Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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) 328

by sumdumass (#49188143) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Lol.. it wouldn't matter if they did not like the conclusions. If the data is open and it can be reproduced, all they can do is "not like it,".

As for the refusals. This is laughable. I will post some infomation when i get to a computer but i gave you a huge hint when i mentioned CRU. but please, go ahead and try to obfuscate those problems in a discussion about mistrust and the need to open it up.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 328

by sumdumass (#49188085) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Logic is not one of your strong points is it, ui

Nothing in this is about having to use studies by third parties. Its about science being used to shape regulation being open for review and people being able to reproduce it. I can pay for a study to say anything i want, but the EPA can ignore it as long as their science is sound (available and can be reproduced). If it can be reproduced, the science will speak for itself. If it cannot, then it cannot be used. So in a way, it relates to the tobacco studies as in they couldn't be used because if they were wrong, the data which would have to be made public would show the fault.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 328

by sumdumass (#49187979) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Wow. How completely stupid can you be? You can pay anyone off to say it is not reproducable and anyone can prove them wrong by simply reproducing it. FFS, is logic lost on you? All anyone would have to do is reproduce the results.

Its like you are arguing that anyone could pay someone to say 2+2 is 10 and pulling a calculator out to show it is actually 4 is somehow invalid. All some saying it is not reproducable will do when it is being reproduced by at least one if not more entities is show how wrong they are. And yes, they will have to show their work so their flaws will be highlighted too.

It seems like you are scared to have work used to claim global warming opened up for anyone to inspect. Why is that?

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 328

by sumdumass (#49187913) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Lets not be silly just to push a narritive. You will come up with a completely different data set if you spend ten years recollecting data. What will happen is the data will be availible so it will or could be statistically validated and analysis redrawn. And i state "could" only because it allows full access to all the information.

Now think about that. How much of the global warming debate would exist today if everything was open at the time instead of refusals to disclose data and so on. This is prety much lae in the UK after the CRU email scuffle in which they forced the disclosure of data.

Comment: STILL smells like a duck... (Score 1) 153

by fyngyrz (#49186083) Attached to: Astronomers Find an Old-Looking Galaxy In the Early Universe

Except that science collectively doesn't claim to know what happened at the points when the universe was dense enough and at high enough energy scales that it is speculated current laws of physics break down

Yes, that's my point exactly. They don't. Because they can't. Because the theory is based on assuming something happened that our physics can't describe. BB theory is therefore incomplete in a way that makes it unable to stand in the face of what at this time appear to be some very simple and reasonable questions. Questions physics force us to ask.

To stick with your analogy, the Big Bang theory isn't saying the baseball materialized spontaneously from the ground, but that it appeared at some point on that path, with some evidence that the trajectory goes back some where near the ground for loose definition of "near." In which case, there being a pitcher and it being spontaneously generated on that path both being consistent with current theories and observations

No. Quite wrong. The specific reason I use this analogy is that BB theory goes right to the ground -- fractions of fractions of fractions of a micrometer above -- such that the option of there being a pitcher or a ball launcher, or a firecracker under the ball, or a really strong dwarf cricket or even microbe, etc., has completely gone away. You cannot explain BB any further using our physics because they state that the theory covers it right back until it cannot. Consequently it either has to be some other physics, or else it's massively wrong. Theories that are rigorous but then, still within the context of their own propositions, devolve into "and then we don't know" or "because we have no idea"

BB theory may, as I said above, be quite correct, and we may need new physics to understand it. if that's the case, on that day, it becomes a complete and compelling theory to me. Until then, it's not.

