If they didn't have a research topic that justified a lot of money, there wouldn't be a lot of money given to them.
Why doesn't this phenomenon inflict OTHER fields? How come 90% astronomers don't claim bunches of asteroids are headed our way soon, or 90% of solar experts claiming the sun will go nova soon, or 90% of geologists claiming the Earth's core will stop spinning, ending our magnetic field, and frying us with space radiation; or 90% of SETI claiming fanged ET's are coming to kidnap all the women and mass cloning Justin Beibers with long hair to replace them?
That's a possibility: him and his friends all take bribes and thus think it's normal.
However, I would still expect that by now somebody would actually catch a fair amount in the act. If 90% are taking bribes, then all you have to do is carefully monitor a dozen or so, and eventually you'll catch many in the act. Study their house, vacations, and daily habits and see if their material goods exceed their official annual salary. Fox has resources for that.
One may argue they are favoring the preferences of their employers to keep their jobs, but a good many are funded by private universities, and some close to retirement. If employer mirroring was the source of bias, then statistical analysis should show that those whose salaries are dependent on the gov't or further from retirement or don't have tenure are statistically more likely to claim warming.
The "float" comment was mostly another topic; my transition was poor. I was just thinking if we are going to rework the standard(s), we might as well address the biggest mistakes of the past, and bad/useless float behavior is one of them. Maybe there is a backward-compatible way to do it such that if you have an old browser, the floats still work the same (stupid) way they did before on the old browser.
And, jury is still out on AMP. Their main goal is mostly different from my stated goal such that it's hard to say if it inadvertently also solves the target problem.
Honest question. Do you actually believe that more than 90% of climatologists have somehow been bribed to lie?
If "yes", wouldn't "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" imply that one should find clear evidence of mass bribery before dismissing the climatologists' conclusions?
It would also mean that within a typical sample of scientist, that 90%+ are bribe-able. I also find that an extraordinary claim. It's never before happened on any other topic.
safe to assume "usability experts" were hard at work at making trendy and user un-friendly changes to it.
As long as it defaults to the old style, I don't really care if they add some newfangled optional experiment that keeps the designers motivated in terms of playing with eye-candy and giving them bragging rights.
OSS coders are usually not paid well or at all, so they deserve fringe benefits, such as a UI playpen.
It's kind of like Twitter keeping certain politicians occupied so they don't break something important.
For one, the Ribbon's grouping is too arbitrary. Second, it wastes a lot of space. Third it's too crammed to easily read.
I'd rather see have the prior-style tool-bar which is customizable (add/remove icons) and has a pop-up dialog option similar to the ribbon sections, but better spaced. (Ribbon-sections are like overly-stuffed dialog boxes/menus.)
For example, the toolbar may resemble:
File: A B C | Im/Export: D E | View: F G H I | Layout: J K...
The capital letters represent icons.
Each label (or icon with a label), such as "View" will open up a dialog box that has gizmos similar to MS's Ribbon, but with better spacing and labeling.
All the letters represent icons that can be added or removed as needed, as was typical in the older style tool-bars, perhaps even with ability for options (icons) to run custom scripts.
Where did I ask for "non-standard"? It would become a standard. It would be relatively easy to implement because it wouldn't have a lot of crap we really don't need.
Note that perhaps the KISS Standard could be based on a sub-set of HTML/CSS rather than an entirely new standard. That way it would still work on existing browsers. (Or perhaps backward compatible in that it uses new tags to simplify things when using the new browser, but is still usable in existing browsers. And/or it could be a plugin to filter out and adjust HTML to fit the KISS standard.)
To be certified, a page/site would be run through a markup verifier by the mentioned organization.
Exploring these possibilities would be part of the project.
The amount of crap most commercial sites put into their pages is amazing. It's not only slow, but a security risk.
A non-profit organization can set up a "K.I.S.S." standard and create a minimalist browser. If a site works fine in the KISS browser, they can place a logo on their site to advertise they are KISS-compliant (or have a KISS-compliant alternative site/page, which the KISS browser would automatically redirect to.)
KISS wouldn't allow JS, Flash, cross-site images, and pop-ups, at least not without explicit user clicks via standardized icons (and markup) to launch them.
(And clean up the stupid CSS "float" model so that we don't have to use tables or JS to get decent columns that also are also mobile-friendly.)
Litter cleanup, child-care (for parents with full-time jobs), elder-care, landscaping and gardening of public buildings and land, jury duty, local organic community farm, neighborhood security patrol (monitor only), QA gov't documents, monitoring legislators...
