:-)

Interesting. So I should have read the article, after all. It makes sense, what you say, of course.

Heh, I keep forgetting that when you comment on things in slashdot, you are dealing with a largely hostile audience. Thanks for reminding me.

You are missing the point - 'Polo' would be understood as a reference to the family, not the person. Of course, a brilliant individual like you wouldn't have missed that.

Hmm, it always grates against my soul when people use names without checking whether it is usage; I'm probably just being pedantic.

So, historically things like last names were not commonly used the way we do now; I don't recall when they came into use. So, you would call people by their personal names + perhaps a description - 'John the Baptist', 'Leonardo da Vinci', 'Genghis Khan' etc. The last is not really a name as much as a title: 'Great Khan' - his name was Temüjin, but still you see him referred to as 'Khan', as if it were his last name. Sigh. And then, of course, Marco Polo. I suspect it is a resonably safe guess that 'Polo' is not the correct way to refer to him - he should be called 'Marco'.

Ah - the only intelligent comment on this issue on /. so far, on this fine morning. This is very likely what climatologists are thinking about too; heat, being energy, doesn't disappear, so it must be somewhere. My guess is that it isn't perhaps so much about where the heat went as it is about by how much the temperature increase has been underestimated - IOW, that the water was somewhat colder before than what we guessed. That is of course one of our problems: when we don't have enough observations, we have to make educated guesses, and sometimes we guess wrong. It's just one of those things that happen in science; now we will have to improve the models again.

Of course it is. For some reason, all popular science articles try to spin everything as 'A Great, New Discovery'. Scientific research is almost always about checking and measuring the details in the big picture we already know - that is why they keep measuring the gravitational constant, the speed of light etc. And the other side of the coin is the scientific method: you state a theory, then test its predictions. In this case the farily obvious seeming prediction, that curiosity makes you better at learning. In fact, this is not quite as trivial as it may sound: curiosity makes you want to learn, but does your objective ability to learn increase measurably?

I think it was C.S.Lewis who once said that political infighting amongst academics often become so vicious, not because the stakes are big, but exactly because they are so small. And looking at the comments in the discussion here seems to confirm this - it's just about games. Recreation, in other words - when you are an adult, there are other things in life that ought to be more important.

In a country where you can find warnings like this (from http://www.dumbwarnings.com/

In this context, it is unrealistic to expect Ford or Colt to be sued for the incompetence or malice of their customers?

We all know that scientists are imperfect humans, and that some are corrupt. The whole point of science and the scientific method is to counteract that very fact. That is why scientific 'truth' is never based on the say-so of any one individual, but on observable facts and openly disclosed theories, that can be checked independently, in principle by anybody.

I think the blame for this lies with those who have an interest in stirring up controversy and sensationalism. I can't imagine any scientist ever saying that "this is because of global warming"; what they would way is "this supports/doesn't support global warming" - or perhaps more likely, they will ask how these observations might fit into current theories.

The general public mostly get it completely wrong, expecting that scientists want to defend their theories against anything that might go against them; in reality it is quite the opposite way. I suppose scientist will always try to see if the existing theories work well enough to explain observations, but all of them secretly hope to find something that breaks the theory: 'new science'. That's why they were a little bit disappointed at CERN when they found a Higgs boson pretty much where theory said it should be. Being right is all well and good, but new discoveries is what we live and breathe for.

Really? And what would that achieve?

It is incredibly naive to think that the mere introduction of Western style democracy and -constitution would magically solve all problems. It didn't happen that way in the West - it took several generations, during which time people got educated to the new ideas via debates, protests, and later on, school, and that process is still ongoing. Democracy is worthless if people are not willing to play by the rules - the losers have to accept that they didn't win this time, and the winners have to understand that they must rule for the benefit of all, even their opponents. And enshrining rights and freedoms in law is worthless if people don't sincerely respect the rights of others, even when it is to their own disadvantage.

To return to the protesters in Hong Kong - the same applies here. That is not to say that democracy is not a good idea; I think even the Chinese government recognises that. But it has to be introduced the right way, gradually. Perhaps it would be a good idea if the state government came out in public and addressed the issue head on, and presented a long-term plan for how it should happen. Most people can accept that things can take time to achieve.

