Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 455

by sumdumass (#49194539) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

As studies get expanded, results get more precise. Some policies can be drawn from older studies and are available from an early date, but other policy recommendations require further studies. What's so difficult to understand about that?

There is nothing difficult about that. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that they have been using the information and results to shape policy in government and take freedoms away for quite a while and more specifically, when the information was being sought after and refused.

IPCC uses a wide range of studies to arrive at policy recommendations, not one study from a single institution such as the CRU, and beyond that, I've already mentioned that the CRU results weren't invalidated by any investigation. So what is it that you're arguing for here? Either including the CRU results (if they're valid) or excluding them (if they aren't) won't change anything.

Ok, it's obvious that you are more interested in pushing your beliefs than discussing what was said. You fail big time too because all it does is reinforce the skepticism people have when you completely ignore what they say in order to preach your narrative.

I "seem more bent out of shape about anything making it look bad"? I'm not sure I understand that, but I'm simply arguing that if claims that make something look bad are later found to be invalid, there's no point in perpetuating them. Had those claims been vindicated, that obviously would have been a reason for taking steps against the CRU. You still haven't said what I'm "skirting". We've already concluded that the claims about CRU were found to be unfounded, what else is there to discuss?

I've said what you are skirting in every post I have replied to you. I've said it 5 different ways and you keep ignoring it in order to run the CRU's defense.

You can suspect anything about anyone. That's no reason to take action before the truth is found out. Regarding "suspicions", see below.

So if someone is suspected of a crime, no one should arrest them until the truth is found out?

Except they weren't. Climate change deniers don't need any reason for mistrust.

Lol.. Well, they certainly had enough reasons for it whether they needed it or not.

Even with full transparency, they'd still throw accusations at climate scientists that they're conning people to get grants. They're doing that all the time. They were doing that even before the CRU "affair". So that wouldn't prevent the problem in the first place

Yup, they were doing that before the CRU emails were made public- you know, back when democrat staffers cut the AC on capital hill and scheduled James Hansen to talk to congress about global warming on a day they specifically picked to be historically one of the hottest days of the year. You know, the day the hockey stick which has since been revised was introduced to America in large scale. Yep, they were making those claims when statisticians were trying to get the data and being told no because they will just pick it apart. Yep, they were making those claims when it was discovered by someone who was denied access to that data that there was mathematical problems with the claimed temperature records which was dubbed the y2k bug because it became obvious at the year 2000 mark. Yep, they have been making those claims when people started saying meteorologist should lose their credentials if they said something was not because of global warming.

Yeppers, as I said, an entire industry of skeptics has cropped up over the years because of the lack of transparency and appearances of improprieties.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 455

by sumdumass (#49194435) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

The information wasn't available 25 years ago for the simple reason that this was a different line of research that would happen in the future. I'm sure there will also be a lot of research going on 15 years from now but that doesn't mean we can't draw any conclusions now.

And yet claims were being made from it, demands that policy and law be shaped because of it, and you would have us believe that 15 years ago, it was all infantile studies not worthy of that? And yes, I said 15 years, you seem to be fixated on 25 years (probably because of when you were converted).

That is irrelevant since nobody forces you to shape public law with CRU's research either. You're perfectly free to completely ignore CRU even exists, and the relevant scientific landscape won't change.

It is completely relevant as it was being used to impose changes and this is exactly what the repeatability and availability requirements are for.

If you're calling accepted research performed by multiple independent parties over many decades as "religion", it's obvious 1) where you stand and 2) that any reasonable discussion with you is out of question. Is evolution "a religion"? Is general relativity "a religion"? What kind of science isn't "a religion" to you?

It doesn't matter where I stand but I'm calling your actions religious as you seem more bent out of shape about anything making it look bad than any fundie I have seen when you throw evolution in their face. You are completely skirting issues and talking past them trying to imagine how that makes things perfect now or something. It's the functional equivalent of "the bible says".

The topic you raised was people (those "skeptics" you talked of) unqualified to make judgments on that affair because they lack either the necessary knowledge, intellect, or both. (And if not, pray tell, what else was the topic?)

The topic I raised was that they largely wouldn't exist today if the information was available then and people were not legitimately running around saying they lost the original data or they will not share the data so it is impossible for them to validate their conclusions. Saying there is nothing wrong with what the CRU and other scientists did is the same as saying there is that is perfectly acceptable. I'm saying it caused an entire industry of skeptics to rise which would not be there if this law was in place and followed at the time.

That's like arguing that just because a person had to go to court to face charges proves the prosecutor's point. It's utter rubbish.

No, it's arguing that just because a person had to go to court to face charges proves that people suspected him of committing the crimes. I never said their claims were valid, I said they were created by the mistrust caused by the lack of transparency.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 455

by sumdumass (#49194303) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Except that as I have demonstrated, that is a logically wrong conclusion to make.

15 years after the fact, yes. Are we to ignore those years when the information wasn't available and those opinions and positions were formed? There is an entire work of art revolving around the mistrust that is now in place because of that. You would be a fool to dismiss it.

Without semantics, sentences are meaningless, even grammatically correct ones. You can't NOT use semantics in communication. I'm not sure what your point is there.

