No, a dozen sites. Each of which delivers many, many data-points during the lifetime of its mission.
This B.S. should make real scientists, viz. physicists, gag.
Are scientists and physicists who send spacecraft to the outer planets "real" enough for you? Because they often need to rely on just one "site" for their measurements, specifically the single spacecraft that conducts the mission. And such missions have yielded treasure-troves of results.
Deniers very much want to label themselves as skeptics, because it bestows a false sense of importance. (See GP for definitions.)
Perhaps, given enough time, deniers will succeed at bringing the term "skeptic" down to their level. I for one hope that does not happen. The distinction is important to preserve.
I have no desire to come to the defense of Mike Pence. However, it should be noted that he didn't say smoking is "just fine" -- in fact he said "smoking is not good for you." But in the same piece, he also said that "smoking doesn't kill." And well, facepalm.
In billions of years the sun is going to encompass the Earth, right? Global warming is in our future.
That will happen in billions of years. The effects of climate change will happen in hundreds to thousands of years. You tell me what is more of an immediate concern.
Since tech is at the root of a lot of global warming, and tech will likely figure prominently in any solutions we might come up with, and there's already a pretty big tech sector devoted to reducing greenhouse gas emissions - this IS a tech story, fucktard. Get your head out of your ass, and your ass out of Mom's basement.
This. What is climate change, if not tech news?
If you think otherwise, then you're indisputably anti-science, no matter where you stand on the issue.
1. USPS loses about 3% of all letters. Would you be willing to take a 3% risk that your vote is never received?
I call BS. If the rate were that high, all USPS customers would be up in arms, demanding improvements.
And furthermore, you're conflating letters that are truly lost or destroyed (a very tiny percentage) with those that are undeliverable because they are improperly addressed. That's unlikely to happen with a mail-in ballot that is mailed in an official pre-addressed envelope.
There have been sects of Christianity that didn't promote having children, and in fact promoted chastity. Unsurprisingly, they last only about a generation...
Fair point. However, the Shakers did last much longer than one generation, although they effectively closed shop in 1957.
Any theories as to why Slashdot attracts so many garbage people? And to be clear, by "garbage people", I mean seriously shitty, messed-up human beings.
You misspelled "troll" but I'll float a theory as to why they're attracted to Slashdot: (1) anonymity; (2) minimal consequences for posting offensive material, especially as AC; and (3) an easily-provoked audience whose responses feed their egos.
I'm pleased that Slashdot has posted this story because, I'm uh, I'm the author of this study!... yeah, that's it... and, and uh, I invented the machine that scanned the subjects' brains!... and I invented a way to control their brains so that the study supported my hypothesis!... yeah, that's the ticket... and they paid me so they could lie even more!!! And then I sent them all to Slashdot to post comments on this thread! Yeah, that's it...
Isn't skepticism the very vital essence of science?
Yes, but there is an enormous difference between skepticism and denialism.
Skeptics form the "loyal opposition" in the field of science. They seek to uncover flaws and errors in the results of other studies, with the aim of improving science. Just like the scientists they challenge in good faith, they are prepared to accept that they may be wrong.
Denialists seek to destroy science, not improve it. They follow a pattern of rejection of any scientific result that disagrees with their world-view, no matter what the cost to logic and reality. And they never accept that they may be wrong. In short, denialists are not scientists.
I was talking to my officemate a couple of months ago about relational databases (she was doing a course on them). I prefer to think about things in a quite mathematical way, and I was trying t ooffer some insight in that direction. Turns out she apparently used to be decent at maths but dropped it after being told repeatedly in school words t othe effects of "maths isn't for girls".
This, in spades.
The thing we should be concerned about is not whether there are "enough" women in computing, it's why the percentage of them is falling. If it's simply because women in general aren't into computing as a career, then fine. But if it's because the culture is hostile to them, then let's do something about that, m'kay?
Did they access to the 1996 data when they developed the model?
Well of course they did. How else could they test the 1996 predictions the model made from the 1995 (and earlier) data?
You build models by using prior data to adjust the model's parameters to "predict" new data, until the accuracy of the prediction is optimal.
You seem to imply that they cheated somehow. Generally, scientists are honest, with the exception of a small minority who are discovered by their peers and vilified.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for reminding us of the heavy financial motivations for pro-AGW climate research! I agree, it is indeed sinful.
Um, facepalm. Just facepalm.
Climate-change scientists are not living large. But the well-heeled supporters of the denialist movement certainly are.
Are you freaking kidding me?
A dozen data points?
No, a dozen sites. Each of which delivers many, many data-points during the lifetime of its mission.
This B.S. should make real scientists, viz. physicists, gag.
Are scientists and physicists who send spacecraft to the outer planets "real" enough for you? Because they often need to rely on just one "site" for their measurements, specifically the single spacecraft that conducts the mission. And such missions have yielded treasure-troves of results.
Languages change.
But apparently ACs don't.
Deniers very much want to label themselves as skeptics, because it bestows a false sense of importance. (See GP for definitions.)
Perhaps, given enough time, deniers will succeed at bringing the term "skeptic" down to their level. I for one hope that does not happen. The distinction is important to preserve.
Citation please? I can't find any evidence Clinton said that.
Europeans love having someone to call "Fuehrer".
Europeans (including Germans) have been there, done that, and no, they don't love it.