Well, what'd you expect? However, I think the problem is of a deeper nature than 'what does so and so religion think about extra-terrestial life' - it is about the compatibility between religion and science. Science is fundamentally about facts and what follows from the facts: you make observations, then produce theory etc. In many religions, if not all, you try to start from the other end: you settle on some Ultimate Truth, then try to make your facts fit; that way it becomes a bit hit-or-miss whether your belief allows for a new discovery of any kind.

Another, potentially interesting question would be - is it possible to produce a religion that is strictly scientific in nature without it simply being science? Or IOW, can any form of religion add anything to science?

I don't agree with his policies or his party ideology either, but I think it is incorrect to call him an idiot. He knows very well what he is doing, and I think he is leading the country competently, in the sense that he is not blundering around stupidly and making the overall situation significantly worse for the whole nation.

As you say, metric is eminently useful, not just because it makes it trivially easy to compare small quantities to large ones (just a matter of where to place to decimal point), but also because it ties together measures for length, area, volume, time, energy etc in a way that follows directly from physics.

We keep using imperial in our daily lives because they are easy when you don't need great precision or a deep understanding of the science behind; 1 pound is about the weight of a large handful of something - easy to relate to and precise enough for many purposes.

Not so. The scientific point of view is that the data speak for themselves; different theories try to make sense of the observed data. Theories are never perfect, but we can make theories better by using the scientific method - and this is where the debate invariably breaks down, not because a secretive conspiracy of climate scientists are suppressing facts, but because those suffering from 'skepticemia' are unwilling to accept reality.

Weather is what happens locally, in the short time span - the wind in your hair, the sun on your face - climate is the average of the weather over large areas and long periods of time. So, it is perfectly reasonable to observe that the weather has been unusually cold in Canada this summer, and then say that this goes against the idea of global warming, and the observation requires a theoretical explanation, of course. Climatologists have already given very plausible explanations; the problem is that climate deniers don't want to accept the explanation. But just as it is necessary to consider data that go against the theory, it is also necessary to accept the data that support the theory; hence it is reasonable to state that the loss of icemass in Antarctica supports the theory of global warming.

What I still haven't seen in is just 1 climate model that explains most of the observed current and historical data and doesn't end up concluding that climate change is happening and is caused by human activities. Produce just 1 theory that can stand up the critical efforts of more than a select group of handpicked believers; the truth is that the skeptics are unable to do so, and therefore talk about conspiracies instead. Meanwhile, I think the scientific consensus has moved on, because whether people like it or not, reality keeps happening.

I would tend to agree with you, but not for the reasons you list. Without having read the OP, I assume that it doesn't actually say that the 10K hour rule is always false (just like that rule say that you can never become an expert before 10K hours); it just says that it may not always be true. Listing a few examples does neither prove nor disprove a statement that is clearly statistical in nature.

Sometimes, though, you do see these very young experts; I think the most likely explanation is that they simply started very early; like in child prodigies - or the 11 year olds that play with computers and gadgets every day - just because they weren't paid for it or in formal education at the time, doesn't mean they didn't put in the hours. In other cases you see somebody change from one discipline, where they haven't made remarkable contributions to something where they suddenly shine, but then again, they have probably been working with things that were somehow closely related, and when they change focus, they bring a new, very useful perspective that makes them stand out.

The only phemomenon I can't explain is the way some people down my local pub always seem to be experts in subjects the very instant they hear about them ;-)

I thought this debate was dead long ago - if ever there really was a debate, which I doubt. Every time the subject comes up, people more or less agree that it isn't something we want, although there may be some niches where it makes sense.

There are massive concerns about security, privacy etc - and that is just with IPv4. And although lots of people are now fascinated with the smartphone, I'm not sure it will last. Just for one thing - does everyone REALLY want to be connected all the time? Especially when it doesn't actually give you all that much in terms of benefit, combined with the fact that the more time you spend glaring at the small screen, the more are you missing out on the more substantial joys in real life.

It's a bit like the Borg:
Borg: "Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated"
Us: "No actually, we don't think so"; and we shoot them down.
Borg: "Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated" ...

To me it sounds like somebody is being paid to simply spout this nonsense. Next time, please post a list of your sponsors.