Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Psychology more scientific than cancer studies? (Score 1) 252

Dude, the fall-out around climate science is constant.

I've had someone pull the 97% number out, and I pointed out their abstract says they started with 14,000 papers whose primary topic was climate change or global warming, and then discarded all papers which took no final position; the dude came back and said that the discarded papers weren't about climate change at all (which contradicts what the actual study says). The 97% figure also counts papers, not authors; yet it's referenced as a consensus among number of scientists--without even counting *all* climate scientists. The whole thing also ignores the valid scientific standpoint that we don't know about something--you know, like the tons of scientific papers that claim WE DON'T KNOW IF VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM, because we've seen no such evidence supporting that claim, versus the single paper that claims it does.

In the realm of actual science, we have studies for and against which tend to follow the lines of who buys the study; in reality, someone will commission 100 studies, and 99 of them will fall one way, and vanish under NDA. The last study, obviously, gets published. You don't buy results; you buy experiments which may, occasionally, produce faulty results (statistics demands this happen occasionally), and just hide all the ones that don't go your way.

We also have poorly-designed analysis, goal-driven analysis, and all kinds of other shit. Bad experiments in climate scientists aren't because climate science is hard (it is) or because climate scientists are terrible scientists (they're not), but because there's political pressure to do certain things in a certain way, limiting scope, data, etc.

On top of all of it, we have stupid shit like the IPCC coming out and saying they've faked all the data and reports for the past decades because they think if they gave us real numbers we'd think it was ridiculous. They've essentially come out to say they've claimed 0.1C jumps over 50 years when it's really more like a 10C jump over 30 years coming, just they didn't think anyone would believe the earth would catch fire spontaneously.

I haven't analyzed the numbers or taken a full assessment because it's not worth my time doing. I assert it's probably way wonkier because I know the pressures on the field and I know what those pressures do to the rightly pursuit of knowledge. I also know that, regardless of the hard truth, people will take a position based on such political (which, really, is just social) pressures that drive them into their feeling of safety and superiority; it doesn't particularly matter if they're right or wrong, in the same way that murdering someone you meet in an alleyway so you can rob them doesn't immediately become righteous because that person was just on his way from raping and drowning a small child in a nearby lake. Motives are of the mind, not of the physical world.

Comment Re:Psychology more scientific than cancer studies? (Score 1) 252

Some you can analyze, yes. Kai Wynn is uh. The crazy engineer girl she manipulated, too. Lots we could say about these nutjobs. It's amazing how the brain shuts off the prefrontal cortex and brings up the amygdala when the facts inserted into the PFC conflict with the collective, most basic memories everything else is held against. That's what religion does: it bases everything on a set of assumptions, such that violating those assumptions violates everything in all your experiences; such violation can garner rather violent reactions.

I've programmed a reflex to suppress that. Obvious advantages there may be, this has clearly become a very bad idea.

Comment Re:Psychology more scientific than cancer studies? (Score 1) 252

Explain what you are referring to about this stuff on TV. I can't recall one instance of psychology being invoked in RWBY, Inuyasha, or Deep Space 9.

What I said was generated on-the-fly from an understanding of psychology (along with politics and a few other things).

Comment Re:Psychology more scientific than cancer studies? (Score 2) 252

Psychology is an offensive science: people don't believe psychology is anything more than voodoo. This lets them stay quite comfortable in their control over their mind, instead of admitting it may have some uncontrollable science behind it.

10% of cancer studies are reproducible? Well that's just science. 50% of psychology studies are reproducible? Psychology is no more real than chance; every study is a coin toss, and nothing is real.

Climate science papers are probably way wonkier than psychology, but people cling to those because of politics. Don't think it's because they're enlightened or concerned or whatever; it's because they want a club to attack a social group outside their identity so the can stand up in their loin cloths and shout "OGG BIG STRONG MAN!"

Comment Re:There are good reasons for gvt bureaucracy, rem (Score 1) 275

You're not getting this. They already have a non-exclusive contract. They have a choice between multiple vendors. They can go CDW, or off the HP contract, or from Dell, for the same part. They have an account with each of these, so you just requisition and go.

They don't have an account with Amazon or Newegg, so there's 18 layers of bureaucracy to go through to buy a $40 hard drive.

Although that theoretically could be made part of a IT hardware support contract, you can bet that will affect the cost of a support contract

This does not apply because nothing in the existing contract--in the contract that was actually negotiated in the real, non-hypothetical world--says you can't go to Newegg for parts. It's just a pain in the ass because you have to file a bunch of forms with your boss and purchasing.