There are plenty of tasks that could be done, but it's difficult to justify the expenditures for such under the current economy setups we use.
Perhaps we need more "work-fare". You get a check from the gov't, but you have to spend 3 days a week on one of the designated tasks.
Yes it is "make work", but it's work towards a better-quality of society by doing tasks that are useful and wanted, but not necessarily economical by current standards. And it gives people a sense of purpose, community involvement, and maintains a degree of discipline.
We just have to figure out new economic paradigms that allows the benefits and profits from robots to trickle down into society. It will take experiments, some of which may fail. The idea that we can philosophize or write equations sitting in an armchair to figure it all out has to be tossed. The lab is Main Street.
A professional sports team that hired athletes out of "tribal tendencies" will find themselves a laughing stock in short order, not because of being "too White" or "too Black" but because they will be beaten badly by the teams that hire on merit.
Not if all the teams had the same affirmative action rules. And who knows, they may actually win if they find a style that better fits their skill set or body type. China has been intentionally breeding tall basketball players. But the relatively short Jeremy Lin from Taiwan whipped the tall people's ass under the right circumstance.
people will die because of poorly performed surgeries and improperly built bridges.
We are talking about affirmative action in hiring and salaries, not engineering exams. Strawman argument.
It's not about good intentions, but about optimizing the net result by balancing trade-offs. If a given balance doesn't work, then try something different.
The realities of inter-sect war eventually shaped existing Christian working doctrine into a more practical shape. Islam seems to be just starting that process, the equivalent of 1500's and 1600's where Christian sects clobbered the hell into each other for so long without progress that people eventually realized endless war was futile and deadly, and thus worked out deals to coexist.
It's not that the root of Christianity is more peaceful, it's that the Big Fist of History shaped it to be more peaceful.
Islam may need the same lesson. Let's just hope they don't clobber the entire planet first.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, you lost me. What does "without" modify? How does one experiment with asteroids?
Why doesn't this phenomenon inflict OTHER fields? How come 90% astronomers don't claim bunches of asteroids are headed our way soon, or 90% of solar experts claiming the sun will go nova soon, or 90% of geologists claiming the Earth's core will stop spinning, ending our magnetic field, and frying us with space radiation; or 90% of SETI claiming fanged ET's are coming to kidnap all the women and mass cloning Justin Beibers with long hair to replace them?
Okay, what percent does your favorite news or science source(s) give?
If you have reason to believe the percent is lower, where did this belief come from?
Remember, I'm talking about climatologists, not general scientists (from other fields).
"Pssst, I'll give you $100 if you tell your students they are a monkey's uncle."
Under W, the US has told the UN to shove-it when they tried to meddle in our climate business, and other countries do the same to us.
That's a possibility: him and his friends all take bribes and thus think it's normal.
However, I would still expect that by now somebody would actually catch a fair amount in the act. If 90% are taking bribes, then all you have to do is carefully monitor a dozen or so, and eventually you'll catch many in the act. Study their house, vacations, and daily habits and see if their material goods exceed their official annual salary. Fox has resources for that.
One may argue they are favoring the preferences of their employers to keep their jobs, but a good many are funded by private universities, and some close to retirement. If employer mirroring was the source of bias, then statistical analysis should show that those whose salaries are dependent on the gov't or further from retirement or don't have tenure are statistically more likely to claim warming.
The "float" comment was mostly another topic; my transition was poor. I was just thinking if we are going to rework the standard(s), we might as well address the biggest mistakes of the past, and bad/useless float behavior is one of them. Maybe there is a backward-compatible way to do it such that if you have an old browser, the floats still work the same (stupid) way they did before on the old browser.
And, jury is still out on AMP. Their main goal is mostly different from my stated goal such that it's hard to say if it inadvertently also solves the target problem.
I sense there's recursion in that sentence somewhere
Honest question. Do you actually believe that more than 90% of climatologists have somehow been bribed to lie?
If "yes", wouldn't "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" imply that one should find clear evidence of mass bribery before dismissing the climatologists' conclusions?
It would also mean that within a typical sample of scientist, that 90%+ are bribe-able. I also find that an extraordinary claim. It's never before happened on any other topic.
As long as it defaults to the old style, I don't really care if they add some newfangled optional experiment that keeps the designers motivated in terms of playing with eye-candy and giving them bragging rights.
OSS coders are usually not paid well or at all, so they deserve fringe benefits, such as a UI playpen.
