... orange? They always draw the surface orange or red.

Venus's surface is primarily basalts. Which are dark gray. More specifically MORBs, and in particular the gabbro family. Daylight is yellowish-orange, but the surface is not.

Anyway, it's a rather neat tool, so kudos to them for making it :)

Pacific Blob? How are you so confident there wasn't a "pacific blob" in the 1600s? Do we have satellite observations of oceanic temperatures from the 17th century to back that up? Are you assembling that data from observations? Did they have calibrated temperature probes taking measurements day and night thousands of miles out at sea?

<br><br>

It seems to me that a lot of your belief system is built on inferences and assumptions. The largest of those being that the weather events of the 21st century have somehow made a biblical deviation from the norm. Anything approaching a climate "norm" is based on such a limited understanding of the world, it's hard to accept as the truth. Global Warming may be a new phenomenon. But if it is we need to treat it like a science with skepticism, and not like a religion.

Global warming very much is a science, and the researchers involved do examine their data and conclusions with a lot of skepticism and they do a lot of work figuring out how to test their assumptions (I suspect there's a bunch of actual papers dedicated to figuring out if there was a "pacific blob" in the 1600s). Of course there is some uncertainty over how serious the problem will be (though as evidence mounts the problem seems to be getting worse).

But you also need to be prudent. We're talking about taking mitigating action against the cautious projections. You are correct we're dealing with a lot of unknowns. If the scientists are underestimating we might be in a lot more trouble than we realize, this isn't some computer game where someone gave us a nice path to galactic colonization, it's quite possible that the byproducts of industrialization prove disastrous for human civilization.

Your belief system seems to recognize climate data going back only a few decades, perhaps a century.

In fact, we have climate data going back further than you apparently believe. There are direct measurements of sea temperatures from the mid-18th century (ships logs) and many proxy measurements, going back far, far, further.

So, yes, we can tell that the rate of climate change is unprecedented.

We do in fact have direct observations of ocean temperatures dating as far back as 1662. Thermometers did exist before the days of satellites, even if accuracy and coverage wasn't up to modern standards. Temperatures recorded then weren't even close to what we're seeing today.

In fact, we have multiple lines of evidence going back much further than that (cited thoroughly in e.g. the IPCC WG1 reports such as Chapter 5, Paleoclimate Archives) that show that the speed of current climate changes are unprecedented in anything like recent history (including ice ages). This is not surprising, considering that we can clearly see from the observational record that levels of greenhouse gases have risen from "more or less normal" to "unprecedented in the last 800,000+ years" in just the last century or so. Our knowledge of past conditions is a lot less limited than you seem to think - maybe try browsing some of the papers cited in WG1.

Since the observational evidence is entirely consistent with our physical models of past conditions, based on the known atmospheric conditions, solar output, GHG concentrations, recorded volcanism etc, speculation that "it could've been different, we just don't know" won't gain you much traction in actual scientific circles. You'd have to provide pretty solid observational evidence of anomalous ocean temperatures in the past, if you want scientists to accept that such conditions were in any way likely.

Pacific Blob? How are you so confident there wasn't a "pacific blob" in the 1600s? Do we have satellite observations of oceanic temperatures from the 17th century to back that up? Are you assembling that data from observations? Did they have calibrated temperature probes taking measurements day and night thousands of miles out at sea? It seems to me that a lot of your belief system is built on inferences and assumptions. The largest of those being that the weather events of the 21st century have somehow made a biblical deviation from the norm. Anything approaching a climate "norm" is based on such a limited understanding of the world, it's hard to accept as the truth. Global Warming may be a new phenomenon. But if it is we need to treat it like a science with skepticism, and not like a religion.

Yes there have been anomalies and let us all hope beyond hope that this is indeed what we are seeing. The Maunder Minimum mini ice age that killed millions of poor people due to starvation and crop failure in Northern Europe and Russia during the Baroque era comes to mind.

Yes I have a healthy sense of scientific skepticism. But scientific skepticism does not help much when the bear decides that you are supper.

Who knows? For all we know about the solar system the sun might suddenly go into another cycle that puts the damper on global warming and makes the rapid burning of all the fossil fuels we can get our hands on a necessity for our survival. Some things however we can predict with a fair amount of certainty and with the very recent warming of the earths atmosphere and surface water temps, changes in dangerous weather patterns that will effect us drastically will happen within our life times and that of our children and this is a almost a certainty.

A rapid move now away from fossil fuel consumption might just save us if there is another mini ice age coming or if we blow ourselves up and in so doing actually test the nuclear winter hypothesis. Then again the MAD policy of the cold war served us well in one regard. At least it kept us from testing the nuclear winter hypothesis. Why some of us insist upon continuing to test the hypothesis of global warming by listening to the fossil fuel industry shills however is MAD in my books given the correlation between recent increases in C02 levels and the recent increases in global mean temperatures!