I can see you actually are daft. The point was obvious.

Researchers don't often print or show or present everything. Especially if ongoing research is involved. The Rosetta probe photos, for example, also have a period in which they're available only to the PI's team so that someone else wouldn't steal their thunder before they publish. There's nothing inappropriate about that, especially if you have dozens of lines of independent research about the same going on in different places.

You know, this is like saying busses are yellow. No one was trying to create or shape public law with Rosetta probe photos. No one was or is trying to take freedoms away with them either. It's a little different when you say I found a cure for cancer and no one can do X because it causes cancer. The first, it would be perfectly fine with the information being hidden. With the later, it would create all sorts of skepticism and revolt over the idea when the information is withheld and hidden. You are correct, there is nothing inappropriate about withholding information obtained by the Rosetta probe photos. There is however, all sorts of problems about withholding information obtained by the Rosetta probe photos and using that information to impose penalties and restrict freedoms as a matter of law and government policy.

It's like you are holding an apple and an orange and trying to talk about cars and cannot see that all three are different.

Nothing was "withheld" or "shrouded by secrecy" when I made my decision a quarter century ago. ANYONE could have done so at that point. So how is it relevant?

Nobody cares about when you found religion. It's not important and others not finding it at the exact same time is not important either.

You don't care about people doing flawed reasoning? How can we have any serious discussion on any topic, then?

It appears we cannot because you cannot even stay on topic in the first place. You have not addressed any point I made, you just dance around it proclaiming when you got religion and that numerous official panels declared nothing was done wrong. Hell, the fact that there had to be an investigation and declaration by multiple sources proves my point but you want to change the narrative to how much you believe and how good of a disciple you are.

Comment: Re:How to totally screw up my ability to code: (Score 1) 134

by bill_mcgonigle (#49194301) Attached to: Musician Releases Album of Music To Code By

If you play music, my code will go to crap, since I'm trying to do two things with the same set of neurons.

Some of the most amazing brain work is done by /dampening/ the neurons, not hyper-exciting them. For me, music distracts enough of them that the rest can stay focused on the code. aka "in the zone".

For some reason, instrumental is fine for me and talk radio is fine for me, but lyrical music does not work at all. Maybe I'm programming more in the 'song' region.

Comment: Re:We almost lost two! (Score 1) 87

by bill_mcgonigle (#49194197) Attached to: Harrison Ford's Plane Crashes On Golf Course

'Geek' is more the 'script kiddie' version of a nerd. Nerds know what a wire-wrap gun is, even if they're more into grinding lenses for homemade telescopes.

This is fairly well-trodden territory. Nerds are hard-core specialists, fascinated with particular topics. Math nerds, bio nerds, telescope lens nerds (sure, why not?), etc. It's possible to be a multiple-nerd, but Geeks are more obligatorily generalists and tend to be makers.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 455

by sumdumass (#49194093) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Interesting, but the first link shows that CRU scientists would be lousy lawyers, and the second is unrelated to CRU completely. And now for a dose of facts about the CRU affair:

lol.. are you daft? those facts are irrelevant as I already stated. No one is arguing or disputing them. You however appear to be dismissing the years of shrouded appearances of impropriety that fueled skepticism about global warming as if it never happened because nothing technically happened that was wrong. It completely misses the entire issue of mistrust it caused a lot of people to generate. You could at this point link to Professor Jones risking his life to save two nuns and an orphan from falling off a cliff to certain death and parade him around as a public hero and it would not change what happened or the skepticism that grew from it one bit at all.

No, I'm not a global warming pusher, CO2 is a global warming pusher. I have no interest in contributing to global warming.

Hmm.. using semantics to deny the obvious. Well, I guess this thread is about the appearance of deceit and proprietary.

No, it isn't. It's about you and presumably some other people apparently being unable to grasp basic principles of reasoning. Even if if you found out evidence of gross academic misconduct having happened within CRU (which didn't happen), it still wouldn't prove anything about global warming (or the lack of it).

Actually, it appears to be moving towards you doing anything possible to ignore what was said just so you can impress what you want into the conversation. Here is a hint, NO ONE SAID IT PROVED ANYTHING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. I certainly did not, I Specifically said it created two classes of skeptics that would not be skeptical and mistrustful today had it been open and available.

Now before you reply, reread what was just said. Your knee seems to be jerking so hard it knocked the sense right out of you as you seem insistent on arguing something that was never said in order to protect your beliefs instead of realizing the fact that there are people right now who are considered skeptics who would not be if the information was not withheld or shrouded by secrecy in the past. Perhaps this claim I am making is something that is not in the playbook and your scripts doesn't exactly follow so you have to approximate with whatever is closets. I don't know but you certainly are ignoring what was said in order to protect the reputations of some idiots and global warming.

The rest of your drivel is off topic to my point. I do not care about it one bit at all.

Comment: Re:I'm dying of curiousity (Score 1) 162

by sumdumass (#49193839) Attached to: Software Freedom Conservancy Funds GPL Suit Against VMWare

IS that what happened? As far as we can tell from the provided links is that the guy in question has copyright in the kernel and somehow the VMware software uses parts of the kernel and can be graphed to look similar to the operations of the linux kernel. I have yet to find anything detailing the exact claim of infringement involved as in what files where.