Comment Re:Wind energy is such shit (Score 1) 312

Japan officially unveiled today its 7 megawatt (MW) wind turbine, the world’s largest offshore turbine to date. It is slated to be operational by September [of 2015].

Let's also look at contenders.

The SeaTitan 10MW wind turbine designed by American energy technologies company AMSC is currently the biggest wind turbine in the world. [...] AMSC is currently negotiating with potential partners to build and commercialise the SeaTitan 10MW wind turbines.

That one's not in production yet.

The ST10 offshore wind turbine designed and developed by the Norwegian technology company Sway, is the world's second biggest wind turbine. It has a power output of 10MW, is equipped with a rotor of 164m diameter, has a 2rpm nominal speed and blades 67m in length. [...] Sway Turbine is looking for potential partners to commercialise the ST10 turbine technology.

Looking to commercialize this one, too.

French energy company Areva's 8MW wind turbine, launched in November 2013, is the world's third biggest wind turbine by rated capacity. [...] The turbine's prototype is scheduled to be installed in 2015, while commercial production is expected to begin in 2018.

This is the third-highest-nameplate-capacity turbine in the world, behind the two 10MW ones that haven't even gone into production yet. This one is looking for a prototype test in 2015, and maybe commercial production in 2018.

Shit this big doesn't exist yet. No single 10MW turbine exists yet. You're claiming you've got single 25MW turbines installed, when they don't exist either. Do you also have Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny over there, and a functional warp drive and space fold generator?

Comment Re:Wind energy is such shit (Score 1) 312

Square arcres are irrelevant, as you simply farm around the wind mills as usually.

One: The installable capacity in an area is low. That is: if you want to power an adjacent 15 square mile city, you need a 9,000 square mile area instead of a 2 square mile area. (Numbers not to scale, but you get the idea.)

In other words: You need to find and control a hell of a lot of land to build the same wind generation capacity as solar; and the local weather patterns often aren't advantageous.

Two: The vast majority of wind generation installations are dedicated, non-agricultural farms. Your argument is akin to saying that marriage doesn't restrict your sex life because you can just have sex with college schoolgirls as usual: that's not actually common, even if your one buddy's wife lets him bring home strays.

A typical off shore wind mill in germany is 25MW nameplate

SheerWind claimed to have invented a new turbine vortex system in 2013 that looks like a giant funnel and sucks 25MW out of 2mph wind by converting it into 40mph wind; it's not in production.

In June of 2015--that is, two months ago--Japan unveiled a 220 meter (721 feet for us barbarians) wind tower, the highest-output in the world. Its nameplate output is 7MW.


You're either lying, stupid, or both.

Comment Re:1 hard drive. Hire a consultant or go to Walmar (Score 2) 275

B) Carry out a Bulshet-Hokey determination analysis process, with the help of a consultant.

Actually, those decisions were made when they selected their contracts. They now have these endless procurement processes which they should probably shorten.

The concept of no-bid contracts versus endless bidding wars is separate from this bureaucratic procurement process. You've conflated the spot purchase of a hard drive, which doesn't need any sort of contract bid, with a comment made about contract bidding. Your argument is thus ridiculous and unfounded.

Comment Re:In other ways as well (Score 1) 95

places where free or heavily subsidized higher education has been the norm for decades look a lot less like serfdoms than places where it hasn't.

I'm sorry, but could you elaborate? I've been hearing things like, "People out of college can't find jobs," or, "Salaries are being pushed down." What about, "Employers are cutting benefits"?

In a world where 74% of STEM degree owners don't work in STEM fields, and where 50% of engineers aren't employed as engineers (mostly, services (retail, McDonalds), social services (garbage man), and so forth), people still believe being a viable piece of labor means getting a job. They don't understand that jobs demand labor; labor does not demand jobs. Laborers may open their mouth and demand, DEMAND someone give them a job, but nobody is going to create a job just to coddle you.

The visible, actual situation is exactly what everyone complains about: employers plan 2-3 years ahead for who to hire, and allocate budget. Once they've pushed everyone into so much unpaid (salaried!) overtime they can't sustain business operations anymore, they start the hiring process. 50 engineers apply, and they pick through them for the most submissive, least-troublesome, lowest-salaried applicant they can find. If you cause any grief, management fires you and gets another one.