It is likely using the same codebase that is used to recognize individual people and could likely be expanded to other interesting research like recognizing individual birds in the wild.

As far as the pet angle, there are plenty of people that enjoy this kind of work and this kind of work is sadly increasing with things like pet pedicures and pet massages and things even more bizarre. There is a ton of money to be made from people who feed their dogs better than half the world's human population.

Add more content. There is over 100 years of movies and over 75 years of television they could add pretty cheaply.

There seems to be less content now than there was when I first subscribed.

I heard here on Slashdot that they were doomed since they were removing content and raising prices! This is unpossible!

"The top-level section has four shortcuts (your current game, two personalized suggestions, and a deal from the Microsoft store)"

So... one game and 3 ads. Thanks but no thanks, this is why i don't own an xbox.

"The first "Fluid Design" interface comes with a redesigned Home page, which is all about simplicity and customization. "

Ooo... customization! So, can I remove the useless top section that is 75% ads, and is wasting around 30% of the dashboard real-estate?

Guessing not.

due to manufacturers and vendors choosing NOT to fix this for whatever reason (they simply don't care, not cost effective, not enough users to justify the effort, product no longer sold, product too old, product is EOL, etc, etc)....

vista and older are fucked, routers and access points older than about 3 years are fucked, wireless gear from lesser known companies are fucked, tablets from major vendors more than 3 years old are fucked, tablets from unknown vendors are fucked, phones that aren't current models are fucked.. there's a lot of gear that is going to be junk.. a LOT.

well I do love how OpenBSD already fixed this months ago

The discoverer of the vulnerability states on his website that openbsd (Theo Radt) broke the embargo in July. Not much to love with that, since it reduced the security of everybody else. You will notice that most everybody else (Google seems to have been asleep), had patches ready _today_. This was when the embargo was lifted.

Going to the discoverer's site ( https://www.krackattacks.com/ ) last night got you a page that said, "just a test that domain name and webserver are working." Unlike Theo, he was honoring the embargo-- this morning, he posted info about the exploit on that website.

I would argue the opposite, especially if you are a small company.

This exactly. I work with a midsized non-profit (roughly $3,000,000/year revenues), and we didn't do credit cards for years because we didn't have the ability (or desire) to have to deal with the security hassles associated with them. We finally found a good partner/vendor and were able to outsource the credit card portion of our online operations to them, and with the long delayed arrival of proper EMV terminals in the US, we can finally handle them on-site without having to take absurd security precautions.

In effect, the unencrypted/unsecured cardholder never, ever, touches our networks or computers. All we get from the payment processor is a hash that confirms the payment, and allows us to reconcile and/or reverse the charge if needed. It works great, and is far more secure than something I could have rigged up as a volunteer.

I'm 42, so I'm officially an old fart when it comes to my IT job. I'm in a senior engineering/systems architect job and one of my favorite aspects of it is my unofficial duty to impart wisdom on the newbies. My "hard truth" about IT that surprisingly few people truly grasp is that you can't get comfortable being the expert at one particular thing and coast. Even 10 years ago you could do that...I know so many people who make more than I do jumping from contract to contract doing CCNP-level router work or being the "EMC/HPE/IBM storage wizard." The formula for success used to be to pick a vendor, steep yourself in the technology, then get and keep certifications while learning what's new every few years. This is rapidly going away...regardless of what you think of cloud, CIOs hear the magic word "OpEx" and suddenly all that on-premises hardware and knowledge is out the window. For years, I did a combination of Windows Server, Citrix XenApp and System Center as my core skills, while trying to learn as much as I could about other areas. Even that has changed so much in the past couple of years...desktop apps are being replaced with web apps, containers, APIs, anything that abstracts the client layer and makes it look and act like a smartphone.

These days, one of my jobs is to do the systems design for a huge project in Azure. Anyone thinking they can just pick up a cloud provider's stack of tools overnight is in for a bit of a shock. Couple that with the fact that all the cloud vendors are releasing whole new features every week and existing features change almost as often. Part of my job has been trying to get as many of our engineering staff on board for learning cloud stuff, and it's been a challenge with a couple of people.

Keeping up with all the knowledge needed to be the guy they keep on staff when all the routine work is offshore is hard. I have had to dedicate a lot of off-work time to it, because no company trains their staff anymore...one of the things I hate about IT not being recognized as a real profession. The reward for doing this is a very interesting job and, not surprisingly, a higher-pressure firehose to learn from. :-) Being a dad on top of this is tough also...it requires lots of time management, late night reading and watching videos at 2x speed to do this and be a functioning parent.