Comment: Re:I'm dying of curiousity (Score 1) 162

by sumdumass (#49193807) Attached to: Software Freedom Conservancy Funds GPL Suit Against VMWare

Actually, I believe the claim is that it was which is why Nvidia ended up using a two part driver module in the early days with one being licensed under the LGPL.

I'm not sure how they do it now but I don't think they use the two part modules any more. I believe Travolds has made statements that binary only blobs in the kernel violate the GPL too as they are derivative. Actually, here is an interesting discussion concerning the linux kernel and derived works the confusion possibilities.

Comment: Re:I'm dying of curiousity (Score 1) 162

by sumdumass (#49193677) Attached to: Software Freedom Conservancy Funds GPL Suit Against VMWare

I guess the question is does he have copyrights for the parts infringed upon? If he wrote the scheduler and the infringement is with the driver API which he may not have any copyright, its the same as claiming your dog bit someone else child. Neither the GPL or the copyright law grant you rights to the entire copyrighted entity for partial contribution ( unless it's the same file carrying the copyright). And that is limited further to the extend that the contributed copyright remains (I can rewrite your contributions in a non derivative way and end up with a file that you no longer have a copyright interest in)

I cannot find exactly where they suppose the infringement is other than they used the linux kernel somewhere in the process and the outcomes appear similar. The articles are scarce on details.

Comparing it to a dog bite is a little difficult though. The harm is two parts, first a legal right to control distribution of a copyrighted material and second losses or harm caused by the violation of those rights. If it is the first, they can stop VMware from using the code but they will either need to show that their use deprived him from something concerning his copyright or that he is entitled to royalty for the illegal uses in order to get monetary rewards. Seeing how linux is distributed freely, I suspect he has a good faith belief his copyright is being violated and wants to stop that from happening as outside of recovering court costs, it will be difficult to get much more.

Comment: Re:LOL! (Score 3, Informative) 82

by sumdumass (#49193165) Attached to: Anthem Blocking Federal Auditor From Doing Vulnerability Scans

Congress created this agency years ago (1883 i think) when it passed the civil service act into law.

It's a central office in charge of federal government employees and administrates their benefits and retirement packages as well as wage tables and so on. You can think of them as the HR department on a grand scale.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 455

by sumdumass (#49193115) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Science is not faulty, but taking freedoms based on unproven or incorrect science is. That is the problem. Government should not by extra-legislative processes, declare you are no longer allowed to do X for reasons we do not understand at the moment but might eventually.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 455

by sumdumass (#49193065) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

FFS, you cannot just accuse something of being wrong or incorrect. You have to show why it is and that opens your claim up for review which will show your faults.

Why don't you use some critical thinking skills here. When has any legitimate science ever been trumped by the nuh-uh hypothesis? The science either speaks for itself or it cannot stand the light of examination. That goes both ways too.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 455

by sumdumass (#49193025) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

And while you're off "reproducing the results," industry has had free reign to spend a decade or so fucking everything up. You might as well change the name from "Environmental Protection Agency" to "Environmental Hindsight Agency" since all it'll be able to do is say "yup, that really was a bad idea after all" after the damage is already done!

And this is different from now how? Whenever the EPA advances regulation changes, it spends a large amount of time in court already. You are either not aware of how this crap works or are pushing some narrative you know to be incorrect.

It "seems" like you're intentionally mischaracterizing the situation to suit your own argument. The burden of proof should be on you to explain why we should run full speed ahead changing the climate, not on the EPA to explain in excruciating detail precisely why erring on the side of caution might be prudent common sense.

No silly. The burden of proof in a free and democratic society is on the government to show the necessity for regulating and restricting those freedoms. If government wants to say you cannot do X, they need to demonstrate a valid reason for it. Using hidden studies or hidden science to do so is ridiculous. To say otherwise is just silly.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 455

by sumdumass (#49192999) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

CRU is the climate research unit from University of East Anglia who refused to provide climate data used to push the global warming narrative when requested by people they considered hostile to their cause. Accusations of this were made several times and denied but someone hacked into the email servers and released a bunch of email showing them discussing withholding the information. Now it is said that the original raw data does not exist any more nor does the methods and processes used to correct irregularities of it.

Now, I know you are a global warming pusher and have your own beliefs but this is not about you in the slightest. All that I'm a believer bullshit you just posted is irrelevant to what was said. Let me repeat that in less convoluted terms in case it was too difficult for you. What kind of grand conspiracy would you be tilting at instead of windmills if the data and process were made available early on when the notion of anthropogenic global warming was being introduced instead of hiding it because of fears that people would pick it apart? I would be more than 80% of the so called deniers- the ones who actually believe there is long term warming but either do not believe humans are the chief architect of it or that there are agendas hidden within the claims so the so called solutions should not be trusted would not be questioning anything right now. But you go on stating how you was always a believer and the appearance of improprieties did nothing to shake that belief.

There are new messages.