We have lots of puppies; if this one shits on the floor, I'll tie a rock to it and throw it in a river, and then go to the pet shop to get another one that's better trained. They only cost $20.

There are a number of effects of simply eliminating all government college programs.

The first, up front, is that people cannot immediately send themselves to college. This diminishes the skilled labor pool, creating those weird late-90s issues where programmers make $250k and keep getting sniped away from businesses.

This leads to a situation where a business can't accomplish its strategic goals. THE BUSINESS... CANNOT... ACCOMPLISH ITS GOALS. That hurts businesses. They need 10 engineers and find 3; the engineers are expensive; and other businesses hire them away.

To remedy this, those 2-3 year projections become preparatory. Businesses must hire whoever is floating in the market--which isn't fucking much of anyone--and, usually, just hire an entrant to take up slack. It's the old apprenticeship model: you don't know god damn shit, so we have to pass you the kind of time-consuming task that takes forever, but that you'd have to work deliberately to fuck up by the numbers, and meanwhile send you to college on our dime. At least our engineers aren't spending 4 hours of the day carrying sheet metal back and forth; we pay them $120k, get a minimum wage worker to do that shit. The dude we're training to be an engineer may as well make himself useful.

By the time you've got your new engineer into the swing of things, you've invested a lot of time and effort into this employee. Three months gets a big return, six months gets you less than twice as much of a return, one year gets you less than double what investing six months gets, and eventually then the long tail begins to stretch out; by the time you've started getting serious return, which may only be 6-12 months, you've invested too much into this employee to simply dump him. It's doable, sure; but it's a poor value proposition because the employee is now valuable to the company.

What does all this mean, really?

First off, it means you don't go to college unless there's actually a job waiting for you. That eliminates the sheer waste of building an excess specialized labor force.

Second, it means you go to college on someone else's dime. For this, businesses take much less risk than an individual: they have a good idea of what their needs will be in 3-5 years, whereas an individual has to predict market growth and demand and supply (who else is going to college for IT? Where exactly are the jobs?).

Third, your training is actually in line with current demands. You get specialized experience in whatever organization is sponsoring your development, which means immediate real-world experience.

Fourth, the business actually has some value invested in the employee. Okay, so it's cheap: you cost them, what, $40k salary plus $20k of college and training each year, versus that $80k or $120k engineer. You're cheaper until you're a higher-tier, skilled laborer. Still, they had to invest $60k into a guy who carries buckets of bolts and SoundBlaster cards back and forth for like 4 months; they don't want to dump the guy hammering together rough-in frames and assembled servers for a guy who costs $60k and should definitely not be doing any of that just yet, much less trade their fairly-skilled engineers for someone who costs 80% as much but only provides 5% the value. Don't be a dick, or you'll get fired; but they're not going to fire you just because you don't jump fast enough when they pull the marionette strings.

Finally, it restores some order to the world. Today, hard work, dedication, and a willingness to cripple your career by not working in the field and (in loan systems) by taking on immense debt gets you a chance to spin the roulette wheel and pray for a job. The risk is great and the reward is small: your new employer can easily replace you, so you'd better shut up and obey, and consider a Keurig machine a high benefit. Don't *ever* say the word "pension", even to your most trusted allies; and you'd better be a heavily-vocal opponent of trade unions and, worse, guilds, lest you find yourself quietly replaced by a shiny new college degree burdened by another drooling, retarded shit-container that only gets in the way of the knowledge crammed into its head. When employees have value, the business will look for a good place to invest its value, and it will be loathe to lose that investment to frivolity; hard work, dedication, and a good work ethic will become the most important factors in finding an education and moving forward, with actual job availability secondary only because so many people simultaneously fail to understand the importance of such things.

It's all about putting businesses in a position where they're responsible for the construction of a workforce, and subservient in some small way to that workforce. Today, we prefer to put the workforce in a position where it's responsible for taking up the labor of constructing itself by its own sweat and blood, and to where it is a subservient tool of businesses to be picked up in the bargain aisle and cast away if it doesn't fit satisfactory enough in the hand, regardless of how well it actually performs its function.