It's kind of like Twitter keeping certain politicians occupied so they don't break something important.
For one, the Ribbon's grouping is too arbitrary. Second, it wastes a lot of space. Third it's too crammed to easily read.
I'd rather see have the prior-style tool-bar which is customizable (add/remove icons) and has a pop-up dialog option similar to the ribbon sections, but better spaced. (Ribbon-sections are like overly-stuffed dialog boxes/menus.)
For example, the toolbar may resemble:
File: A B C | Im/Export: D E | View: F G H I | Layout: J K ...
The capital letters represent icons.
Each label (or icon with a label), such as "View" will open up a dialog box that has gizmos similar to MS's Ribbon, but with better spacing and labeling.
All the letters represent icons that can be added or removed as needed, as was typical in the older style tool-bars, perhaps even with ability for options (icons) to run custom scripts.
Where did I ask for "non-standard"? It would become a standard. It would be relatively easy to implement because it wouldn't have a lot of crap we really don't need.
Note that perhaps the KISS Standard could be based on a sub-set of HTML/CSS rather than an entirely new standard. That way it would still work on existing browsers. (Or perhaps backward compatible in that it uses new tags to simplify things when using the new browser, but is still usable in existing browsers. And/or it could be a plugin to filter out and adjust HTML to fit the KISS standard.)
To be certified, a page/site would be run through a markup verifier by the mentioned organization.
Exploring these possibilities would be part of the project.
What I propose is in-between. It's useful and purposeful, but not "economically justifiable" using our current conventions and standards.
Good managers let self-managing employees be, and focus on guiding the problem employees.
Lynx shows nonsense if a given site uses crazy tricks to force ads or relies on round-about JavaScript for layouts.
By the way, KISS stands for "keep it simple, stupid".
The amount of crap most commercial sites put into their pages is amazing. It's not only slow, but a security risk.
A non-profit organization can set up a "K.I.S.S." standard and create a minimalist browser. If a site works fine in the KISS browser, they can place a logo on their site to advertise they are KISS-compliant (or have a KISS-compliant alternative site/page, which the KISS browser would automatically redirect to.)
It's kind of like the concept behind Underwriter's Laboratories.
KISS wouldn't allow JS, Flash, cross-site images, and pop-ups, at least not without explicit user clicks via standardized icons (and markup) to launch them.
(And clean up the stupid CSS "float" model so that we don't have to use tables or JS to get decent columns that also are also mobile-friendly.)
Litter cleanup, child-care (for parents with full-time jobs), elder-care, landscaping and gardening of public buildings and land, jury duty, local organic community farm, neighborhood security patrol (monitor only), QA gov't documents, monitoring legislators...
There are plenty of tasks that could be done, but it's difficult to justify the expenditures for such under the current economy setups we use.
Perhaps we need more "work-fare". You get a check from the gov't, but you have to spend 3 days a week on one of the designated tasks.
Yes it is "make work", but it's work towards a better-quality of society by doing tasks that are useful and wanted, but not necessarily economical by current standards. And it gives people a sense of purpose, community involvement, and maintains a degree of discipline.
We just have to figure out new economic paradigms that allows the benefits and profits from robots to trickle down into society. It will take experiments, some of which may fail. The idea that we can philosophize or write equations sitting in an armchair to figure it all out has to be tossed. The lab is Main Street.
Will he try to build a wall around robots?
Not if all the teams had the same affirmative action rules. And who knows, they may actually win if they find a style that better fits their skill set or body type. China has been intentionally breeding tall basketball players. But the relatively short Jeremy Lin from Taiwan whipped the tall people's ass under the right circumstance.
We are talking about affirmative action in hiring and salaries, not engineering exams. Strawman argument.
No, Slashdot is an anti-social network. Therefore, lots of slashdotting should make one happy.
If you do your taxes on a $50 tablet, you deserve that.
Does that mean I can get a discount on one? I don't care if China reads my books.
It's not about good intentions, but about optimizing the net result by balancing trade-offs. If a given balance doesn't work, then try something different.
The realities of inter-sect war eventually shaped existing Christian working doctrine into a more practical shape. Islam seems to be just starting that process, the equivalent of 1500's and 1600's where Christian sects clobbered the hell into each other for so long without progress that people eventually realized endless war was futile and deadly, and thus worked out deals to coexist.
It's not that the root of Christianity is more peaceful, it's that the Big Fist of History shaped it to be more peaceful.
Islam may need the same lesson. Let's just hope they don't clobber the entire planet first.