Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment AT&T = Bill Trolls (Score 1) 355

AT&T keeps adding "insurance" charges to our bill without asking. They make up odd excuses to keep adding it back after removal, something like, "Oh, you said, 'Are you sure', I thought you said, "You insure us".

Reminds me of the browser Spam Bar prompts: "Are you sure you don't want to not add the Ask Tool Bar? _Yes _No"

Comment Better Long-Term Prospects than IT (Score 1) 115

If you like the field of statistics it seems a better long-term bet than IT. The "laws" of math are not going to change in 40 years, where-as in IT the languages, GUI's, frameworks, and Paradigm Fad of the Day will change...several times. Plus it won't give you Carpel Tunnel (unless you can't trick a grunt into data entry). You are expected to know the domain (industry) such that outsourcing is not as likely either.

Software may pay more in the short term, but career-wise, stats seems more stable.

Comment Re:And this is how we get to the more concrete har (Score 1) 528

[they believe] that religion in school meant students were better behaved and more obedient, and society as a whole was just better off

Note there is no real evidence that the threat of a ghost-father BBQ-ing your ass for eternity if you are bad actually works as an incentive. Shorter-term feedback is usually much much more effective on humans (and all animals).

Comment Re:This is good! (Score 1) 528

the problem with "Intelligent Design" is not that whether it's "true" or not, but rather that it's not science because it ignores the Scientific Method

I disagree. ID is a valid theory, in terms of a possible explanation. After all, Monsanto is doing ID (and some DD - Dumbass Design), so we know it can happen to some degree. Old-fashioned breeding is also ID.

But, the evidence for it is very week in the big-picture sense. We normally don't discuss very week theories in science class. I don't mind if a state textbook puts in a blurb about it, but the "Evidence" section would be blank.

An interesting side discussion for students is if complexity alone is evidence for ID. In other words, if a natural explanation is not currently known, is that strong evidence for a creator, or merely evidence of humanity's knowledge gaps?

Asking those kinds of questions is a great way to learn such that I am all for bringing up ID in a science class, if done well. I really hate to say it, but I agree with Bush in terms of bringing it up. (I have to shower after that admission.)

Comment On uncertainty (Score 1) 273

I have to agree with conservatives on one point: we don't know enough about Earth to make any reliable predictions.

Maybe the Earth will somehow balance itself and the warming will level out. Or trigger positive feedback mechanisms that accelerate warming and/or change. We just don't know.

However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about altering the "normal" path. It's pretty clear we are gambling big-time via pollution and green-house gasses.

Some of the more thoughtful conservatives say we should go ahead and gamble: humans will adapt around change. Even though I disagree, that's a valid position, for science can't tell us WHAT to do, only what will happen (at best). If simulations show that juggling rakes has a 20% of putting your eye out, and you agree with the odds, and do juggle rakes and your eye gets put out, and you accept the consequences, at least you are honest. Blind, foolish, but honest.

I guess some conservatives want to be proverbial lion trainers. The problem is that we all have to be in the same cage with them.

Slashdot Top Deals

The solution of this problem is trivial and is left as an exercise for the reader.

Working...