As of right now, spotting a galaxy that shows what we understand to be evidence of being older than would be possible if BB theory is correct does not particularly surprise me, any more than finding evidence that "Thor" was just some dude with a really big hammer would surprise me in the context of the ideas that present the Æsir and Vanir as "gods." Because just as, at present, there are no physics that would actually make the idea of a god or gods credible in the face of objective, reality-based inquiry, there are no physics that actually make the idea of the BB credible in the face of same.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 3, Insightful) 328

by sumdumass (#49185647) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

No.. The EPA would propose a regulation and during the required comment period, people could examine the science and the data used and attempt to reproduce it. If they find fault during the regulation process (the EPA cannot just declare regulation, it has to propose it, wait for a comment period, address any concerns brought up, comment, then vote to pass it). But anyone can reproduce the science if it is sound. You will have people in favor of the regulation reproducing it, you will have universities doing the same. if someone cannot reproduce it and others can, you will only have people looking like dumbasses and nothing more.

Comment: Re:If it smells like a duck... (Score 1) 153

by fyngyrz (#49185093) Attached to: Astronomers Find an Old-Looking Galaxy In the Early Universe

"Monoblock" or "the primordial monoblock" is a term for the presumed state of the presumed material comprising the presumed universe just before it presumably exploded. Everything, no exceptions, including space itself, all in one tiny... something, (tiny with respect to... something), that did.... something, and then [waves hands] Big Bang! Try this google search.

Science can trace the expansion of the universe backwards quite a ways, within the bounds of our understanding of physics as it stands and it makes sense, albeit some very strange and difficult to swallow sense. But go back far enough, and a point is reached where our physics simply do not serve to describe the previous state. At all.

I liken it to tracing a pitched ball backwards, not having been around to witness the pitch, but analyzing the arc of its trajectory and theorizing that the ball erupted spontaneously from the ground in order to arrive where it is. We can't account for such a spontaneous emission, but after all, hey, there's the ball, right? The immediate and obvious objection is that "but physics tells us that can't happen"... well, physics tells us the exact same thing about the big bang. That's why I consider the comparison apt.

I'm not saying the big bang theory is wrong; I'm just saying it is definitely unproven, and that there are severe and fundamental problems with attempts to prove it at this time. Tomorrow, we have new physics, and that may resolve everything very nicely. But until or unless that happens -- until someone shows how the "ball could erupt from the dirt, spontaneously or otherwise" -- personally, I'm reserving BB theory acceptance.

Comment: Re:Or maybe it was aliens (Score 1) 118

by sumdumass (#49182329) Attached to: The Mexican Drug Cartels' Involuntary IT Guy

You do not know if he was even captured at all. Let alone speculating about big foot, drug cartels, the NSA, or Chinese military. Its just wishful thinking and hoping that he is still alive and alright at this point. For all we know, he could have ran off with some chick that wasn't his wife or interrupted something illegal and is face down in a shallow grave somewhere.

+ - Demand for Linux Skills Rising This Year-> 2

Submitted by Nerval's Lobster
Nerval's Lobster (2598977) writes "This year is shaping up as a really good one for Linux, at least on the jobs front. According to a new report (PDF) from The Linux Foundation and Dice, nearly all surveyed hiring managers want to recruit Linux professionals within the next six months, with 44 percent of them indicating they’re more likely to hire a candidate with Linux certification over one who does not. Forty-two percent of hiring managers say that experience in OpenStack and CloudStack will have a major impact on their hiring decisions, while 23 percent report security is a sought-after area of expertise and 19 percent are looking for Linux-skilled people with Software-Defined Networking skills. Ninety-seven percent of hiring managers report they will bring on Linux talent relative to other skills areas in the next six months."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re: Doxing is asking for trouble. (Score 1) 425

Lol.. you do not need to know someone's identity, you benifit from identifying the person you are talking to as the person you have been talking to.

Try holding a conversation with a random stranger walking down the street, pause it then pick it back up with another random stranger right where you left off. And as far as the logical fallacy goes, when it is spread across three different post how do you know the current poster is the one who made the previous posts and really using the fallacy? Well, you do not.

Like i said, its just annoying. That is a reason people don't like conversing with ACs. It may not bother you, but its annoying to others.

Breadth-first search is the bulldozer of science. -- Randy Goebel