Not per se: It's not novel to most slashdotters. it's news in that its happening at unprecedented levels to bypass the horrible media layers injected into a currently popular international event.
Bulk shills are. Welcome to the future, where the difference between a valid viewpoint and an astroturfed attempt to hornswaggle you out of your own money and political power has shrunk to the imperceptible.
All data centers are made out of inherently programmable machines. In fact, the vast majority run at least a little custom code. What's the alternative to a "programmable" data center? A finite state data center? The article itself doesn't really justify the term either. "We use virtualization to make data centers more managable." Really? Welcome to the 2007. "Holistic administration"? We use pink crystals to lower disk fragmentation.
You seriously think it's cool to first name a product after someone without their permission, then change the name to imply negative things about the person because they didn't like that?
Didn't even click the link. Didn't present your own findings. Trolling concluded.
To respond to your request: Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts: DOES NOT APPLY climate change, as data driven observation is at the core of the argument. New facts brought up by critics are addressed with data. MAY APPLY TO "skeptics", depending on exactly what they are skeptical of. It is an undeniable fact that, for example, temperature measurements are going up quite rapidly year-to-year.
Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy Given the criteria listed in the linked article: DOES NOT APPLY to climate change. An opinionated counter-argument could be given, if one were unwilling to examine the definition listed with any seriousness. Global examination of carbon/temperature data with a wide variety of tools, cross-indexed with each other, tabulated, peer reviewed, and published in complete detail does not qualify as sloppy. Sorry. ALSO DOES NOT APPLY to "skepticism" in any meaningful way.
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it. COULD BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY to climate change: I think we can agree "we're all going to burn due to our negligence" is an emotionally appealing hypothesis. I don't really think the hypothesis came before the climatological observation, looking at the early papers in google scholar, though. Lower temperature years are included in every single report on global warming, in spite of the fact that, at face value, that would appear to a layman to undermine the hypothesis. COULD BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY to "skeptics": I think we can also agree "we don't have to change anything because we're not doing anything wrong" is also emotionally appealing. Being that this is the null hypothesis position, it's fair to say that the "hypothesis first" doesn't really apply. However, selective examination of data IS an extraordinarily common argument from this camp, and to treat it as a non-component would be disingenuous. (i.e. "it was cold in winter")
Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence. DOES NOT APPLY to climate change. Not in the slightest. "stories" do not make up the basis of support for the theory, known thermodynamic effects, and temperature trends do. MAY APPLY to some forms of "skepticism". As per above "winter is cold" type arguments, are strictly anecdotal, and do not actually examine the temperatures in winters globally compared to previous years.
Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation. DOES NOT APPLY to climate change. The verification comes entirely in the form of statistical analysis of temperatures versus previous predictions. Relatively accurate, but requiring improvements in predictive techniques. DOES NOT APPLY to "skepticism" BUT IN A VERY BAD WAY because no counter claims or predictions to test. The null hypothesis of "no change" is clearly invalidated, but no valid alternate predictions are given instead. This is a serious sign of pseudoscience.
Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature. DOES NOT APPLY TO EITHER, if you examine the listed definition in my link, this is about data being purely subjective and prone to multiple understandings depending on cultural factors like language.
Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough. DOES NOT APPLY TO EITHER. Feel free to contest this if you want.
Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test. DOES NOT APPLY to climate change, predictions from 10,20, and 30 years ago are all being tested and examined today. APPLIES TO "skepticism". "Skeptics" tend to hide behind vague claims such as "it's a natural cycle" without providing assertions about what that means in terms of cl
Yes, because most slashdotters aren't very good at applying the pseudoscience test to ideas. Climate change pretty clearly falls into the realm of 5-15% depending on how generous you are for pseudoscience characteristics. Compared against obvious pseudoscience like astrology or homeopathy which tend to score in the 95-100% range. And "skeptic" theories tend to hit in the 30-50ish% range, depending on the extent to which they allege conspiracy.
But people don't operate that way, especially techies like us. We don't apply strict rules to our understanding of things. We build mental frameworks that help us problem solve complex problems that fall back to hundreds of "what if?" solutions without necessarily caring about the validity of them. Our group is one of problem solvers, and not understanding and interpreting data as accurately as possible. We're easily taken with concepts that endorse our own perspective, and that actually helps with the kind of work many of us do. We're generally smart people here, but we fall back on our intuition, and are easily fooled by the BS the GP presented.
But, see, marketeers have discovered that people who are interested in your products are actually better to advertise to per marketing dollar spent. I'm not saying that facebook won't shit on everyone's wall and call it wallpaper, just that there's not as much money in it as there is in the ads to "fans".