I suppose you're right, though: barons and earls had to consider the well-being of their serfs, lest they lose their tithes as their serfs became unable to produce; businesses have no such worry, and need not concern themselves with your ability to eat and to keep good health. Cutting your hours in half so that you do not have the income to afford your home and your food while simultaneously dodging responsibility for your healthcare seemed like a good idea at the time, and was; we can't accomplish quite so much in those skilled laborers to whom we pay salaries, but we can at least make them readily-replaced and thus not eligible to complain about the diminished benefits and salaries we do provide. All of this abuse might actually hurt the business if they were really serfs.

Comment Re:In other ways as well (Score 2, Interesting) 95

Instead, we should teach students how to effectively process information even when it's not in their preferred style.

(Trimmed for grammar.)

This is part of why the modern flurry of political attention to education disturbs me greatly. I champion teaching people to use their brains: the brain is a tool, and any person can learn executive functions, mental mathematics, and mnemonics techniques. Learning these tools and techniques gives any individual strong grounds for academic and real-world performance: there are no super-brain geniuses, but only those of us who have learned techniques, or who have obsessions which drive us to know things others don't and to think in a way others do not think. That means our brains are wired just like Donald Trump's and Larry the Cable Guy's, and we figured out how to flip the right switches.

Instead, everyone is convinced teaching first graders programming will instantly build a master race of critical thinkers with strong problem solving skills and an armored plating of logic.

The other part of my dismay is free and otherwise government-supported independent access to college education is the greatest tool to institute broad serfdom I can think of. It's exactly what I would push for, as a ginormous corporation, to enable me to reduce salaries, strip benefits, abuse my employees, and eliminate any responsibility to build a workforce. We should drop all public efforts to get everyone into college, and focus on K-12.

Comment Re:There are good reasons for gvt bureaucracy, rem (Score 1) 275

There are decision systems you can use to make clean, traceable decisions. Analytical hierarchy is basically a pile of shit; pugh matrices evolve to weighted pugh matrices, which then evolve to attribute-baselined weighted pugh matrices--what Kepner-Tregoe claims as their "decision analysis" process.

Pugh matrices take a baseline alternative and rate each alternative as better, worse, or similar to it. Weighted pugh matrices specify, numerically, how important each attribute is. The KT Decision Analysis system selects, for each attribute, which alternative provides best for that feature, marking it a score of "10" to be multiplied against the weight of importance of the attribute, while marking all other alternatives proportionally less based on how incompletely they stand up to the one which best accomplishes that need.

The last decision analysis system makes for an argument about how important each attribute is, first, thus driving the bureaucratic process to determine requirements in detail. This includes "Go" and "No-Go" requirements, which an alternative must provide in full or else it is not an eligible choice. Once the requirements are set, it's a matter of discussing, technically, which best fulfill each need, and to what degree each competing alternative falls short of that model option.

There are other systems more useful for manipulating the process to favor your political leanings and backroom deals. One I've seen only a few times, pushed by its inventor, claimed to eliminate all complexities of decision making, is to ignore all negative attributes and list the advantages of each alternative. The alternative with the greatest number of bullet points is the best, because it has so many good things going for it. This decision system ignores your requirements and lets you gloss over the applicability of a selection by talking up all of its irrelevant good points, which for example may allow you to select a guitar over a piano when deciding what kind of keyboard instrument (piano, organ, synthesizer) to buy. I reject its usefulness entirely--unsurprisingly, the only person who really takes it seriously is the guy trying to make money from $4000 conferences teaching people how to make decisions.

Regardless, it is possible to structure a productive, efficient, bureaucratic process which naturally drives good decision making and creates a paper trail through which to analyze a decision and understand, in hindsight, why it was made in the first place, even identifying what information was considered, why it was considered, and how other critical information was missed.

I agree with you that no-bid contracts have their own issues, and we could not safely go to more no-bid contracts without something like these decision making processes; however, I do not believe minor purchases should fall under contract work, and so such things, where you are able and not contracted to not purchase replacements from another vendor, should not be restricted to the short list of suppliers you happen to have contracts with, all of which are in competition with each other anyway. At the very least, if you have two contracted suppliers who can both provide the same goods, there is no reason your contracts should restrict you from just grabbing shit from Newegg.

Taken to an extreme, avoiding vendor lock-in--commanding vendors to supply systems which interoperate with the applicable, *existing* standards as any off-the-shelf systems do--is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if the vendors are looking to razor-and-blade a contract with below-cost major components and high-margin maintenance parts; let them sell you an enormous SAN system at an actual profit, and then freely move between vendors for hard drives and RAM modules. It will save money.

They are called computers simply because computation is the only significant job that has so far been given to them.