Sure, except at some point you'd expect the null hypothesis to fail - you'd expect warming beyond the error bars. You have to give the null hypothesis the same size error bars as you do the models, or it's all meaningless. Right now the error bars on the models are quite large - large enough that "no warming" doesn't disprove the models (well, most of them, some have been retired, but there are lots of models). That doesn't mean the science is bad, but it does mean the science is young and the problem is hard.
That sound an awful lot like a religious argument. "You can't disprove the existance of God!" I don't believe AGW can be conclusively disproven in my lifetime. I don't think that's very important.
The models are one thing.
The models are the science. If we want to move past speculation and philosophy, to perhaps policy or engineering, the science needs to be there first, with models making accurate predictions with low error bars. We're simply not there yet - it's a hard problem.
The climate change deniers fall into the same category as evolution deniers.
Wow, you religious zealots sure are, well, zealous.
Or perhaps you misunderstand the debate? You do realize that none of the climate change models have been better at predicting the climate this century than the null hypothesis, right? That doesn't mean the models are wrong, but it also doesn't mean the null hypothesis is wrong.
But, hey, that's mere science. You were on about religion, and I try not to argue with a man's religious beliefs.
Equally bigoted are the people who couldn't handle Adolf Hitler's views.
Adolf Hitler had every right to his views, and every right to express them, to participate in the political process. He did not have the right to use force to impose those views on others when those avenues didn't work out.
Eich was not the one that used force on others in his story. He participated in the political process to support views he had every right to hold, and every right to express. There's no evidence he ever discriminated against a gay person at Mozilla.
"Tolerance" means to accept the right of people you disagree with to exist in society, and to not try to kill them or force them out. Eich was tolerant - not accepting, which is a higher bar, but tolerant. His opponents were intolerant, and forced him out.
The biggest difference today is the vastly reduced likelyhood of smoking some nasty preservative or other admixture in pot. If you read some of the experimental results form the 60s when active scientific testing of a variety of recreational drugs was going on, you'll see a theme of pot causing hallucinations, and being looked at as a hallucinogen. We know of course that pot doesn't do that, but all sorts of ill-advised stuff could be found in "campus weed" back then, at least on campuses that were net importers of pot. The "reefer madness" stuff wasn't entirely fiction, but the problem wasn't from the plant - smoking weed killer should not be confused with smoking killer weed.
True communism has never been practiced on a major scale.
Yeah, yeah, no true Scottsman. Let's talk about "real Communism". Real Communism is the form Communism takes here in the real word. Idealized Communism is the form it takes in the imagination. If you want to argue that idealized Communism has never been practiced, I'd agree with you.
What has been practiced is real Communism, and real Communism has killed tens of millions, and made life miserable and crushed the spirit of over a billion people. That's what really happened, here in the real world, when Communism was practiced.
Sure, maybe there's a different way that it could be practiced. But dammit, evaluate the risk! If we tried to do X last year at work, and it brought the entire system down worldwide for an extended outage, I'm just not going to be open to "lets do X again, this time it will be different, I promise!". Not a chance without a mountain of hard evidence beforehand, of the sort it's hard to get in politics.
To suggest we try it again with nothing more to back that up than optimism and the claim that it wasn't done right last time is, well, Evil. "Let's take the risk of killing another 10 million people, I have no evidence, but I feel it will probably be OK this time."
Uhh, you're not basing that on polls,since they say the exact opposite... So, you're basing it on.. Lies or magical thinking?
There's a significant chance now that Hillary gets a federal indictment. (Were we a nation of laws, not a banana republic, she already would have been, but I suspect the fix is in.) If that happens, it's Bernie's to lose IMO. The Dem primary isn't over until the FBI makes a decision.
Coding in a way to learn systematic thinking that you can learn young. Some people pick it up in high school from geometry or the rare demanding English class, but there's nothing really to teach it earlier today, and there should be.
Yes, it all depends on whether the students code something non-trivial, and I'm not sure our school system can every move beyond "memorize these facts, then drill", but it's worth a shot. Our school system was optimized to produce good factory workers, with education as a secondary objective and critical thinking just a distraction form the goal. We fix that, or we fall into economic obscurity.
Being able to code a little bit is more like being able to drive a little bit - you're likely to cause as many problems as you solve.
You're thinking in terms of writing software that will be maintained, or that other people will use. I'm thinking in terms of "every job requires an understanding of automation - how it can go wrong and what to do about it", as well as automating stuff in your own job just for you.
