Saying that consensus has no place in science is going too far, but there is a fundamental difference between science based on reproducible experiments such as the physical sciences, and investigations of phenomena that are inherently irreproducible, such as data in psychology, economics, and climate science. This is why climate science is a combination of making observations of irreproducible event and then applying known physical science to draw conclusions. It's also why it's harder to come to these conclusions, so a certain reliance on authority tends to happen, and it's harder to convey the science to others not familiar with the subject matter. It doesn't help that economics has been totally hijacked by ideological agendas, discrediting the 'soft' sciences in general..
Tragically, both sides have abused the inherent uncertainties in climate science. Rising temperatures are reality on a planet-wide scale. The rate of rise is vastly greater than anything that has happened before. But there is increasing uncertainty when we start to look at specific factors that are causes, and more uncertainty about the ideal course of action. Both the certainties and the uncertainties have to be acknowledged.
By the way, I'm pretty sure "the backlash against the idea of consensus in science" started in the Middle Ages if not earlier. Remember Aristotle and Ptolemy were once the consensus.
Big History is not really a branch of History, it's its own subject, which is interesting and rich and a worthwhile contribution to someone's education. Generally it studies trends, whether cosmological, evolutionary, economic, or political, that span times greater than a human lifespan. It's not the usual meaning of history, and it can't replace history.
It's actually a good way to teach science, because a lot of science gets put into a historical narrative and tied to the real world.
Re:bringing in more H1Bs will solve this problem
on
IT Job Hiring Slumps
·
· Score: 1
Almost, but not quite.
Fad languages exist and in the short term they matter. No-one has quite found the right solution for websites, for example, and thus new 'improved' languages/platforms/whatever keep appearing. All of these are fads, but websites exists, and website developers have jobs.
Unit testing legitimately comes under both job descriptions, though 1) the coder really understands the meaning of 'unit' in a particular context, and 2) the tester is the subject matter expert on testing.
The two need to have a dialogue. If they aren't talking, there are bigger problems.
What is needed in today's job market is someone who can work as part of a complicated project, perhaps even a bloated one. That means communicating with team members, understanding client requirements, comprehensive testing, and some basic engineering principles. Neither school assignments, even team projects, nor self-taught hobby project, ever reach that level of complexity. That means the workplace is the first place a programmer/computer scientist is exposed to it.
For simple projects, where the design is straightforward or has been provided, a coder can do well without a post-secondary education. But there aren't many simple projects left, and education matters for complex projects and working within large diverse teams.
Unless you already live in a place with such hostile climate that it could only improve, you don't actually know that things will be better for your location. And remember economic dislocations very far away can affect you.
So much freshwater from melting glaciers that sea level isn't even level anymore, and some people still don't want to believe there might be a climate problem.
(I don't mean the people who question how to address the problem - that's still legitimately an open question - or the severity of the problem, I mean the people still in denial that there's a problem at all.)
We are not completely sure what kind of hacker this is. Revealing the truth selectively could create an unfair situation, which is not what you want for an election.
The actual terrorist laptop has documents describing the real terrorism strategy, which consists of, "plant a laptop with vague, nasty-sounding terrorist plots that will induce panic in people who don't think too hard about plausibility".
Who the genuine terrorist is who owns that laptop is a separate matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Saying that consensus has no place in science is going too far, but there is a fundamental difference between science based on reproducible experiments such as the physical sciences, and investigations of phenomena that are inherently irreproducible, such as data in psychology, economics, and climate science. This is why climate science is a combination of making observations of irreproducible event and then applying known physical science to draw conclusions. It's also why it's harder to come to these conclusions, so a certain reliance on authority tends to happen, and it's harder to convey the science to others not familiar with the subject matter. It doesn't help that economics has been totally hijacked by ideological agendas, discrediting the 'soft' sciences in general..
Tragically, both sides have abused the inherent uncertainties in climate science. Rising temperatures are reality on a planet-wide scale. The rate of rise is vastly greater than anything that has happened before. But there is increasing uncertainty when we start to look at specific factors that are causes, and more uncertainty about the ideal course of action. Both the certainties and the uncertainties have to be acknowledged.
By the way, I'm pretty sure "the backlash against the idea of consensus in science" started in the Middle Ages if not earlier. Remember Aristotle and Ptolemy were once the consensus.
Please feel free to name any tech company that can produce bug-free systems.
Oracle.
(They call them 'features'.)
He didn't make an ad hominem, he made a conclusion based on observation.
Perhaps his sample size was not statistically significant, but that's a different issue.
Sure, blame the humans when clearly the volcano is at fault.
Big History is not really a branch of History, it's its own subject, which is interesting and rich and a worthwhile contribution to someone's education. Generally it studies trends, whether cosmological, evolutionary, economic, or political, that span times greater than a human lifespan. It's not the usual meaning of history, and it can't replace history.
It's actually a good way to teach science, because a lot of science gets put into a historical narrative and tied to the real world.
Almost, but not quite.
Fad languages exist and in the short term they matter. No-one has quite found the right solution for websites, for example, and thus new 'improved' languages/platforms/whatever keep appearing. All of these are fads, but websites exists, and website developers have jobs.
Think of pure maths versus applied maths.
They could have formed a committee, in which case a plan is much less likely.
Not to mention: Not letting the Ottomans take it over in 1466 and forcing everyone to live together.
Declaring war is not unreasonable when someone's navy is shooting at your submarines.
Unit testing legitimately comes under both job descriptions, though
1) the coder really understands the meaning of 'unit' in a particular context, and
2) the tester is the subject matter expert on testing.
The two need to have a dialogue. If they aren't talking, there are bigger problems.
What is needed in today's job market is someone who can work as part of a complicated project, perhaps even a bloated one. That means communicating with team members, understanding client requirements, comprehensive testing, and some basic engineering principles. Neither school assignments, even team projects, nor self-taught hobby project, ever reach that level of complexity. That means the workplace is the first place a programmer/computer scientist is exposed to it.
For simple projects, where the design is straightforward or has been provided, a coder can do well without a post-secondary education. But there aren't many simple projects left, and education matters for complex projects and working within large diverse teams.
I imagine the praying mantis would indeed prefer that.
If given the choice....
Unless you already live in a place with such hostile climate that it could only improve, you don't actually know that things will be better for your location. And remember economic dislocations very far away can affect you.
It's called global climate change. The 'global' part means that it affects more than one place.
I believe the parent was referring to the law as it applies to the police. What the rest of us would call rationalizing violations of the law.
So much freshwater from melting glaciers that sea level isn't even level anymore, and some people still don't want to believe there might be a climate problem.
(I don't mean the people who question how to address the problem - that's still legitimately an open question - or the severity of the problem, I mean the people still in denial that there's a problem at all.)
No, actually, willingness to believe tends to have very little to do with facts.
Yet unsurprising.
So.... you support starting with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, right?
We are not completely sure what kind of hacker this is. Revealing the truth selectively could create an unfair situation, which is not what you want for an election.
So... embracing the truth is 'taking sides'?
Just nuke these animals already.
I'm pretty sure that solution also has moral implications.
At least there is a political disagreement and (a small number of government) people are talking about the issue.
It's scarier when you remember that Iran is a liberal democracy compared to some countries (Saudi Arabia).
The actual terrorist laptop has documents describing the real terrorism strategy, which consists of, "plant a laptop with vague, nasty-sounding terrorist plots that will induce panic in people who don't think too hard about plausibility".
Who the genuine terrorist is who owns that laptop is a separate matter.
Wikipedia isn't doing enough to attract women to contribute.
Wikipedia isn't doing enough to attract *adults*. It's not a gender issue.