Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
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).
- 4. Can you really? How do you replicate the declaritive html5 form validation on the server? And is it really a good idea sharing your validation code, bugs and all, with the client? Sounds like a major security problem to me.
- 5. Let's see how your sorting goes on a table with a million rows client side.. if you're batshit crazy enough to even try that. Most of what you mentioned should and generally does get written in SQL, not JS.
- 6. lol, now that's just bait
So, you've basically said that anything that relies on observations of nature is not a science.
What I'm saying is very simple. Science is the application of the scientific method. The scientific method is very well defined. Forming a hypothesis and then claiming your statistical model predicts what your hypothesis says is not an application of the scientific method. That misses several key steps.
Feel free to react with further hostility, logical fallacies, and sticking words in my mouth if you like.
You are talking about one small vein of climate science -- and creating and testing models is actually science.
Nope. It is statistics. Science involves experimentation with a control group. Building statistical models is not science.
Comparing it to the data, from 1967 on... looks like the experimental result matches the prediction.
Nice, an experiment. So if you could just show me where your control group is. You know, the control group that had no increase in CO2 and no increase in warming? Because, if you don't have one, how do I know some other factor didn't cause the warming you observed?
That's not science at all. That's little more than a statistical model. These guys believe they have their answer and are trying to fit all observations to it.
That's a description of deniers. That's not the way climate science is done.
The reason we believe that the model is more or less accurate is that there are terabytes of data confirming it. The reason we don't believe that alternative models are accurate is that there aren't any.
This is exactly what I pointing out. You feed data into a statistical model and call it science. You haven't conducted an experiment with a control group. You have no scientific proof. You have nothing but a statistical correlation.
She missed the "reasoned hypothesis" step.
And you missed the scientific experiment step. Your assertion that (hypothesis + prediction + observation = science) is wrong.
Feed in past climate data and see if your climate model can predict the past or the present accurately.
While I agree with most of your post, what you describe here is not science. That approach turns science on its head. The scientific method begins with a reasoned hypothesis, followed by a prediction based on the hypothesis, and an experiment to prove or disprove this prediction. Climate "science" on the other hand does exactly what you describe here. It looks at past data and attempts to fit it to a hypothesis. That's not science at all. That's little more than a statistical model. These guys believe they have their answer and are trying to fit all observations to it.
The most non-science part of Climate "science" is the regular refrain that "There's a consensus, therefore, anthropogenic global warming is proven." If anyone so much as expresses doubt about this form of proof, that person is attacked. I believe this sums up my opinion of that succinctly.
nobody is removing projects or any IP from Github
In this specific instance perhaps, but I wouldn't say nobody. Remember Popcorn Time?
I don't think it's realistic at this point to expect much change from the government. Unarmed black men die by cop in the streets and that's all part of the plan it seems. Even the black president appears to do nothing but pay lip service to the problem. Internet freedom seems downright secondary when unarmed kids are being shot by cops regularly.
To the point, I think what we are witnessing is the end of what we currently understand as the internet. Net neutrality wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for the ISP monopolies in the first place. NSA spying and weakening encryption standards leaving the whole system backdoored. DMCA is the icing on the cake, destroying free speech one github repo at a time.
I fully expect wireless mesh networks to be the next generation of internet. People will laugh about the days when we were so stupid to trust Facebook servers with so much as a password. They will of course, use something similar to SSH, where the client holds the key and the password. The idea that one company could have stood as a gatekeeper between you and your pizza order from the shop on the corner will seem like pure stupidity.
It is stupidity. There's absolutely no reason those pizza order packets need to travel thousands of miles from my handset, up to a cloud server, where it's intercepted and inspected by the NSA before it is passed down another wire belonging to another ISP who's going to charge a fee or slow the order down, just to reach a pizza shop a mile or two down the road. (assuming that pizza shop didn't get an illegitimate DMCA takedown over a photo of a cheese pizza). It is simply ridiculous when every square mile of modern civilization is saturated with wireless radios. I'm sitting in range of 16 wifi access points right now. Everyone I know carries a phone with not only wifi, but bluetooth, and LTE too.
This is dumb. And when enough of us developers step back, and think, and see how very dumb it is... we will create a new solution. The dim witted management in the form of government will proceed to try to screw up our new internet as best they can, until they succeed and we start the process all over again.
I don't recall anybody ever predicting "the coasts scoured down to bedrock by hurricanes, the interior a hell of violent weather".
You must be new here
In reality, most of the heat goes in the oceans
I think you missed a memo. While it may be that most of the heat does go into the oceans, not enough of it has been going in there to explain the recent global warming 'pause' that climatologists are unable to explain.
lol. Says the moron who couldn't figure out Acrobat runs on neither ChromeOS or Linux.
You go ahead and take several screenshots of partial pages and then go into an image editor to stitch them together though. Hey, maybe you can even break out your iPhone and take pictures of your screen. That'll be even better, because you'll add an extra step or two between you and a final product.
I'll just print them, thanks.