CO2 is not a problem. How many trillions of taxpayer dollars have to be spent in order to *maybe* reduce so-called global average temperatures by a few fractions of a degree in, say, 30 years? And that "reduction" in temperature would be (if it even happens) within the margin of error of the measuring devices.
Since climate is always changing, which is more desirable - colder or warmer?
Remember that most of the countries where work is outsourced to are big on (often dubious) 'credentials' and are rarely cultures where asking questions is encouraged. Not to mention traditional corruption levels in those countries (but I suppose the west is catching up in that regard). Hey - Technology and Cultural Transfer / Exchange is a good thing, isn't it?
It's happening in "traditional" engineering (i.e., not software engineering) also. Offshored work comes back and has to be fixed by minimal staff who don't complain because they fear for their jobs.
Hey, maybe IMDb could have, like, a user comments section where people could log in to comment about specific films and there they could discuss this type of astroturfing / coordinated downvoting!
The only way to avoid this happening again is to have a government fake apps investigation department to save stupid people from themselves. Sort of like what's proposed for "fake news".
Was there no one else on the flight who was just going to visit grandma and who could use an extra $800 + a free hotel stay? Maybe if they'd thrown in free hotel room porn channel...
"Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT) is a new kind of transportation system that requires less than two percent of the energy of current transportation methods. It is also much safer, and can be faster. [...]"
Will there be a truth detection algorithm? Who will be in charge of it? Will it be co-opted? By whom? Can't be just ban BadThink and make it punishable by banishment or death or something?
You forgot the exclamation mark. Toss in a hashtag as well and I might turn into a True Believer.
And don't forget to support the 'science' march, I hear the organizers will be handing out white SciencePerson lab coats (or maybe vagina costumes):
"Prepare for impassioned speeches from a bunch of extremely scientific spokesdudes and spokesmodels on how Trump hates water and air, and how spending $ Trillions with a T to cool the earth by 0.1C in fifty years is a scientifically brilliant plan supported by 97% of all true moral noble and upstanding humanoids everywhere."
Nah. The goal is to eventually get on TV with a sympathetic or stupid interviewer and then use "social license" to declare victory in "the battle" in the popular media/"court of public opinion". And then angrily stomp around in outrage when government (of course) doesn't give you what you want or defer to you. TV people are dumb and/or only ask questions two levels deep and have limited time. So as long as you can answer those (always simplistic) questions, you come off sounding "reasonable".
People make whole careers out of this - it's better than working.
I've found that engaging with the climate-obsessed true believers is pointless. They're like teenagers who are absolutely convinced that they're absolutely right because "Science! (Oh, and by the way, I need an increase in my allowance!)"
The whole climate change debacle is a power and money game, with more power going to centralized government and more money being collected and redistributed by said government.
Yes, I agree. I put that part in quotes because it's a famous statement from a climate "scientist" (Phil Jones) over 10 years ago.
“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Here are the current top fifteen climate science reasons for not disclosing data or code:
15. It’s on a diskette somewhere, but I don’t know where.
14. If we get a good climatic story from a chronology, we write a paper using it. That is our funded mission! The rejected data are set aside and not archived.
13. A source code request by a reviewer is unprecedented in the 28 years since I founded the journal.
12. It’s on our FTP site, but I’ve forgotten the location.
11. His research is published in the peer-reviewed literature which has passed muster with the editors of those journals and other scientists who have reviewed his manuscripts. You are free to your analysis of climate data and he is free to his.
10. With regard to the additional experimental results that you request, our view is that this goes beyond an obligation on the part of the authors.
9. It’s password protected.
8. It’s the property of the originating author.
7. It will be available after we publish an article.
6. We’re planning to publish another article.
5. As an ex- marine I refer to the concept of a few good men. A lesser amount of good data is better without a copious amount of poor data stirred in.
4. I’ve misplaced it.
3. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
2. Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in.
1. No reply
Slashdot Mirror
CO2 is not a problem. How many trillions of taxpayer dollars have to be spent in order to *maybe* reduce so-called global average temperatures by a few fractions of a degree in, say, 30 years? And that "reduction" in temperature would be (if it even happens) within the margin of error of the measuring devices.
Since climate is always changing, which is more desirable - colder or warmer?
Every problem seems to look like nails to you. Do you only have a hammer or something?
Remember that most of the countries where work is outsourced to are big on (often dubious) 'credentials' and are rarely cultures where asking questions is encouraged. Not to mention traditional corruption levels in those countries (but I suppose the west is catching up in that regard). Hey - Technology and Cultural Transfer / Exchange is a good thing, isn't it?
