Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Its not just illegal snooping thats the problem (Score 4, Interesting) 179

by simonreid (#48101753) Attached to: Eric Schmidt: Anxiety Over US Spying Will "Break the Internet"

Eric is confusing two issues, probably purposefully.






Submitted by mrspoonsi

Comment: Re:Here's his problem (Score 1) 278

by simonreid (#46880941) Attached to: The Ways Programming Is Hard



Comment: Re:Or it could be (Score 1) 158

by simonreid (#46769587) Attached to: Pollution In China Could Be Driving Freak Weather In US

Comment: Re:Climate change conferences in 2014 (Score 1) 987

by simonreid (#46631931) Attached to: UN Report: Climate Changes Overwhelming
I assume you mean that the pro man-made climate change are the groups that get the funding. You must do because the amount of money spent by just the US Government (around $2B a year on just scientific studies alone, and growing) dwarfs that spent by the energy companies on research.

If you can be bothered here is the GAO Report and a much easier to read summary

Not saying the money isn't well spent, or that man-made climate change isn't happening - but its just plain wrong to say that Big Oil is outspending the poor universities when it comes to climate research.

Comment: Re:There real reason ... (Score 1) 290

The problem is that the media is motivated... to make money. You don't think all those adverts for Coal power on TV, or 'brand' ads about what a great company GE is are just for fun do you? The conversation goes like this 'well... we could spend money to investigate a story slamming a company that spent $50m advertising with us last quarter - or we could not, just re-print their press release about, and still be profitable and employed'. Sure, one or two reports might try to write it, but they would never get on air. You should try listening to the No Agenda show (just google it) for a great description of how it really works

Comment: Re:Killed because of the message (Score 1) 314

Add to that the oil companies paying researchers tons of money to write anything that "disproves" global warming, and the complete lack of peer-reviewed research that disproves global warming probably means that there's not enough support for that position to stand up to any peer review at all.

This always drives me crazy... please show me any study, article or any bit of information that shows that oil companies are paying researchers any more money than companies that have a vested interested in climate change. You can't, because whilst you can find a lot of information on the Koch Brothers Funding Climate Denial, I bet you can't find anything talking about the funding that is provided from companies, institutions and individuals with a vested interested in finding climate change.

Comment: Re:They don't understand the difference (Score 2) 517

by simonreid (#45938383) Attached to: How Weather Influences Global Warming Opinions

They have either a poor understanding or perhaps no concept at all that short term temperature fluctuations are merely data points in a longer term trend

Couldn't agree with you more.....

Comment: Re:So basically... (Score 1) 105

by simonreid (#45146115) Attached to: Snapchat Search Warrants Emphasize Data Vulnerability

Although I agree with you in the case of snap chat, normal people just don't think things through like that. I for one didn't know its not pushed to your phone until you read it.

The other thing is its not just police search warrants you have to look out for.

In many states a lawyer involved in a lawsuit (for example a divorce or child custody hearing) can issue their own subpoena for electronic records *without* law enforcement or the courts reviewing it. In this case its not evidence of a crime... but your ex wife might subpoena snap chat for all images sent to you and suddenly that secret picture your new girlfriend sent isn't so secret, and is being used in court against you. Its not illegal, but its not something you want to share.

Comment: Re:Cryptographically signed elections? (Score 1) 266

by simonreid (#45090547) Attached to: Azerbaijan Election Results Released Before Voting Had Even Started
That assumes all votes are made equal, which they are not. Because of gerrymandering in the US something like 80 or 90% of political offices are not competitive votes, which means that incumbents are always reelected and if you live in one of those districts, your vote basically doesn't count. What it means is that only votes in the primaries count, so you end up loosing the center since the only competitive vote is within your own party.
