shop. Ignore all the Republican trolls.

    As a Libertarian/Republican, I have to agree with you somewhat. If MasterCard wants to offer a service their customers want, they are certainly welcome to do so. MasterCard is not a government agency. As long as data is kept private, they should be able to do whatever they want with the data. It's not like they don't have the data now. All they will be doing is a bit more data mining at the request of their customers. If I were a tree-hugging* company owner, I might be willing to pay for the data. (*"tree-hugging" is not meant to be an offensive term)

    However, what happens when they release statistical information, intentionally or not, that shows that company A is producing 10x the carbon than similar company B? Might that peak the interest of government do-gooders who will want to see the data to see what company B is doing right (so they say)? Is it possible that this will uncover that some CO2 is getting out without being taxed by some future Cap-&-Trade laws, requiring government to start collecting this data themselves? I normally don't like slippery slope fallacies, but this is a really short, steep and well lubed incline that should be considered.

    So, you could say I'm torn on this one. If government could keep their noses out of it, I have no problem with it. But you have to consider, when has government been able to keep its nose out of anything?

    Finally, not all Republicans would oppose this and not all who oppose this will be Republicans. By accusing all who disagree with this of being "Republican trolls" you are employing a negative stereotype no different than someone claiming that Democrats are Communists, all Christians think the earth is 6000 years old, all Muslims are terrorists or Obama critics are racists. It makes you look like a bigot even though we know you are not because only those dirty Whigs are bigots.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  29. SKIP THIS. Seriously by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Look, sitting here playing games with trying to figure out emissions will get us nowhere. Instead, put a sat up in space to measure CO2 IN and OUT of nations. Then have every nation put a tax on ALL GOODS based on emissions levels PER SQ KM basis. With such an approach, then each nation can decide where CO2 is coming from and more importantly, how to address it. This has the benefit that different locations have different contributions. For some, it is economic. For others, it is humans. Finally, for others, it is environmental (new growth consumes while burning rain forests emits). We need to quit playing games and by putting a tax as I describe, it will help those that spend the money to lower their emissions, while punishing those that have heavy emissions per sq km.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  30. as per the project plan by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    The slashdot code writers have caught the "Web 2.0 client side technologies" craze, and are driven to making the UI ever more bloated and useless with each passing day.

  31. A backdoor tax by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Make no mistake, boys and girls, this will be used as a way to impose a carbon tax on you, the individual, never mind attempting to carbon tax businesses.

  32. And when the witch hunts begin, you'll be first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And with this information, all will become evil, and all evil people must parish. This is nothing more than to gather more "evidence" against any body that this group dislikes in order to smear them, and take them down, and extort money from.

    Ugly is bad.
    Bad is wrong.
    Wrong is sinful, and leads to damnation and HOT BURNING FIRES!!!

  33. For the child^h^h^h^h^henvironment! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're 'smart meter' under a microscope. Your credit card activity subject to CO2 analysis.

    A lot of privacy is being compromised to enforce energy poverty.

  34. Airlines, Paintball, & Airforce One are small by VirtualJWN · · Score: 1

    Well, after airlines, Obama and Air force One, and Lady Gaga (talking of course), we do have things like Paintball guns, fire extinguishers, and ocean life (yes covering 75 percent of the planet. Phytoplankton (emit oxygen) Zooplankton (emit CO2), both greatly outnumber humans and are one of the main ingredients in CRUDE OIL (after being "processed" by the mantle after being swallows in to the subduction zones at the plate boundaries. so, our war on CO2 must begin with destroying all sea life. As the Plankton are the root of this food tree,snuff them out, and eventually now more CO2 Gas, (except the bloviating politicians). thsi doesn't count the amounts of CO2 directly emitted by these creatures every second of every day. Just a thought.

    --
    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke