What it means is that science does not actually consist of one scientist doing something and announcing a result.
It's science when that scientist convinces other scientists using evidence and clear, step by step reasoning that their theory is right.
Any nut can announce a theory, and tell the world how groundbreaking it is-- and many do. The hard part of science is filling in the details, so that you can show your work to other scientists and have them understand it and believe it. That's science.
As to Creationists, well, they are the prototypical pseudoscientists, and much of the anti-science strategy used by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to attack science is largely lifted from the hard work Creationists put into attacking biology.
I live below sea level too. Far in the midwest with dry feet.
Unless you think that Death Valley and the Salton Sea basin are in the "midwest", or you live in a hole several hundred feet below the surface-- no, you don't live below sea level in the midwest.
The fact that sea level is rising is not even controversial; and it's not particularly new information. The harder, and more controversial question is, is that rise going to accelerate due to melting ice?
The connection between blocking the internet and the Marco Civil da Internet (in English: "Civil Rights Framework for the Internet") stated in the summary is not clear in the actual articles linked.
The gizmodo article linked in the summary states: Under the Marco Civil da Internet — Civil Rights Framework for the Internet — approved in April 2014, which includes full-blown net neutrality, this kind of denial of service is illegal. Even before the regulation took effect, it was not considered kosher, which is why previous block orders were overturned before taking effect.
That seems to state the opposite of what it stated in the summary.
The definition of hate speech is right there in the article: "any comment inciting violence against ethnic or religious groups."
More specifically, from the article linked, a comment is to be deleted: "when it is about criminal expressions, sedition, incitement to carry out criminal offences that threaten people"
It's a news conference and they likely weren't prepared to field security questions. That doesn't mean the security is lacking. It just isn't what they were there to talk about.
That, and also they did field the security question. The answer to the question was ""It's behind various security firewalls, with RSA security tokens to get in," said David Bell, a director at the Universities Space Research Association".
We have a website that changed the definition of "mass shooting" so they could claim we had one almost every day. Using the standard FBI definition, we've had one every other month or so..
This did get legislative approval, and executive approval, and has not met with judicial disapproval.
More than just "not disapproval"-- it met with a decision by the Supreme Court that the EPA had to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency 2007.
In a typical year, just over 300 people are killed by those things in the US.
Huh? That number seems low. As of October 1, according to the Washington Post, there were 294 mass shootings so far in 2015, and that was still with three months left in the year. That accounted for 380 deaths so far, with well over 1,000 injured. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Why don't you list the fucking real atrocities that are going in Syria, or in Africa, or in 100 other places where there is conflict in the world.
When the first response to an accusation is "why aren't you looking at some different crime some different place," I read this as an acknowledgement that the accusation is accurate.
The summary states "The average time people spend at one job has been trending downward for a long time. but the site that is linked to this statement http://www.marketwatch.com/sto... shows the opposite: it says the average time people spend at one job has been slowly trending upward, rising from 3.5 years in 1983 to 4.6 years in 2012, the last year for which figures are available.
The article linked seems to think that the upward trend is significant, but I think it's easily explained. Younger workers change jobs more frequently, and hence the length of time spent at a job increases as a worker gets older (according to the same site, "Over half of workers age 55 to 64 and those age 65 and over had 10 years or more of tenure in 2012, compared with fewer than 10% of workers in their 20s and 30s."). So that upward trend is just the demographic bulge (the "baby boomers") getting older. I expect that number to drop when more of the baby boomers retire, and the people who started working in the 2000s start making up more of the workers surveyed.
I think nearly everyone that's commented on this so far has either missed the point, gone off the deep end, or strayed way off topic.
Israel is not trying to censor speech. They're trying to stop incitement.
... by censorship.
In other words, they're trying to stop predominantly arabic language terrorist recruiting and training material.
Trying to stop people from saying something you don't want them to say is known as "censorship". What you're saying here is "I think that in this case censorship is justified."
I admit to some mixed feelings here. I'd like to see videos recruiting people to terrorism pulled down... but I'm skeptical about giving anybody the authority to decide which videos, because that authority can be misused. As has been pointed out, freedom of speech really isn't freedom of speech until it includes allowing people to say things that you personally don't like.
I'm afraid I'd err on the side of freedom here. I don't know if I can trust the government-- any government, but least of all the Israeli government--with the power to decide what to censor.
If Google supports the genocide of Pakistanis by Israelis then
Well, this article is about Palestinians. I don't know of Israelis killing Pakistanis.
It's also a little unclear what Google/Youtube's response was. Running that article through translate, it's not clear that their meeting resulted in anything more concrete than their saying "if an video violates our terms of service, here's how to report it."
Actually, I'm surprised that it's taken so long for this idea to be tried.
LSD was the first of the serotonin-modification drugs to be discovered; and apparently the most potent of them. The problem with LSD use in the '50s and '60s was that the doses were so high that the users went off on psychedelic trips. Serotonin modification drugs developed later, starting with the SSRI family such as Prozac and its derivatives and work-alike compounds, turned out to be very valuable in treating depression (although they have their own side effects). The idea of switching back to the original serotonin-modification drug, LSD, but using it at a dosage that doesn't cause the tripping, always seemed like an obvious approach to try.
Slashdot Mirror
"consensus" is a summarizing word.
What it means is that science does not actually consist of one scientist doing something and announcing a result.
It's science when that scientist convinces other scientists using evidence and clear, step by step reasoning that their theory is right.
Any nut can announce a theory, and tell the world how groundbreaking it is-- and many do. The hard part of science is filling in the details, so that you can show your work to other scientists and have them understand it and believe it. That's science.
As to Creationists, well, they are the prototypical pseudoscientists, and much of the anti-science strategy used by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to attack science is largely lifted from the hard work Creationists put into attacking biology.
Cite please?
The most comprehensive citation would be the book The Merchants of Doubt: http://www.amazon.com/Merchant...
But you could start here: http://scienceblogs.com/denial...
I live below sea level too. Far in the midwest with dry feet.
Unless you think that Death Valley and the Salton Sea basin are in the "midwest", or you live in a hole several hundred feet below the surface-- no, you don't live below sea level in the midwest.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1...
[It would be a problem if sea level were rising...]
but it's not.
to the contrary, it is.
http://www.tribune242.com/news...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
http://gizmodo.com/miamis-alre...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
The fact that sea level is rising is not even controversial; and it's not particularly new information. The harder, and more controversial question is, is that rise going to accelerate due to melting ice?
(Okay, I don't actually believe any of that, but.
Then don't post it.
The answer to misinformation promulgated on one side of a debate is not even more misinformation posted supporting the other side.
Higher sea level makes a given amount of storm surge a much worse problem.
In the U.S. we already have entire cities that are below sea level.
City, singular: We have exactly one city below sea level, New Orleans, elevation -2 meters.
Not sure if I'd call that the best example of why it's ok to have levees keeping out the ocean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The connection between blocking the internet and the Marco Civil da Internet (in English: "Civil Rights Framework for the Internet") stated in the summary is not clear in the actual articles linked.
The gizmodo article linked in the summary states: Under the Marco Civil da Internet — Civil Rights Framework for the Internet — approved in April 2014, which includes full-blown net neutrality, this kind of denial of service is illegal. Even before the regulation took effect, it was not considered kosher, which is why previous block orders were overturned before taking effect.
That seems to state the opposite of what it stated in the summary.
The definition of hate speech is right there in the article:
"any comment inciting violence against ethnic or religious groups."
More specifically, from the article linked, a comment is to be deleted: "when it is about criminal expressions, sedition, incitement to carry out criminal offences that threaten people"
According to the Wikipedia entry on Woodlawn, NC, right now:
Why not instead cite the Wikipedia entry on Woodland, which is the town being talked about here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's a news conference and they likely weren't prepared to field security questions. That doesn't mean the security is lacking. It just isn't what they were there to talk about.
That, and also they did field the security question. The answer to the question was ""It's behind various security firewalls, with RSA security tokens to get in," said David Bell, a director at the Universities Space Research Association".
The headline here is very misleading.
a quick google search suggests that filing police reports about internet harassment is not very useful.
http://mic.com/articles/114964...
http://jezebel.com/the-cops-do...
But at the same time, other European lawmakers are demanding back doors for law enforcement.
So, which one wins? Can they use this rule to say "we can't install back doors because they're a security leak"?