Without a basic understanding of coding to form a mental model of automated tasks, it all seems like magic. I'm expecting a lot of jobs riding herd on automated jobs, dealing with the exceptions. Maybe not fixing problems yourself, but giving a coherent description of the details of the problem, something you can't do with magic, and improvising work-arounds.
Learning the basics of programming is like learning to read and write. It's not about jobs as a novelist or software developer, but about basic skills needed for any job in our automated future.
It's one thing to give students an opportunity to learn something they are interested in. It's quite another thing to force everyone to study a subject that they are not interested in.
Everyone is forced to study history, civics, basic science, math, and so on. It seems find to add "writing code" to that list. Studying coding every year seems like a bit much, but multiple exposures over childhood seems appropriate.
Remember, all the mindless, repetitive jobs are going to be replaced by robots over the next 20-30 years. If schools are doing their fundamental job of teaching everyone enough skills that they can contribute to society in some needed way, then basic skills in programming and debugging, very simple stuff, is going to be needed more and more.
Reading and writing was once a niche job skill, needed by only a few specialists. Now most jobs require it. Coding will be the same way - only a few jobs requiring the skills of a professional software developer, just like there are only a few jobs as novelists or technical writers, but some basic understanding of simple automation? The equivalent of basic functional literacy? Yeah, most people will need that.
We are if there's a legitimate alternative. No smoking in reastaurants would not have been authoritarian overreach if "vaping" (someone please find a better name!) was around at the time. Banning 2-stroke leaf blowers is fine, or simply imposing a noise limit, since there are legitimate alternatives now.
Like a typical redpill moron, you project your own fucked up nature onto other people.
Also, you're using "godwin" wrong; this conversation started out in the shit the minute you alt-right fuckheads came in to whine about your imaginary "SJW" bugaboo.
Now go on and follow your hero Hoover's example and put on your pretty dress and SWAT some liberals from the safety of your bedroom. Better yet! Do the world a favor and follow your Feurher's example and eat a bullet.
/. has reached the point where I honestly can't tell whether the posts are generated by "rant bots" or not. Thanks SJW Friday!
So let me just fit in by adding:
i don't even. is it so fucking difficult to acknowledge gay separatism???????? WHAT THE HELL DO YOU HAVE AGAINST VEGANISM, YOU HETERO-PRIVILEGED MRA?????? DON'T YOU SEE HOW CRITICIZING GENDERPLATONIC-ASSOCIATING QTPOCS IS PROBLEMATIC?????
shut up!!!!! respect fatism & gay rights separatism, u able-body-overprivileged shit. stain!!! fuCK, UR MALE PRIVILEGE, U SMALLFAT-NORMATIVE SHIT STAIN!!!!!!!! ur carnist able-body-PRIVILEGED OPINION IS FUCKING WORTHLESS!!!!!!! ull literally never understand my damn hijra native american struggles!!!! reSPECT THAT IM LITERALLY PANSENSUAL, TODAY, U, NON-ETHNIC-PRIVILEGED BIGOT!!!!!! ur, fetiSHIZATION OF NONROMANTIC-TYPE VICTIMS IS REALLY PROBLEMATIC!!!! is it so fucking difficult 2 acknowledge that u can be fat & healthy!!!! leave polyracial-aligned wymyn the fuck alone, u gender-overprivileged kyriarchist!!!
Futurama was good, because Groening was only barely involved with it. Simpsons jumped the shark in season 13 because he wanted to go more preachy with it.
Groening basically stopped working with Simpsons in season 12 to start Futurama, but the main thing that changed with season 13 is Al Jean became the showrunner, which continues to today. Groening stopped being the showrunner after season 2.
The Simpsons lost me when it changed formats, for a 20-minute plot to several shorts, like a bugs bunny cartoon.
Own your feelings. No one makes you feel anything. Realize your feelings are only important to you, and don't expect strangers or co-workers to care about them. It's not about your feelings.
Someone acting unprofessionally in a professional workplace, in concrete ways you can document? You might have something. Someone making your job vaguely unpleasant? Work sucks for most people, get used to it. If you've never had a job where you sit in the parking lot, crying, for half an hour before you can summon the courage to go in, but you do because your family needs the money and it's the only job in town, you're doing OK.
That's how it's been defined in private industry for decades (although it has eased off a bit in recent years).
If a member of a protected class feels threatened or uncomfortable, they were harassed. Period. Should I tell a woman I like her new haircut? Nope - that can be taken as a sexual advance - lawsuit time.