So yeah...if you want to keep an IT job, especially as things get more and more abstract, broaden your skill set and learn as much as you can get your brain around.

...the reason you stand for a meeting is to keep it short by making it physically uncomfortable for the participants. Standing is actually doing exactly what you want: reducing meeting time.

Then why not reduce meeting time further, by making it more physically uncomfortable? Set fire to anyone who shows up.

I'm sure those blog posts from 2008 are fascinating, but when I see someone plugging twice his own blog in a Slashdot comment, it's an immediate SEO red flag.

This led me to google "Bruce F. Webster", and wow, dude did you really create your own Wikipedia entry using your own blog as source?

There's nothing in your bio that even remotely justify a wikipedia article, that's more like a LinkedIn profile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

if I wasn't a lazy bastard I'd edit your page to flag it as a WP:PROMO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Where are the wikipedia nazis when we need them.

Where are the wikipedia nazis when we need them?

They became write supremacists .

Is someone trying to steal their rounded corners idea again?! ;)

To see that people are still using Flash.

If you still have a Flash plugin installed then now is the proper time to uninstall it.

we'll be hearing how some manufacturers are using this system to block sale of used goods.

It's great that we can now validate the authenticity of these high end handbags. Now you'll never need to wonder whether you are getting ripped off or just legitimately fleeced

For the millions of buyers who want to buy new, genuine Louis Vuitton bags on fucking eBay.

Forget handbags, there are high-end electronics accessories being cloned that I would not think would be cloned. The problem is, they do not work as well. Three examples I was personally burned by:

Logitech R800 presentation remote. Problems in the fake: the green laser failed and became faded in some weeks time, ditto detached internally as it was fixed in a small drop of glue, and the radio was unreliable (missed clicks in some rooms).

Canon TC80-N3 camera remote. Problem in the fake: the battery life was 1/15th of the Canon item. I.e., the same coin battery lasted a few months in the fake while it lasted about 10 years in the brand item.

Canon battery charger LC-E6. Problem in the fake: charged slowly, several hours instead of under an hour in the brand item. That one I returned immediately.

In all cases, the fake cost just as outrageously much as the brand item, was labeled as the brand item, and came in meticulously copied brand packaging with manual and all. It was actually impossible to tell the difference... until it developed problems. In two of the three cases, the malfunction was detected beyond the 2-month ebay money back warranty. I managed to return two items to the seller, trashed another. One item was bought on amazon marketplace, two on ebay. For this very reason, I'm now going to reputable dealers only (such as B&H Photo-Video) for any brand name electronics and computer accessory, no matter how small.

Putting this in some perspective, it's something less than 20 CT scans

I really hate when CT scans are used as an example. The range of exposure is so wide and varies a lot depending on the type of scanner it is. A cardiac function CT scan on a 10 year old scanner could be 30 mSv or higher. Yet the same scan on a 2 year old scanner would be under 5 mSv. And with a newer sequence from the last 6 months could be as low as 1 mSv. An angiogram from a few years ago could be 16 mSv, but are well under 1 mSv on a modern scanner. There are many scans that are done these days that are at .2 mSv.

It also depends on what body part is being scanned. The exposure in the extremities are different than the head or thorax. The age of a patient is also a big factor. hitting an 85 year old with 10 mSv is a hell of a lot different than a 6 month old.

"Putting this in some perspective, it's something less than 20 CT scans. While that seems high, it's well within the range of what some (sick) people get. Not a great idea, but a 'tolerable' level of radiation."

In other words, it's tolerable for a sick person who might die if they don't get the scans, but it's not ok or 'tolerable' for a healthy person.

How does it feel to be wrong so much?

If Obama didn't want "his legacy" undone he should have worked with congress instead of acting like a king with a pen and phone.

Radiation exposure is well understand and extrapolated, and has been for years.

Yes, it is. And we've known that our safety limits have been ultra conservative for quite some time. Its not been a big issue because it hasn't necessarily caused any problematic compliance costs. However, it has caused confusion among the public that would naturally but wrongly assume that 100 times the safety limit must be a high risk danger when in most cases it isn't

The easy answer has always been to always do what you can to minimize exposure, so that's how we've characterized it, lower is better. But when we talk about something like a dirty bomb, its more important to eliminate fear and over-reaction with facts. It would be extremely hard to have a dirty bomb actually harm a large number of people, and if one went off near you the biggest danger would be the physical explosion, not the radiation.

The public risk perception of radiation is so far from reality, it could possibly make us do stupid things.

Radiation exposure is well understand and extrapolated, and has been for years.

The public risk perception of radiation is so far from reality, it could possibly make us do stupid things.

Your perception of the risk from radiation is so far from reality, you've simplified the model to the point of being useless.

