Look, my point was not to attack "climate scientists" whoever they are. My point was that this kind of reporting is stupid and inaccurate. All the things you note, "ice cores", "deep ocean cores" and so on, are debated all the time. Some samples support one side, others support the opposite. That's science. That's good. There is debate.
Today, we have accurate instruments all over the planet and above the planet. A hundred years ago, a thousand, ten thousand, we have tree rings, ice cores and such -- which give us a tiny bit of data about what happened in one specific area. From that sparse data scientists can make guesses.
But to absolutely "rule out" something based on such limited data is, as I said, impossible. Real science does not proclaim such absolutes based on such sparse data. I blame the reporting, not the scientists.
climate scientists have ruled out historical causes for temperature rise
Wow! That really is huge news! "Climate scientists have ruled out historical causes!
The only problem is with that claim is that this is completely impossible. We do not have sufficiently accurate information from ancient Earth to "rule out" much at all. At best, we can make assumptions and guesses.
Is the Earth warming? Yes. But we cannot definitively say this is or is not due, in part, to historical causes. I would suspect it's a combination of many factors -- one of which is man.
Thank you. You've proved my point by ignoring my whole point.
Here we have "pro-Climate-Change" political groups beating the drum: "It's science! It's Armageddon!" while they, themselves (and you), are actively suppressing and denigrating science that they don't want you to know.
You, yourself are denigrating any possible "good" aspects and using extremely marginal science, "stopping the Jet Stream", to try to discount such possibly positive information.
The "climate change debate" is not about science and never has been. Unfortunately. It's all about control. As long as it is all about control, we will not be listening to unbiased scientists and we will not be able to solve the real problems we have.
Fact: this is extremely bad for human civilization for a number of very obvious reasons.
I find it amusing that people love to preface questionable statements with "Fact:"
I'm not taking a position on the bigger questions here, I'm just commenting on this "fact".
Yes, a warmer climate will cause many problems, which we have been fully informed of. But you never hear of the positive effects of a warmer climate: Longer growing seasons, expanded growing zones, improved climate in previously too cold environments and many other beneficial effects.
This is the political influence in this discussion. You must never, ever, ever mention that there could be any positive aspects to this -- it must always be negative and, not just negative, but total Armageddon negative.
No matter which side a person is on, we should, at least, be objective. (Oh, wait, what was I thinking! Never mind, continue endless rants).
Hang on. You bought your phone, but you don't control it. The phone is "yours", but someone else determines what you are allowed or not allowed to do with it, when you can upgrade, and how you can change it. You trust your carrier to do "what's best for you" but your carrier doesn't trust you. That's your phone.
My phone is different. I don't trust my carrier to "do what's best for me" -- because they don't and they won't. I know they will only do what it best for them. So, unlike you, I own my phone. I determine what runs on it, when it gets upgraded and, especially, what doesn'tT run on it.
"Untrustworthy"? Um, no. Just because your carrier doesn't trust you doesn't mean you are untrustworthy.
I trust my carrier to provide the specific service they've contracted with me to provide. I don't trust them enough to let them into my phone any more than I'd let my ISP have control of my PC or let the electric company dictate what appliances I can run in my home.
I mainly agree, but will still contend that "you can't fix stupid". Or, to use your words, "You can't fix human nature". Laws won't help. No law will keep people from doing things that will come back to bite them.
You say, "When businesses capitalize on human nature, human weakness, that's not OK. It's unethical." I don't know of any business that doesn't "capitalize on human nature, human weakness". That's advertising in a nutshell. That's "product placement". That's the color, wording, type font, etc. of their packaging. That's business. I'm not saying I like it, but we can't stop it.
Passing a law "forbidding" companies from taking advantage of opportunities presented by human nature is just silly -- and will inevitably do more harm than good, in the long run. Education will help but human nature is pretty hard to change.
This is, basically, the same old problem: How do you protect people from their own stupidity?
People give out too much information just because some site asks for it, then they object when the inevitable result happens. Or they publish information on Facebook or Twitter and are surprised that shows up elsewhere. So some politician thinks they can buy votes by "passing a law".
But people don't change and still do stupid stuff with unfortunate consequences and politicians promise to "fix it" with yet another law.
You can't fix stupid.
Yes, there is also information out here on the Internet that people haven't volunteered -- but this stupid law won't change that at all.
The law is stupid because it doesn't address the source of the problem -- it will only make things worse.
Re:Is it Twelvember yet?
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 1
To be properly pedantic: Naturally occurring - Year - yes. Day - yes. Month, not so much. It was originally a moonth, but we don't use that any more - completely arbitrary today. Second - arbitrary.
While much of the hacking was surprisingly accurate, I hated the part where he plugged in a speaker in his bedroom so his girlfriend could "hear the computer" -- and from then on, in any location, for the rest of the whole movie, the computer would talk -- without the speaker. Huh?
If it's only 100 people for the vast majority of all "piracy" -- out of billions that use the Internet, doesn't this say that "piracy" is insignificant? Doesn't this say they should ignore it as not worth pursuing?
*sigh*
This whole "you can read the unlock swipe pattern" really needs to be put to rest. That requires that.
1) You clean your screen before unlocking it.
2) You unlock your phone.
3) You immediately hand your phone to a hacker with specialized equipment.
I think I can avoid doing that.
This is a rather strange survey. It didn't ask what people believed or knew to be true, it asked if they knew that "most experts have concluded X".
It isn't clear if they ever defined "most" or consistently defined the "experts". It doesn't admit the possibility of additional information now available after "most experts concluded X" which might legitimately modify people's answers.
It also isn't clear that the survey ensured people answered the survey in the intended way. That is, people might disagree with the conclusions of "most experts". What if they were informed on what "most experts" concluded but disagreed -- and answered "wrong" because of that?
While the survey may be perfectly accurate (and I may like the results) it really isn't clear that the results are particularly accurate. Too much other, rather important factors are simply not taken into account here.
What we need is "researchers" who are a bit more intelligent. This person claims users "can no longer tell the difference between content and advertising". Based on what? HIs own experience?
Personally, I don't know anyone who has any difficulty in telling the difference.
The Turing test is NOT a test for awareness or intelligence. It is text based, time-limited, with a 30% "pass". It tests whether a computer program can "fool people" under very limited conditions.
A discussion of "thinking" or "awareness" or any real "intelligence" as proven or not by this test is completely silly. The test is silly.
I've found a system that minimizes scope creep quite well. Tell whoever requests the change, "Any change of spec means, of course, change in the estimate. I'll work out what this change will do to the schedule and budget. As soon as that's approved, we'll incorporate the change into the project."
Most times, the users suddenly discover they really don't need that new feature. But, if they still want it, the schedule and budget are adjusted to match.
I know, I know, sometimes you get the order to incorporate the change without more schedule or budget -- then you just make sure it is documented who approved the change that screwed up the schedule and budget.
Or, you can ignore all this and just whine while your project goes into a death spiral. That's always fun.
I'm obviously not making my point very well. Forget homeopathy. My point is that an article that purports to use "science" to disprove pseudo-science should go ahead and use science. It wasn't good science.
I have no problem with homeopathy should "prove it can work" But. That. Wasn't. The. Article. They made a big deal out of "here's science -- proving something" (which I think is great) but then used bad science.
If they wanted to say "Oh homeopathy is too ridiculous to bother with", that's perfectly fine. But they didn't.
I'm not talking about or defending homeopathy. I object to bad science pretending to be good science. And I'm bothered that we tend to blindly accept bad science if we agree with what it "proves".
I agree, but that's not what's going on in the article. The article has pretensions of being all about scientific method and using science to disprove pseudo-science -- but they aren't being a good example of using scientific method.
Maybe they should have picked a better target, one they could properly use scientific method on. You can't start a "scientific investigation" with pre-defined conclusions. Sure, in life we can agree on some "obvious" things, but science isn't supposed to operate that way.
For an article on how scientific method disproves pseudo-science, they absolutely failed to use proper scientific method.
I'm not going to defend homeopathy, but doesn't anyone else notice that this is not a scientific investigation?
It starts with the premise that homeopathy is a fraud and that it cannot work. and goes on from there.
All the "science" goes into proving that homeopathy can't work. It doesn't start with a clean, unbiased slate and investigate; It starts with a conclusion and simply works to only prove that conclusion. Their foundation allows them to automatically discount any evidence of workability as anecdotal, lies or placebo effect.
Maybe homeopathy works or maybe it doesn't (and I'm not claiming it does), but that whole investigation isn't science and doesn't use scientific method.
I not only find that disturbing, but the fact that no one noticed that is even more disturbing.
We accept bad "science" if it supports our opinions, and I think that's dangerous.
The Scientologists assigned to go around with reporters are specially trained in ways to attempt to manipulate them, with various emotions and what they call "buttons". They were looking to create some outburst they could then use. Looks like, in this case, they succeeded. If you see the full clip, you see them working it. They then edit out all their outrageous stuff and make it look like the reporter is off the wall.
Reporters should get an info sheet about this technique--it's pretty primitive and can't be very effective if you know what they're doing.
Look at the bright side: Microsoft patented this horrible idea. First, only Microsoft can use it, and second, it makes their OS even more awful to use. Win-win!
I do not agree that everyone should vote.
Today, I think many people are not informed enough to vote. Smear campaigns and sound bites do NOT make an informed citizen. It takes WORK to become informed and dig below all the hyperbole. While I do think that people should become informed and then vote, and would love to see everyone do so, I do not think that uninformed people contribute to good government.
I would say, if you know the issues and candidates, then VOTE. If you haven't a clue, just stay home.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, my point was not to attack "climate scientists" whoever they are. My point was that this kind of reporting is stupid and inaccurate. All the things you note, "ice cores", "deep ocean cores" and so on, are debated all the time. Some samples support one side, others support the opposite. That's science. That's good. There is debate.
Today, we have accurate instruments all over the planet and above the planet. A hundred years ago, a thousand, ten thousand, we have tree rings, ice cores and such -- which give us a tiny bit of data about what happened in one specific area. From that sparse data scientists can make guesses.
But to absolutely "rule out" something based on such limited data is, as I said, impossible. Real science does not proclaim such absolutes based on such sparse data. I blame the reporting, not the scientists.
climate scientists have ruled out historical causes for temperature rise
Wow! That really is huge news! "Climate scientists have ruled out historical causes!
The only problem is with that claim is that this is completely impossible. We do not have sufficiently accurate information from ancient Earth to "rule out" much at all. At best, we can make assumptions and guesses.
Is the Earth warming? Yes. But we cannot definitively say this is or is not due, in part, to historical causes. I would suspect it's a combination of many factors -- one of which is man.
Thank you. You've proved my point by ignoring my whole point.
Here we have "pro-Climate-Change" political groups beating the drum: "It's science! It's Armageddon!" while they, themselves (and you), are actively suppressing and denigrating science that they don't want you to know.
You, yourself are denigrating any possible "good" aspects and using extremely marginal science, "stopping the Jet Stream", to try to discount such possibly positive information.
The "climate change debate" is not about science and never has been. Unfortunately. It's all about control. As long as it is all about control, we will not be listening to unbiased scientists and we will not be able to solve the real problems we have.
Fact: this is extremely bad for human civilization for a number of very obvious reasons.
I find it amusing that people love to preface questionable statements with "Fact:"
I'm not taking a position on the bigger questions here, I'm just commenting on this "fact".
Yes, a warmer climate will cause many problems, which we have been fully informed of. But you never hear of the positive effects of a warmer climate: Longer growing seasons, expanded growing zones, improved climate in previously too cold environments and many other beneficial effects.
This is the political influence in this discussion. You must never, ever, ever mention that there could be any positive aspects to this -- it must always be negative and, not just negative, but total Armageddon negative.
No matter which side a person is on, we should, at least, be objective. (Oh, wait, what was I thinking! Never mind, continue endless rants).
Hang on. You bought your phone, but you don't control it. The phone is "yours", but someone else determines what you are allowed or not allowed to do with it, when you can upgrade, and how you can change it. You trust your carrier to do "what's best for you" but your carrier doesn't trust you. That's your phone.
My phone is different. I don't trust my carrier to "do what's best for me" -- because they don't and they won't. I know they will only do what it best for them. So, unlike you, I own my phone. I determine what runs on it, when it gets upgraded and, especially, what doesn'tT run on it.
"Untrustworthy"? Um, no. Just because your carrier doesn't trust you doesn't mean you are untrustworthy.
I trust my carrier to provide the specific service they've contracted with me to provide. I don't trust them enough to let them into my phone any more than I'd let my ISP have control of my PC or let the electric company dictate what appliances I can run in my home.
Web Goddess,
I mainly agree, but will still contend that "you can't fix stupid". Or, to use your words, "You can't fix human nature". Laws won't help. No law will keep people from doing things that will come back to bite them.
You say, "When businesses capitalize on human nature, human weakness, that's not OK. It's unethical." I don't know of any business that doesn't "capitalize on human nature, human weakness". That's advertising in a nutshell. That's "product placement". That's the color, wording, type font, etc. of their packaging. That's business. I'm not saying I like it, but we can't stop it.
Passing a law "forbidding" companies from taking advantage of opportunities presented by human nature is just silly -- and will inevitably do more harm than good, in the long run. Education will help but human nature is pretty hard to change.
This is, basically, the same old problem: How do you protect people from their own stupidity?
People give out too much information just because some site asks for it, then they object when the inevitable result happens. Or they publish information on Facebook or Twitter and are surprised that shows up elsewhere. So some politician thinks they can buy votes by "passing a law".
But people don't change and still do stupid stuff with unfortunate consequences and politicians promise to "fix it" with yet another law.
You can't fix stupid.
Yes, there is also information out here on the Internet that people haven't volunteered -- but this stupid law won't change that at all.
The law is stupid because it doesn't address the source of the problem -- it will only make things worse.
To be properly pedantic: Naturally occurring - Year - yes. Day - yes. Month, not so much. It was originally a moonth, but we don't use that any more - completely arbitrary today. Second - arbitrary.
While much of the hacking was surprisingly accurate, I hated the part where he plugged in a speaker in his bedroom so his girlfriend could "hear the computer" -- and from then on, in any location, for the rest of the whole movie, the computer would talk -- without the speaker. Huh?
