The mainstream climate scientists are not and have not been mispredicting the rate of climate change
Pardon my ignorance, exactly what *is* the mainstream prediction? Because every time I hear a scientist talk about it the numbers seem to change. I used to hear "1-2 degrees rise in average temps over the next 100 years." But the number kept going up. I started hearing "5-6 degrees rise in average temps over the next 100 years." I think I even heard someone recently suggesting a 10-degree rise in the next 100 years (can't remember if she was a scientist or not, it's becoming hard to tell these days with all the causeniks out there).
So what exactly is the mainstream scientific consensus this week?
it's unfortunate that your experience with the Linux community left you with the impression that most are like that
I was once part of a team that tried to do the right thing and port a closed source app to Linux. Let's just say the reaction from Linux users was pretty much the opposite of what we expected--and made me vow to NEVER port to Linux again.
I know this isn't going to be a popular sentiment on/., but a Steam Linux client is going to please the Linux community for all of about 5 minutes. The applause won't even have died down before they're bitching that there aren't enough games, it's not open source, it doesn't look right in their obscure distro of choice, etc.
The Linux community *should* embrace and celebrate this, but my experience has been that a large (or at least largely vocal) part of that community is made up of idealists and professional bitchers who think everything should be open source and free. Introducing a closed source client that charges for games into that group isn't going to please them. Nothing is going to please them.
Okay, now everyone mod me troll for pointing out something you know is true.
All you have to do is find someone with respected credentials who is willing to do all the hard work of editing and producing a prestigious journal for free. Shouldn't be too hard.
this whole venture sounds like a few rich guys looking to fulfill their fantasies while trying to excuse the continued over-exploitation of the earth's resources
Well, that's pretty accurate. Personally, I would go with "Giant money pit for gullible investors that's never even going to get into orbit, much less to an asteroid."
That should make for an interesting pitch to investors: "Well, we probably won't make any money, but there's a lot of glory to be had. So who's ready to write me a check?"
NASA and Russia are extremely cautious when it comes to anything ISS-related for very good reason. If this thing really screwed up and seriously damaged ISS to the point where they had to abandon it, it would probably end the era of human spaceflight and lead to big budget cuts for both agencies.
*Real* technology reporting involves aggregating a story that's based on another story that's based on a blog-post that's based on a press release from a company or interest group.
It probably doesn't help that Israel built a giant fucking wall around the entire West Bank, effectively creating a Palestinian ghetto. I guess they learned something from the Nazi's after all.
That's exactly why most law enforcement agencies have the home and cell numbers of local judges. A quick call to a judge for their approval should be sufficient in a case like that.
realities of science, where people advocate for their own theories far more than they question them
If you're in a courtroom, you should ALWAYS assume than anyone presenting evidence has an agenda (because they almost always do). No defense or prosecution attorney is going to put a scientist (or any other witness) on the stand who is going to do anything but advocate for their version of the case. Any judge who isn't completely new or blind already knows that well.
Is this the same administration that has been falling all over itself giving retroactive immunity to telcos and other companies violating the civil rights of American citizens?
All politicians bad...except for my guy of course
on
In Nothing We Trust
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
When people say "I don't trust government" or "I don't trust religious institutions" what you usually find when you dig a little deeper is that what they REALLY mean is "I don't trust government from the other party or other states--but MY party/guy is great" and "I don't trust other religions/denominations/parishes by MINE is fine."
In other words, people express displeasure , but it's always for different reasons and against those they already opposed anyway--so no coherent third party ever forms and nothing ever changes.
Slashdot is U.S.-centric, but science (and science funding) shouldn't be. You would think a physicist, who relies on the work of so many predecessors or so many different nationalities, would recognize that. Why more scientists aren't recognizing CERN as a great model for the future is beyond me.
If not our government, will anyone fund these immense projects or will physics slowly grind to a halt due to fiscal constraints?"
I presume by "our government" he means the U.S. government. Why is it that that so many of those who lament science funding only talk about U.S. funding, as if the U.S. is supposed to fund everything by itself? He cites the SSH as a bad example of the U.S. cutting funding, but to me that's actually one of the better examples of other countries picking up the ball. Would CERN still have funded the LHC in 1995 if the U.S. hadn't cancelled the SHH in 1993? Maybe, but I tend to doubt it. And to me CERN is an excellent model of countries pooling their resources, rather than relying on one actor to foot the entire bill.
I'm not saying that the U.S. shouldn't be funding science at adequate levels, but way too many of these sorts of articles talk about science as if it's the exclusive purview of the U.S. Instead of asking if the U.S. can continue funding the big physics projects, maybe the question he should be asking is why more countries aren't POOLING their money to build these projects. After all, as long as the science is open and shared, why shouldn't it be in everyone's interest to fund these projects (including, but not *exclusively* including, the U.S.)?
Slashdot Mirror
In the /. editors' defense it was several hours ago and the new boss is that dude from Memento.
The mainstream climate scientists are not and have not been mispredicting the rate of climate change
Pardon my ignorance, exactly what *is* the mainstream prediction? Because every time I hear a scientist talk about it the numbers seem to change. I used to hear "1-2 degrees rise in average temps over the next 100 years." But the number kept going up. I started hearing "5-6 degrees rise in average temps over the next 100 years." I think I even heard someone recently suggesting a 10-degree rise in the next 100 years (can't remember if she was a scientist or not, it's becoming hard to tell these days with all the causeniks out there).