I've been sitting here trying to come up with a pun for "bituminous" and I just cannot do it because I'm just too sedintary.
I might be able to help you with that pun if I could just bituminous of your time.
Well played, sir.
My dear GP, you must concede an ignious defeat. ;-P
The IOP abstract mentions Fourier transforms revealed the signal pattern. Yup, it's amazing what they can reveal.
Too impatient? Go to 5:30 in the video to see what I mean.
Careful what you wish for. They might be Vogons.
You mean this?
It could be worse.
In fact, it could be far worse, and right here at home.
Because there are still anti-science jackoffs who try to say smoking is just fine.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-...
I have no desire to come to the defense of Mike Pence. However, it should be noted that he didn't say smoking is "just fine" -- in fact he said "smoking is not good for you." But in the same piece, he also said that "smoking doesn't kill." And well, facepalm.
Maybe he was just nostalgic?
I think the Republican leadership might regard Trump as a manipulatable puppet..
I think you are the first person in the history of the Solar System to put "Trump" and "manipulatable" in the same sentence.
Rephrasing your post:
Clinton = antidisestablishmentarian
Trump = disestablishmentarian
Sanders = supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
In billions of years the sun is going to encompass the Earth, right? Global warming is in our future.
That will happen in billions of years. The effects of climate change will happen in hundreds to thousands of years. You tell me what is more of an immediate concern.
Since tech is at the root of a lot of global warming, and tech will likely figure prominently in any solutions we might come up with, and there's already a pretty big tech sector devoted to reducing greenhouse gas emissions - this IS a tech story, fucktard. Get your head out of your ass, and your ass out of Mom's basement.
This. What is climate change, if not tech news?
If you think otherwise, then you're indisputably anti-science, no matter where you stand on the issue.
1. USPS loses about 3% of all letters. Would you be willing to take a 3% risk that your vote is never received?
I call BS. If the rate were that high, all USPS customers would be up in arms, demanding improvements.
And furthermore, you're conflating letters that are truly lost or destroyed (a very tiny percentage) with those that are undeliverable because they are improperly addressed. That's unlikely to happen with a mail-in ballot that is mailed in an official pre-addressed envelope.
A misdemeanor is a criminal offense, just not a serious one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That being said, I think that vote-buying or other fraud should be considered a serious crime. Not sure about ballot selfies, though.
There have been sects of Christianity that didn't promote having children, and in fact promoted chastity. Unsurprisingly, they last only about a generation...
Fair point. However, the Shakers did last much longer than one generation, although they effectively closed shop in 1957.
Any theories as to why Slashdot attracts so many garbage people? And to be clear, by "garbage people", I mean seriously shitty, messed-up human beings.
You misspelled "troll" but I'll float a theory as to why they're attracted to Slashdot: (1) anonymity; (2) minimal consequences for posting offensive material, especially as AC; and (3) an easily-provoked audience whose responses feed their egos.
So...No Libel Suit
No slander suit either.
Slander is spoken. Libel is printed. They're both defamation, but they mean different things.
That this still needs to be pointed out shows just how dangerous and naive the green left still is.
energy = power * time
Guess what? Smart people, on the left and the right, understand this.
What you understand is something I leave to speculate by the others on this thread.
I'm pleased that Slashdot has posted this story because, I'm uh, I'm the author of this study! ... yeah, that's it ... and, and uh, I invented the machine that scanned the subjects' brains! ... and I invented a way to control their brains so that the study supported my hypothesis! ... yeah, that's the ticket ... and they paid me so they could lie even more!!! And then I sent them all to Slashdot to post comments on this thread! Yeah, that's it...
Well duh. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. Even so, none of the other links pointed to this page.
TFS points to an earlier story on slashdot.
The review on the model X is here. Despite the lower-than-average rating for first-year reliability, I can't find where CR rates it "near the bottom"
Did anyone else find the rating I can't?
Isn't skepticism the very vital essence of science?
Yes, but there is an enormous difference between skepticism and denialism.
Skeptics form the "loyal opposition" in the field of science. They seek to uncover flaws and errors in the results of other studies, with the aim of improving science. Just like the scientists they challenge in good faith, they are prepared to accept that they may be wrong.
Denialists seek to destroy science, not improve it. They follow a pattern of rejection of any scientific result that disagrees with their world-view, no matter what the cost to logic and reality. And they never accept that they may be wrong. In short, denialists are not scientists.
I was talking to my officemate a couple of months ago about relational databases (she was doing a course on them). I prefer to think about things in a quite mathematical way, and I was trying t ooffer some insight in that direction. Turns out she apparently used to be decent at maths but dropped it after being told repeatedly in school words t othe effects of "maths isn't for girls".
This, in spades.
The thing we should be concerned about is not whether there are "enough" women in computing, it's why the percentage of them is falling. If it's simply because women in general aren't into computing as a career, then fine. But if it's because the culture is hostile to them, then let's do something about that, m'kay?
Your friend who was told math is not for girls apprently was not schooled in Iceland.
Did they access to the 1996 data when they developed the model?
Well of course they did. How else could they test the 1996 predictions the model made from the 1995 (and earlier) data?
You build models by using prior data to adjust the model's parameters to "predict" new data, until the accuracy of the prediction is optimal.
You seem to imply that they cheated somehow. Generally, scientists are honest, with the exception of a small minority who are discovered by their peers and vilified.