I hear there's actually a few competing products for your operating system money that do just that. In fact, it's safe to say that limited power user oriented features have been one of the chief complaints with apple operating systems for years.
Yes, but the ruinous part is that they will keep trying. A steady reasonable profit is functional for a privately held company, but a publicly held one will be under constant pressure to improve quarterly earnings, and in the medium run, will undermine the existing profit structure to suit outside investors with no actual understanding of the company.
It's a culture of failure that large U.S. corporations have developed, and the only one immune seems to be Apple(who mostly seem to worry about increasing par value of stock).
Plausible, but I imagine that the strategic intelligence concerns already allow for military craft to use a different air traffic control protocol. On the other hand, I have no actual knowledge of that.
No, but nor do you owe them anything. You can still leave their services if you want. They want users for some reason, so if you leave, you're taking something they want. It obviously isn't much, but that's the extent of your implicit agreement.
Did you read my post? Plants are incredibly inefficient, require water to function, and RIGHT NOW can't keep up with CO2 production. This is a non-answer.
We can do what we can to stimulate plant growth, but that's absolutely no match for algae, which is still not as efficient at using solar power(thus binding the carbon) as solar cells are.
You're either so focused on one part of the summary I didn't read or you so dead set on some political belief that you're willing to cast any discussion of climate change as hyperbole. Please clarify your concern.
Coal and natural gas, which also produce CO2 in plentiful quantities when burned, both exist in multi-century supplies. We can't use them for that long without finding some way to seriously recycle the carbon dioxide, which in turn means we need SOME kind of solar power capable of overcoming the chemical potential gap of super-stable carbon dioxide. It can be algae, but fundamentally, we're using the sun to deal with the problem, and man-made solar power is more efficient than organic.
Slashdot Mirror
Not per se: It's not novel to most slashdotters. it's news in that its happening at unprecedented levels to bypass the horrible media layers injected into a currently popular international event.
How come I never see you posting things that aren't crazy conspiracy theories?
Bulk shills are. Welcome to the future, where the difference between a valid viewpoint and an astroturfed attempt to hornswaggle you out of your own money and political power has shrunk to the imperceptible.
So it sucks. But does it even MEAN anything?
Is it just me or is this literal nonsense?
All data centers are made out of inherently programmable machines. In fact, the vast majority run at least a little custom code. What's the alternative to a "programmable" data center? A finite state data center? The article itself doesn't really justify the term either. "We use virtualization to make data centers more managable." Really? Welcome to the 2007. "Holistic administration"? We use pink crystals to lower disk fragmentation.
Maybe I'm just old now. I was afraid of that.
You seriously think it's cool to first name a product after someone without their permission, then change the name to imply negative things about the person because they didn't like that?
Didn't even click the link. Didn't present your own findings. Trolling concluded.
To respond to your request:
Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts:
DOES NOT APPLY climate change, as data driven observation is at the core of the argument. New facts brought up by critics are addressed with data.
MAY APPLY TO "skeptics", depending on exactly what they are skeptical of. It is an undeniable fact that, for example, temperature measurements are going up quite rapidly year-to-year.
Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy
Given the criteria listed in the linked article: DOES NOT APPLY to climate change. An opinionated counter-argument could be given, if one were unwilling to examine the definition listed with any seriousness. Global examination of carbon/temperature data with a wide variety of tools, cross-indexed with each other, tabulated, peer reviewed, and published in complete detail does not qualify as sloppy. Sorry.
ALSO DOES NOT APPLY to "skepticism" in any meaningful way.
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it.
COULD BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY to climate change: I think we can agree "we're all going to burn due to our negligence" is an emotionally appealing hypothesis. I don't really think the hypothesis came before the climatological observation, looking at the early papers in google scholar, though. Lower temperature years are included in every single report on global warming, in spite of the fact that, at face value, that would appear to a layman to undermine the hypothesis.
COULD BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY to "skeptics": I think we can also agree "we don't have to change anything because we're not doing anything wrong" is also emotionally appealing. Being that this is the null hypothesis position, it's fair to say that the "hypothesis first" doesn't really apply. However, selective examination of data IS an extraordinarily common argument from this camp, and to treat it as a non-component would be disingenuous. (i.e. "it was cold in winter")
Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
DOES NOT APPLY to climate change. Not in the slightest. "stories" do not make up the basis of support for the theory, known thermodynamic effects, and temperature trends do.
MAY APPLY to some forms of "skepticism". As per above "winter is cold" type arguments, are strictly anecdotal, and do not actually examine the temperatures in winters globally compared to previous years.
Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
DOES NOT APPLY to climate change. The verification comes entirely in the form of statistical analysis of temperatures versus previous predictions. Relatively accurate, but requiring improvements in predictive techniques.
DOES NOT APPLY to "skepticism" BUT IN A VERY BAD WAY because no counter claims or predictions to test. The null hypothesis of "no change" is clearly invalidated, but no valid alternate predictions are given instead. This is a serious sign of pseudoscience.
Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature.
DOES NOT APPLY TO EITHER, if you examine the listed definition in my link, this is about data being purely subjective and prone to multiple understandings depending on cultural factors like language.
Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.
DOES NOT APPLY TO EITHER. Feel free to contest this if you want.
Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.
DOES NOT APPLY to climate change, predictions from 10,20, and 30 years ago are all being tested and examined today.
APPLIES TO "skepticism". "Skeptics" tend to hide behind vague claims such as "it's a natural cycle" without providing assertions about what that means in terms of cl
Yep, because wikipedia makes so much money off of everyone using all their bandwidth with no ads.
referenced document for the below post
Yes, because most slashdotters aren't very good at applying the pseudoscience test to ideas. Climate change pretty clearly falls into the realm of 5-15% depending on how generous you are for pseudoscience characteristics. Compared against obvious pseudoscience like astrology or homeopathy which tend to score in the 95-100% range. And "skeptic" theories tend to hit in the 30-50ish% range, depending on the extent to which they allege conspiracy.
But people don't operate that way, especially techies like us. We don't apply strict rules to our understanding of things. We build mental frameworks that help us problem solve complex problems that fall back to hundreds of "what if?" solutions without necessarily caring about the validity of them. Our group is one of problem solvers, and not understanding and interpreting data as accurately as possible. We're easily taken with concepts that endorse our own perspective, and that actually helps with the kind of work many of us do. We're generally smart people here, but we fall back on our intuition, and are easily fooled by the BS the GP presented.
But, see, marketeers have discovered that people who are interested in your products are actually better to advertise to per marketing dollar spent. I'm not saying that facebook won't shit on everyone's wall and call it wallpaper, just that there's not as much money in it as there is in the ads to "fans".
Sure, news outlets are spambots with publicly traded stocks.
Genes, nutrition, education, prenatal care, and hormones are all well-known contributing factors.
Nice try liar. Slashdot dates from 1997.
The question you're missing: is there a difference?
Everyone on slashdot is about to become a UI expert.
Because it requires an expert on bovine biology to recognize bullshit.
So, what you're saying is that it's "write once, run anywhere but android"?
If anything the new law means a lower punishment for threats made on the internet, because everyone knows internet tough guys never follow through.
If they did, I'd beat them up.
I hear there's actually a few competing products for your operating system money that do just that. In fact, it's safe to say that limited power user oriented features have been one of the chief complaints with apple operating systems for years.
Maybe now, at the airport, we can get a robot to feel my junk instead.
Yes, but the ruinous part is that they will keep trying. A steady reasonable profit is functional for a privately held company, but a publicly held one will be under constant pressure to improve quarterly earnings, and in the medium run, will undermine the existing profit structure to suit outside investors with no actual understanding of the company.
It's a culture of failure that large U.S. corporations have developed, and the only one immune seems to be Apple(who mostly seem to worry about increasing par value of stock).
Plausible, but I imagine that the strategic intelligence concerns already allow for military craft to use a different air traffic control protocol. On the other hand, I have no actual knowledge of that.
No, but nor do you owe them anything. You can still leave their services if you want. They want users for some reason, so if you leave, you're taking something they want. It obviously isn't much, but that's the extent of your implicit agreement.
Did you read my post? Plants are incredibly inefficient, require water to function, and RIGHT NOW can't keep up with CO2 production. This is a non-answer.
We can do what we can to stimulate plant growth, but that's absolutely no match for algae, which is still not as efficient at using solar power(thus binding the carbon) as solar cells are.
You're either so focused on one part of the summary I didn't read or you so dead set on some political belief that you're willing to cast any discussion of climate change as hyperbole. Please clarify your concern.
Coal and natural gas, which also produce CO2 in plentiful quantities when burned, both exist in multi-century supplies. We can't use them for that long without finding some way to seriously recycle the carbon dioxide, which in turn means we need SOME kind of solar power capable of overcoming the chemical potential gap of super-stable carbon dioxide. It can be algae, but fundamentally, we're using the sun to deal with the problem, and man-made solar power is more efficient than organic.