You're not making any argument that this is a sane definition. But maybe you knew that.
Bullshit. We're all allowed emotions. Harassment is when you let your emotions affect your actions and disregard the feelings of others.
Your feelings are no one's problem but your own. Any time you find yourself about to say "you made me feel", stop, and shut up before you proclaim your immaturity to the world.
If you think there's something wrong with a professor realizing he's on dangerous ground, and has either lost objectivity about, or might begin actually sexually harassing a student, and stepping out of the adviser role, WTF? It's exactly the right behavior - better to not fall for the wrong person, but humanity has never found a solution to that problem.
The right answer of course depends on the language. Most major languages now explicitly address concurrency in the standards, but they're not identical. "Volatile" finally means something useful for concurrency in Java and C++, but in the early standards of each it didn't.
If GP was arguing that you can build a locking primitive using just "volatile", well, clearly not. Since we don't know what he was trying to do, I'm inclined to agree that he was wrong, but "volatile" does solve a lot of common problems. Of course, as you say, thinking about "registers" entirely misses the point - it's about the behavior the standards require.
We either figure out how to shield average people from economic problems and fast, or we'll be facing another World War, which will almost certainly go nuclear.
You cannot shield the average person from "economic problems" by definition. However, the average person can shield himself, through basic fiscal responsibility, from ordinary downturns. "Other people" can care for the most unfortunate 5% of so of society, no problem, but it simply doesn't work at 50%.
You can try to avoid economic problems, but that's mostly about policing bubbles, scams, bailouts, and other forms of malinvestment. Normal economic downturns are, well, normal, and shouldn't be scary, merely unpleasant.
This sort of thing is rare because the protocols to get a drug approved for human testing generally work.
They work well enough that I'd be surprised if this was the result of corner-cutting on the research. I think it's more likely that something went wrong in the preparation.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, except at some point you'd expect the null hypothesis to fail - you'd expect warming beyond the error bars. You have to give the null hypothesis the same size error bars as you do the models, or it's all meaningless. Right now the error bars on the models are quite large - large enough that "no warming" doesn't disprove the models (well, most of them, some have been retired, but there are lots of models). That doesn't mean the science is bad, but it does mean the science is young and the problem is hard.
For AGW to be conclusively disproven,
That sound an awful lot like a religious argument. "You can't disprove the existance of God!" I don't believe AGW can be conclusively disproven in my lifetime. I don't think that's very important.
The models are one thing.
The models are the science. If we want to move past speculation and philosophy, to perhaps policy or engineering, the science needs to be there first, with models making accurate predictions with low error bars. We're simply not there yet - it's a hard problem.
The climate change deniers fall into the same category as evolution deniers.
Wow, you religious zealots sure are, well, zealous.
Or perhaps you misunderstand the debate? You do realize that none of the climate change models have been better at predicting the climate this century than the null hypothesis, right? That doesn't mean the models are wrong, but it also doesn't mean the null hypothesis is wrong.
But, hey, that's mere science. You were on about religion, and I try not to argue with a man's religious beliefs.
Equally bigoted are the people who couldn't handle Adolf Hitler's views.
Adolf Hitler had every right to his views, and every right to express them, to participate in the political process. He did not have the right to use force to impose those views on others when those avenues didn't work out.
Eich was not the one that used force on others in his story. He participated in the political process to support views he had every right to hold, and every right to express. There's no evidence he ever discriminated against a gay person at Mozilla.
"Tolerance" means to accept the right of people you disagree with to exist in society, and to not try to kill them or force them out. Eich was tolerant - not accepting, which is a higher bar, but tolerant. His opponents were intolerant, and forced him out.
The biggest difference today is the vastly reduced likelyhood of smoking some nasty preservative or other admixture in pot. If you read some of the experimental results form the 60s when active scientific testing of a variety of recreational drugs was going on, you'll see a theme of pot causing hallucinations, and being looked at as a hallucinogen. We know of course that pot doesn't do that, but all sorts of ill-advised stuff could be found in "campus weed" back then, at least on campuses that were net importers of pot. The "reefer madness" stuff wasn't entirely fiction, but the problem wasn't from the plant - smoking weed killer should not be confused with smoking killer weed.
I had assumed that was "pot doesn't make you stupid, but stupid people are more likely to smoke pot", but maybe I misunderstand.
True communism has never been practiced on a major scale.