Umm, no.
We have a website that changed the definition of "mass shooting" so they could claim we had one almost every day. Using the standard FBI definition, we've had one every other month or so..
The "standard FBI definition" defines "mass murder", not "Mass shooting." Different things.
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-serv...
In any case, if you read the FBI documents, they state that there is no accepted definition.
Only a bankster is stupid enough not to spend a ratio of 3:111 to protect their business.
The problem with paying blackmail is that it doesn't ever stop.
If Maunakea is so sacred, why...
The telescope is on Mauna Kea.
In any case, neither Mauna Kea nor Mauna Loa was used as a bombing range. You're probably thinking of Pohakuloa.
This did get legislative approval, and executive approval, and has not met with judicial disapproval.
More than just "not disapproval"-- it met with a decision by the Supreme Court that the EPA had to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency 2007.
So, yes: all three branches.
In a typical year, just over 300 people are killed by those things in the US.
Huh? That number seems low. As of October 1, according to the Washington Post, there were 294 mass shootings so far in 2015, and that was still with three months left in the year. That accounted for 380 deaths so far, with well over 1,000 injured.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Even the conservative Wall Street Journal claims "the US leads the world in mass shootings." http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-...
How long did it take you to figure out all the cable connections in the second paragraph above?
There was only one paragraph.
Slashdot's formatting protocol strips out the paragraph breaks in article submissions.
Why don't you list the fucking real atrocities that are going in Syria, or in Africa, or in 100 other places where there is conflict in the world.
When the first response to an accusation is "why aren't you looking at some different crime some different place," I read this as an acknowledgement that the accusation is accurate.
The summary states "The average time people spend at one job has been trending downward for a long time.
but the site that is linked to this statement http://www.marketwatch.com/sto... shows the opposite: it says the average time people spend at one job has been slowly trending upward, rising from 3.5 years in 1983 to 4.6 years in 2012, the last year for which figures are available.
The article linked seems to think that the upward trend is significant, but I think it's easily explained. Younger workers change jobs more frequently, and hence the length of time spent at a job increases as a worker gets older (according to the same site, "Over half of workers age 55 to 64 and those age 65 and over had 10 years or more of tenure in 2012, compared with fewer than 10% of workers in their 20s and 30s."). So that upward trend is just the demographic bulge (the "baby boomers") getting older. I expect that number to drop when more of the baby boomers retire, and the people who started working in the 2000s start making up more of the workers surveyed.
I didn't know it was possible to correct typos on /. Given the number of typos I make, that would be a useful feature.
I think nearly everyone that's commented on this so far has either missed the point, gone off the deep end, or strayed way off topic.
Israel is not trying to censor speech. They're trying to stop incitement.
... by censorship.
In other words, they're trying to stop predominantly arabic language terrorist recruiting and training material.
Trying to stop people from saying something you don't want them to say is known as "censorship". What you're saying here is "I think that in this case censorship is justified."
I admit to some mixed feelings here. I'd like to see videos recruiting people to terrorism pulled down... but I'm skeptical about giving anybody the authority to decide which videos, because that authority can be misused. As has been pointed out, freedom of speech really isn't freedom of speech until it includes allowing people to say things that you personally don't like.
I'm afraid I'd err on the side of freedom here. I don't know if I can trust the government-- any government, but least of all the Israeli government--with the power to decide what to censor.
If Google supports the genocide of Pakistanis by Israelis then
Well, this article is about Palestinians. I don't know of Israelis killing Pakistanis.
It's also a little unclear what Google/Youtube's response was. Running that article through translate, it's not clear that their meeting resulted in anything more concrete than their saying "if an video violates our terms of service, here's how to report it."
Actually, I'm surprised that it's taken so long for this idea to be tried.
LSD was the first of the serotonin-modification drugs to be discovered; and apparently the most potent of them. The problem with LSD use in the '50s and '60s was that the doses were so high that the users went off on psychedelic trips. Serotonin modification drugs developed later, starting with the SSRI family such as Prozac and its derivatives and work-alike compounds, turned out to be very valuable in treating depression (although they have their own side effects). The idea of switching back to the original serotonin-modification drug, LSD, but using it at a dosage that doesn't cause the tripping, always seemed like an obvious approach to try.