That's been my experience of your posts, that all of the knowledge gathered since the 1950s just doesn't exist. You don't understand :

• The difference between a radionuclide and the radiation it emits
• The difference between internal and external radiation exposure
• The difference between being exposed to radiation and having an emitter inside you exposing you 24x7
• What bioaccumulation is
• That detection in food and water is really hard
• That you can eat a radionuclide
• That you can drink a radionuclide
• That you can breathe in a radionuclide
• That some radionuclides appear like different types of micro-nutirents to a matabolism
• That it deposits in different parts of the body
• That it can be organically bound in the body and not excreted
• That organically bound exposure increases absorption of radiation
• That it can be chemically toxic
• That children are more susceptible than adults
• That an effect could be death
• That an effect could be cancer
• That an effect could be gene damage
• That an effect could be failed birth
• That an effect could be a birth defect
• That an effect could be transgenic disease that effect the next generation
• That an effect could be reduced brainweight of, and lower IQ in infants
• That there is still stuff we don't know

Then you:

• Ignore facts even when they are cited from reputable sources
• Don't seem to want to understand
• Continue to shill as if you have an agenda
• Claim everything is FUD
• Minimize the apparent harm
• Ignore data collected from unbiased sources
• Refuse to accept that some data *is* biased Nuclear PR
• Refuse to accept the impact of media blackout for Fukushima
• Refuse to accept the work of Ukrainian scientists studying Chernobyl

There is a reason the NRC uses ALARA, figuring out this stuff is complicated and the easiest thing to do so your brain doesn't explode from thinking about it is to keep the potential risk of exposure ultra conservative.

We are now witnessing feature creep as more features are being crammed into Chrome.

Google should style up and "fix" their current software, most of which suffers from usability issues and/or crappy implementation.

As a start: How about implementing basic sorting of video from photos [or having some kind of sensible filter] in their Google Photos offering?

Not unless you view tech as an opportunity to propagandize climate change religion.

Seems to me that explaining the world around us is of interest to nerds.

Not all "news for nerds" has to be "here's the latest update about Ruby on Rails implementation on Ubuntu run on a Raspberry Pi to mine bitcoin."

(1) We have had an unseasonably warm fall.
(2) Cooling temperatures trigger the production of red and purple pigments in leaves.
(3) We expect to see less red foliage this year.

Explain to me which of these statements is *political*.

I'm from Ohio, and I'm about 50 years old.

When I was a kid I used to go skiing. My parents would take me. We have a few local ski resorts, dinky little places. Boston Mills and Brandywine. Nothing much really. Basically a few ski lifts and a couple of hills not far from where the Cleveland Cavaliers used to play - the old Richfield Colosseum off route 303.

And the skiing wasn't bad. Nobody would mistake it for Veil Colorado, but it wasn't bad.

Now I'm older and you know what? It doesn't really snow in Ohio much anymore. I have two kids now. I really wanted to teach them how to ski and...I can't. We never get enough snow. Each resort these days will make artificial snow enough to keep one or two hills open, but it's basically an ice flow. You're not skiing, you're skating.

When I was a kid you'd see an occasional flurry in October. I once went trick-or-treating in the snow. Show would pick up through November and by Christmas we would have a few feet of snow that would last through February.

Now? It's too sporadic to build up a base to ski on. It'll snow, but then go up to 55 or 60 degrees and it all melts, then drop down to the mid 30s and hang for a week. Then drop to zero and snow. Then back up into the 50's. We never get anything worth skiing on. If we get a big snow it'll last for maybe a week or so. Enough to maybe go sledding on, but by the next week it's slush.

I don't give a crap about politics.

What I do know is that I used to have snow here, and now I don't.

Would using the Rust programming language have helped avoid this flaw?

Captain: What happen ?
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the weak security.
Operator: We get hacked.
Captain: What !
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Captain: It’s you !!
CATS: How are you gentlemen !!
CATS: All your data are belong to us.
CATS: You are on the way to sell your data to the highest bidder.
Captain: What you say !!
CATS: You have no chance to hide your personal info make your time.
CATS: Ha ha ha ha
Operator: Captain !!
Captain: Take off every ‘TFA’!!
Captain: You know what you doing.
Captain: Move ‘MPA2’.
Captain: For great protection.

Next up, curve 25519 and millions of apple fan boys crying into their caramel latte.

If that happens, it won't just be Apple fan boys who are put out.

In any case, it doesn't take a math genius to predict something like this would happen with factorization. There was no breakthrough on the fundamental problem, only a discovery of a weak key choice algorithm. This is where nearly every exploit in the world comes from: not from advances in mathematics, but the discovery of sloppy implementations.

The problem with software is that it is almost irresistibly considered finished when it looks right.