It's happening in "traditional" engineering (i.e., not software engineering) also. Offshored work comes back and has to be fixed by minimal staff who don't complain because they fear for their jobs.
Hey, maybe IMDb could have, like, a user comments section where people could log in to comment about specific films and there they could discuss this type of astroturfing / coordinated downvoting!
The only way to avoid this happening again is to have a government fake apps investigation department to save stupid people from themselves. Sort of like what's proposed for "fake news".
Or maybe Plan 9 From Outer Space.
Was there no one else on the flight who was just going to visit grandma and who could use an extra $800 + a free hotel stay? Maybe if they'd thrown in free hotel room porn channel...
Ha! wasn't there just a Slashdot story about map software spoofing?
This will end well...
Vacuum Tube Train Transportation
"Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT) is a new kind of transportation system that requires less than two percent of the energy of current transportation methods. It is also much safer, and can be faster. [...]"
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
Will there be a truth detection algorithm? Who will be in charge of it? Will it be co-opted? By whom? Can't be just ban BadThink and make it punishable by banishment or death or something?
Supported Clinton and now won't be getting "special deals"?
You forgot the exclamation mark. Toss in a hashtag as well and I might turn into a True Believer.
And don't forget to support the 'science' march, I hear the organizers will be handing out white SciencePerson lab coats (or maybe vagina costumes):
"Prepare for impassioned speeches from a bunch of extremely scientific spokesdudes and spokesmodels on how Trump hates water and air, and how spending $ Trillions with a T to cool the earth by 0.1C in fifty years is a scientifically brilliant plan supported by 97% of all true moral noble and upstanding humanoids everywhere."
People are all interchangeable because software! Everyone should be working for the government anyway! It'd be more fair!
Pay them less *at first*, then offshore their jobs to India. It's the only way to success (and bonuses).
Nah. The goal is to eventually get on TV with a sympathetic or stupid interviewer and then use "social license" to declare victory in "the battle" in the popular media/"court of public opinion". And then angrily stomp around in outrage when government (of course) doesn't give you what you want or defer to you. TV people are dumb and/or only ask questions two levels deep and have limited time. So as long as you can answer those (always simplistic) questions, you come off sounding "reasonable".
People make whole careers out of this - it's better than working.
And miss the opportunity for an outraged hot take? No way!
I've found that engaging with the climate-obsessed true believers is pointless. They're like teenagers who are absolutely convinced that they're absolutely right because "Science! (Oh, and by the way, I need an increase in my allowance!)"
The whole climate change debacle is a power and money game, with more power going to centralized government and more money being collected and redistributed by said government.
Now cue the shrieking teenagers and downmods.
I agree. As some famous, smrt person said, "What is our children learning?"
Has parallel processing gone about as far as it can go due to difficulty in programming for it?
"Apple Will Ship a Pro iMac"
vs.
"Nor will it comment on the possibility of an iMac Pro moniker"
Not gonna click the link to RTFA because BuzzFeed.
Yes, I agree. I put that part in quotes because it's a famous statement from a climate "scientist" (Phil Jones) over 10 years ago.
“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Here are the current top fifteen climate science reasons for not disclosing data or code:
15. It’s on a diskette somewhere, but I don’t know where.
14. If we get a good climatic story from a chronology, we write a paper using it. That is our funded mission! The rejected data are set aside and not archived.
13. A source code request by a reviewer is unprecedented in the 28 years since I founded the journal.
12. It’s on our FTP site, but I’ve forgotten the location.
11. His research is published in the peer-reviewed literature which has passed muster with the editors of those journals and other scientists who have reviewed his manuscripts. You are free to your analysis of climate data and he is free to his.
10. With regard to the additional experimental results that you request, our view is that this goes beyond an obligation on the part of the authors.
9. It’s password protected.
8. It’s the property of the originating author.
7. It will be available after we publish an article.
6. We’re planning to publish another article.
5. As an ex- marine I refer to the concept of a few good men. A lesser amount of good data is better without a copious amount of poor data stirred in.
4. I’ve misplaced it.
3. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
2. Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in.
1. No reply
https://climateaudit.org/2005/...
Yes, it's curious, that double standard, isn't it?
I believe you've carefully danced around the key point of the issue: EPA. Congratulations!
And yet, some people fail to understand this (or at least claim to not understand it).
"Why should I show you my code/data when all you're going to do is try to find something wrong with it?"