Yeah, yeah, no true Scottsman. Let's talk about "real Communism". Real Communism is the form Communism takes here in the real word. Idealized Communism is the form it takes in the imagination. If you want to argue that idealized Communism has never been practiced, I'd agree with you.
What has been practiced is real Communism, and real Communism has killed tens of millions, and made life miserable and crushed the spirit of over a billion people. That's what really happened, here in the real world, when Communism was practiced.
Sure, maybe there's a different way that it could be practiced. But dammit, evaluate the risk! If we tried to do X last year at work, and it brought the entire system down worldwide for an extended outage, I'm just not going to be open to "lets do X again, this time it will be different, I promise!". Not a chance without a mountain of hard evidence beforehand, of the sort it's hard to get in politics.
To suggest we try it again with nothing more to back that up than optimism and the claim that it wasn't done right last time is, well, Evil. "Let's take the risk of killing another 10 million people, I have no evidence, but I feel it will probably be OK this time."
Uhh, you're not basing that on polls,since they say the exact opposite... So, you're basing it on.. Lies or magical thinking?
There's a significant chance now that Hillary gets a federal indictment. (Were we a nation of laws, not a banana republic, she already would have been, but I suspect the fix is in.) If that happens, it's Bernie's to lose IMO. The Dem primary isn't over until the FBI makes a decision.
OK, but what if the center of the scandalgate is Bill Gates?
You must be extraordinarily far to the left to see CNN as having a right-wing bias
Bernie Sanders
Oh, yeah, never mind.
Coding in a way to learn systematic thinking that you can learn young. Some people pick it up in high school from geometry or the rare demanding English class, but there's nothing really to teach it earlier today, and there should be.
Yes, it all depends on whether the students code something non-trivial, and I'm not sure our school system can every move beyond "memorize these facts, then drill", but it's worth a shot. Our school system was optimized to produce good factory workers, with education as a secondary objective and critical thinking just a distraction form the goal. We fix that, or we fall into economic obscurity.
Being able to code a little bit is more like being able to drive a little bit - you're likely to cause as many problems as you solve.
You're thinking in terms of writing software that will be maintained, or that other people will use. I'm thinking in terms of "every job requires an understanding of automation - how it can go wrong and what to do about it", as well as automating stuff in your own job just for you.
Without a basic understanding of coding to form a mental model of automated tasks, it all seems like magic. I'm expecting a lot of jobs riding herd on automated jobs, dealing with the exceptions. Maybe not fixing problems yourself, but giving a coherent description of the details of the problem, something you can't do with magic, and improvising work-arounds.
Learning the basics of programming is like learning to read and write. It's not about jobs as a novelist or software developer, but about basic skills needed for any job in our automated future.
You guy are the most entertaining thing on Slashdot on this slow weekend. Dibs on the popcorn concession!
It's one thing to give students an opportunity to learn something they are interested in. It's quite another thing to force everyone to study a subject that they are not interested in.
Everyone is forced to study history, civics, basic science, math, and so on. It seems find to add "writing code" to that list. Studying coding every year seems like a bit much, but multiple exposures over childhood seems appropriate.
Remember, all the mindless, repetitive jobs are going to be replaced by robots over the next 20-30 years. If schools are doing their fundamental job of teaching everyone enough skills that they can contribute to society in some needed way, then basic skills in programming and debugging, very simple stuff, is going to be needed more and more.
Reading and writing was once a niche job skill, needed by only a few specialists. Now most jobs require it. Coding will be the same way - only a few jobs requiring the skills of a professional software developer, just like there are only a few jobs as novelists or technical writers, but some basic understanding of simple automation? The equivalent of basic functional literacy? Yeah, most people will need that.
As long as systemd exists in the wild, rants against systemd will be on-topic in any thread.
Systemd is worse than JarJar Binks.
Systemd is worse than furries.
Systemd is worse than teaching a child to LARP.
Systems is the worst thing.
Aren't we a clever and proud people?
We are if there's a legitimate alternative. No smoking in reastaurants would not have been authoritarian overreach if "vaping" (someone please find a better name!) was around at the time. Banning 2-stroke leaf blowers is fine, or simply imposing a noise limit, since there are legitimate alternatives now.
Like a typical redpill moron, you project your own fucked up nature onto other people.
Also, you're using "godwin" wrong; this conversation started out in the shit the minute you alt-right fuckheads came in to whine about your imaginary "SJW" bugaboo.
Now go on and follow your hero Hoover's example and put on your pretty dress and SWAT some liberals from the safety of your bedroom.