If it's only 100 people for the vast majority of all "piracy" -- out of billions that use the Internet, doesn't this say that "piracy" is insignificant? Doesn't this say they should ignore it as not worth pursuing?
*sigh* This whole "you can read the unlock swipe pattern" really needs to be put to rest. That requires that. 1) You clean your screen before unlocking it. 2) You unlock your phone. 3) You immediately hand your phone to a hacker with specialized equipment. I think I can avoid doing that.
This is a rather strange survey. It didn't ask what people believed or knew to be true, it asked if they knew that "most experts have concluded X".
It isn't clear if they ever defined "most" or consistently defined the "experts". It doesn't admit the possibility of additional information now available after "most experts concluded X" which might legitimately modify people's answers.
It also isn't clear that the survey ensured people answered the survey in the intended way. That is, people might disagree with the conclusions of "most experts". What if they were informed on what "most experts" concluded but disagreed -- and answered "wrong" because of that?
While the survey may be perfectly accurate (and I may like the results) it really isn't clear that the results are particularly accurate. Too much other, rather important factors are simply not taken into account here.
Especially since Google actually labels their ads as ads -- for those who have this perceptual difficulty.
What we need is "researchers" who are a bit more intelligent. This person claims users "can no longer tell the difference between content and advertising". Based on what? HIs own experience?
Personally, I don't know anyone who has any difficulty in telling the difference.
The Turing test is NOT a test for awareness or intelligence. It is text based, time-limited, with a 30% "pass". It tests whether a computer program can "fool people" under very limited conditions. A discussion of "thinking" or "awareness" or any real "intelligence" as proven or not by this test is completely silly. The test is silly.
Actually, the scientists did not "restore walking" in the mice. The scientists only studied the mice while the mices' bodies restored walking.
I've found a system that minimizes scope creep quite well. Tell whoever requests the change, "Any change of spec means, of course, change in the estimate. I'll work out what this change will do to the schedule and budget. As soon as that's approved, we'll incorporate the change into the project."
Most times, the users suddenly discover they really don't need that new feature. But, if they still want it, the schedule and budget are adjusted to match.
I know, I know, sometimes you get the order to incorporate the change without more schedule or budget -- then you just make sure it is documented who approved the change that screwed up the schedule and budget.
Or, you can ignore all this and just whine while your project goes into a death spiral. That's always fun.
Walt
I have no problem with homeopathy should "prove it can work" But. That. Wasn't. The. Article. They made a big deal out of "here's science -- proving something" (which I think is great) but then used bad science.
If they wanted to say "Oh homeopathy is too ridiculous to bother with", that's perfectly fine. But they didn't.
I'm not talking about or defending homeopathy. I object to bad science pretending to be good science. And I'm bothered that we tend to blindly accept bad science if we agree with what it "proves".
Maybe they should have picked a better target, one they could properly use scientific method on. You can't start a "scientific investigation" with pre-defined conclusions. Sure, in life we can agree on some "obvious" things, but science isn't supposed to operate that way.
For an article on how scientific method disproves pseudo-science, they absolutely failed to use proper scientific method.
It starts with the premise that homeopathy is a fraud and that it cannot work. and goes on from there.
All the "science" goes into proving that homeopathy can't work. It doesn't start with a clean, unbiased slate and investigate; It starts with a conclusion and simply works to only prove that conclusion. Their foundation allows them to automatically discount any evidence of workability as anecdotal, lies or placebo effect.
Maybe homeopathy works or maybe it doesn't (and I'm not claiming it does), but that whole investigation isn't science and doesn't use scientific method.
I not only find that disturbing, but the fact that no one noticed that is even more disturbing.
We accept bad "science" if it supports our opinions, and I think that's dangerous.
The Scientologists assigned to go around with reporters are specially trained in ways to attempt to manipulate them, with various emotions and what they call "buttons". They were looking to create some outburst they could then use. Looks like, in this case, they succeeded. If you see the full clip, you see them working it. They then edit out all their outrageous stuff and make it look like the reporter is off the wall.
Reporters should get an info sheet about this technique--it's pretty primitive and can't be very effective if you know what they're doing.
I like that. Everything is a pollutant. Good one. ;-)
Look at the bright side: Microsoft patented this horrible idea. First, only Microsoft can use it, and second, it makes their OS even more awful to use. Win-win!
When will people learn that government is the problem, not the solution.
I do not agree that everyone should vote. Today, I think many people are not informed enough to vote. Smear campaigns and sound bites do NOT make an informed citizen. It takes WORK to become informed and dig below all the hyperbole. While I do think that people should become informed and then vote, and would love to see everyone do so, I do not think that uninformed people contribute to good government. I would say, if you know the issues and candidates, then VOTE. If you haven't a clue, just stay home.