So what exactly is the mainstream scientific consensus this week?
And I also wish there were a "+Infinity, Harsh But True" mod.
it's unfortunate that your experience with the Linux community left you with the impression that most are like that
I was once part of a team that tried to do the right thing and port a closed source app to Linux. Let's just say the reaction from Linux users was pretty much the opposite of what we expected--and made me vow to NEVER port to Linux again.
I know this isn't going to be a popular sentiment on /., but a Steam Linux client is going to please the Linux community for all of about 5 minutes. The applause won't even have died down before they're bitching that there aren't enough games, it's not open source, it doesn't look right in their obscure distro of choice, etc.
The Linux community *should* embrace and celebrate this, but my experience has been that a large (or at least largely vocal) part of that community is made up of idealists and professional bitchers who think everything should be open source and free. Introducing a closed source client that charges for games into that group isn't going to please them. Nothing is going to please them.
Okay, now everyone mod me troll for pointing out something you know is true.
All you have to do is find someone with respected credentials who is willing to do all the hard work of editing and producing a prestigious journal for free. Shouldn't be too hard.
this whole venture sounds like a few rich guys looking to fulfill their fantasies while trying to excuse the continued over-exploitation of the earth's resources
Well, that's pretty accurate. Personally, I would go with "Giant money pit for gullible investors that's never even going to get into orbit, much less to an asteroid."
That should make for an interesting pitch to investors: "Well, we probably won't make any money, but there's a lot of glory to be had. So who's ready to write me a check?"
NASA and Russia are extremely cautious when it comes to anything ISS-related for very good reason. If this thing really screwed up and seriously damaged ISS to the point where they had to abandon it, it would probably end the era of human spaceflight and lead to big budget cuts for both agencies.
Hey, that's the best way to get corroborating sources.
*Real* technology reporting involves aggregating a story that's based on another story that's based on a blog-post that's based on a press release from a company or interest group.
The U.S. also demands extradition of those cool police interceptors from Mad Max.
It probably doesn't help that Israel built a giant fucking wall around the entire West Bank, effectively creating a Palestinian ghetto. I guess they learned something from the Nazi's after all.
We acknowledge that the crime didn't happen in the U.S., and the company involved is British. But we feel we have jurisdiction.
"ISS Seriously Damaged Because That Fucking Moron Peter Forgot To Do Garbage Collection."
That's exactly why most law enforcement agencies have the home and cell numbers of local judges. A quick call to a judge for their approval should be sufficient in a case like that.
I guess the telcos never heard of a little thing called the 4th Amendment. In their defense, telco execs are a pretty dumb lot.
realities of science, where people advocate for their own theories far more than they question them
If you're in a courtroom, you should ALWAYS assume than anyone presenting evidence has an agenda (because they almost always do). No defense or prosecution attorney is going to put a scientist (or any other witness) on the stand who is going to do anything but advocate for their version of the case. Any judge who isn't completely new or blind already knows that well.
Is this the same administration that has been falling all over itself giving retroactive immunity to telcos and other companies violating the civil rights of American citizens?
When people say "I don't trust government" or "I don't trust religious institutions" what you usually find when you dig a little deeper is that what they REALLY mean is "I don't trust government from the other party or other states--but MY party/guy is great" and "I don't trust other religions/denominations/parishes by MINE is fine."
In other words, people express displeasure , but it's always for different reasons and against those they already opposed anyway--so no coherent third party ever forms and nothing ever changes.
How quickly will students learn to game the system to get perfect scores with perfect gibberish?
Slashdot is U.S.-centric, but science (and science funding) shouldn't be. You would think a physicist, who relies on the work of so many predecessors or so many different nationalities, would recognize that. Why more scientists aren't recognizing CERN as a great model for the future is beyond me.
In case anyone thought I was referring to the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale.
If not our government, will anyone fund these immense projects or will physics slowly grind to a halt due to fiscal constraints?"
I presume by "our government" he means the U.S. government. Why is it that that so many of those who lament science funding only talk about U.S. funding, as if the U.S. is supposed to fund everything by itself? He cites the SSH as a bad example of the U.S. cutting funding, but to me that's actually one of the better examples of other countries picking up the ball. Would CERN still have funded the LHC in 1995 if the U.S. hadn't cancelled the SHH in 1993? Maybe, but I tend to doubt it. And to me CERN is an excellent model of countries pooling their resources, rather than relying on one actor to foot the entire bill.
I'm not saying that the U.S. shouldn't be funding science at adequate levels, but way too many of these sorts of articles talk about science as if it's the exclusive purview of the U.S. Instead of asking if the U.S. can continue funding the big physics projects, maybe the question he should be asking is why more countries aren't POOLING their money to build these projects. After all, as long as the science is open and shared, why shouldn't it be in everyone's interest to fund these projects (including, but not *exclusively* including, the U.S.)?
Yay! My Black Sabbath fan site is one of the most environmentally-friendly sites on the internet!!