Better yet! Do the world a favor and follow your Feurher's example and eat a bullet.
/. has reached the point where I honestly can't tell whether the posts are generated by "rant bots" or not. Thanks SJW Friday!
So let me just fit in by adding:
i don't even. is it so fucking difficult to acknowledge gay separatism???????? WHAT THE HELL DO YOU HAVE AGAINST VEGANISM, YOU HETERO-PRIVILEGED MRA?????? DON'T YOU SEE HOW CRITICIZING GENDERPLATONIC-ASSOCIATING QTPOCS IS PROBLEMATIC?????
shut up!!!!! respect fatism & gay rights separatism, u able-body-overprivileged shit. stain!!! fuCK, UR MALE PRIVILEGE, U SMALLFAT-NORMATIVE SHIT STAIN!!!!!!!! ur carnist able-body-PRIVILEGED OPINION IS FUCKING WORTHLESS!!!!!!! ull literally never understand my damn hijra native american struggles!!!! reSPECT THAT IM LITERALLY PANSENSUAL, TODAY, U, NON-ETHNIC-PRIVILEGED BIGOT!!!!!! ur, fetiSHIZATION OF NONROMANTIC-TYPE VICTIMS IS REALLY PROBLEMATIC!!!! is it so fucking difficult 2 acknowledge that u can be fat & healthy!!!! leave polyracial-aligned wymyn the fuck alone, u gender-overprivileged kyriarchist!!!
https://tumblr-argument-genera... is awesome.
Futurama was good, because Groening was only barely involved with it. Simpsons jumped the shark in season 13 because he wanted to go more preachy with it.
Groening basically stopped working with Simpsons in season 12 to start Futurama, but the main thing that changed with season 13 is Al Jean became the showrunner, which continues to today. Groening stopped being the showrunner after season 2.
The Simpsons lost me when it changed formats, for a 20-minute plot to several shorts, like a bugs bunny cartoon.
Own your feelings. No one makes you feel anything. Realize your feelings are only important to you, and don't expect strangers or co-workers to care about them. It's not about your feelings.
Someone acting unprofessionally in a professional workplace, in concrete ways you can document? You might have something. Someone making your job vaguely unpleasant? Work sucks for most people, get used to it. If you've never had a job where you sit in the parking lot, crying, for half an hour before you can summon the courage to go in, but you do because your family needs the money and it's the only job in town, you're doing OK.
That's not how most sane, non-SJW's define it.
That's how it's been defined in private industry for decades (although it has eased off a bit in recent years).
If a member of a protected class feels threatened or uncomfortable, they were harassed. Period. Should I tell a woman I like her new haircut? Nope - that can be taken as a sexual advance - lawsuit time.
You're not making any argument that this is a sane definition. But maybe you knew that.
Bullshit. We're all allowed emotions. Harassment is when you let your emotions affect your actions and disregard the feelings of others.
Your feelings are no one's problem but your own. Any time you find yourself about to say "you made me feel", stop, and shut up before you proclaim your immaturity to the world.
If you think there's something wrong with a professor realizing he's on dangerous ground, and has either lost objectivity about, or might begin actually sexually harassing a student, and stepping out of the adviser role, WTF? It's exactly the right behavior - better to not fall for the wrong person, but humanity has never found a solution to that problem.
The right answer of course depends on the language. Most major languages now explicitly address concurrency in the standards, but they're not identical. "Volatile" finally means something useful for concurrency in Java and C++, but in the early standards of each it didn't.
If GP was arguing that you can build a locking primitive using just "volatile", well, clearly not. Since we don't know what he was trying to do, I'm inclined to agree that he was wrong, but "volatile" does solve a lot of common problems. Of course, as you say, thinking about "registers" entirely misses the point - it's about the behavior the standards require.
We either figure out how to shield average people from economic problems and fast, or we'll be facing another World War, which will almost certainly go nuclear.
You cannot shield the average person from "economic problems" by definition. However, the average person can shield himself, through basic fiscal responsibility, from ordinary downturns. "Other people" can care for the most unfortunate 5% of so of society, no problem, but it simply doesn't work at 50%.
You can try to avoid economic problems, but that's mostly about policing bubbles, scams, bailouts, and other forms of malinvestment. Normal economic downturns are, well, normal, and shouldn't be scary, merely unpleasant.
This sort of thing is rare because the protocols to get a drug approved for human testing generally work.
They work well enough that I'd be surprised if this was the result of corner-cutting on the research. I think it's more likely that something went wrong in the preparation.