Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Thursday (Score 1) 99 99

Math and methodology only works if you know how and where to apply it. Not being an expert in any of the fields you are discussing, you wouldn't know.

That's hilarious. Data is data.

It doesn't matter where you apply your math or methodoloy, if you're doing them in an obviously incorrect way. A point which you keep seeming to miss. Scientists are not gods, they deal in the real world with real data just like so many others do.

Oh, the irony of you making that statement.

You don't seem to know what irony means either, Mr. Coward. Do you think I am not (or never have been) a scientist? On what do you base that assumption?

Comment Re:Thursday (Score 1) 99 99

Creationists only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of biologists. Anti-vaxxers only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of medical scientists. Moon landing crackpots only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of NASA scientists. 9/11 Truthers only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of materials scientists. Obama Birthers only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of forensic scientists, etc.

The Dunning-Kruger table has been rather turned. Have fun.

Since it has been clearly explained to you many times that I am not any of those things, no they're not.

The only logical way to put those statements together is that you claim I am those things. It's not just an implication, or your final sentence would make no sense.

But making potentially damaging false claims about people in public, when you know (or reasonably should) that they are not true, is called libel. You know that, too.

So no, the tables aren't turned. They're right where they were before you made that ridiculous libelous comment. If anything, you have locked the tables firmly in place. That was a real dumbass thing to do.

I have to wonder why you keep doing it.

Comment Re:Improving data [Re:The Gods] (Score 1) 384 384

As I stated earlier: you can save all your misdirection. All it takes is simple logic to clearly show that Karl et al. results are an outlier.

I didn't exactly make this up, either. Lots of others have been saying it. In fact, even many of the big news sources haven't dared to touch Karl with a 10-foot pole. It's just that -- ahem -- "credible".

Serious (and valid) critiques of it started to appear even before it was officially published. And several papers have come out since which disagree.

I'm not going to go look them all up. But if you want a good idea of just how *desperate* this paper appears to be, have a look here.

No, I do not claim Watts is any kind of "final authority". It's just one example among many. If you haven't found at least 10 takedowns of the "science" in Karl et al., you haven't been looking. (Or paying attention.)

Your other rantings about past things you disagree with are of no interest to me. I stated it clearly enough in that last quote of me you supplied above. You're still doing the same old shit. Calling it something else wouldn't make it any more "charming". Actually, it would be lying.

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 1) 515 515

Thanks for taking a Snowden discussion off onto your tangent of "Hillary sucks!" Real helpful. Did you vote for George W, too?

I didn't bring politics into it. I was only talking about certain politicians. And I clearly stated Hillary wasn't the only one; I only used her as an example because she's an easy example.

So... usually I would tell you to take your questions about my votes elsewhere, but I don't mind saying: no, I did not vote for George Bush.

Now take your butthurt party politics and go away.

Comment Re:NTSB fines? penalties? (Score 2) 63 63

In this case, most of the blame appears to fall on the FAA.

I would expect that it's classified as some sort of "Experimental" vehicle at this point, for which the usual rules do not apply. So I doubt the FAA has much to do with it either.

Even so: given the known design of the craft, how could he possibly NOT know that unlocking the tail section prematurely was dangerous? I mean, seriously. "Oh, sure, let's just let it flap in the breeze at a few thousand miles per hour. No big deal."


Comment Re: Swift (Score 1) 286 286

I have a strong aversion to XOR hacks (and bithacks in general) because of the freaking crazy precedence the operator has in C/C++. Fine for well-reviewed library code, but I cringe when I see it used offhandedly for terseness.

// If foo is green, handle the green case
if (foo & COLOR_BITS == GREEN) { ... }

Eesh - that can be a frustrating bug at 3AM when you don't see the problem reading through the code, and it's working fine for some cases.

Of course, if you're only using ^ on Boolean values, then fine, I'm with you. I've never seen anyone do

if (GREEN == foo ^ RED == bar) { ... }

like that without parens, but at least it would do the expected thing.

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 2) 515 515

If you don't think the U.S. is suffering mightily from BOTH, you aren't paying attention.

Just as an example (because she's the easiest, I'm not claiming she's the worst) is Hillary Clinton. She has NO real accomplishments to her name, and scandal has followed her everywhere she went. (I rather think a more descriptive phrase would be to say she "led" scandal wherever she went.)

Back during the investigation of Richard Nixon, one of her supervisors accused her of being too dishonest of an attorney to participate. (YES, a staunch Democrat said that.) He said she "... conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House ... and the rules of confidentiality." She ALSO made important documents "disappear" during that period. Surprise, surprise.

Yep. Even back then. Nothing seems to have changed. If you think that's just "incompetence", I suggest you start re-thinking before elections come around.

Comment Re:A simple proposition. (Score 1) 260 260

Headache inducing? Let's not forget people who are subject to epileptic seizures. I remember some of those pages that stabbed into my brain painfully. If I were an epileptic, I'm sure that some of them would have triggered a seizure. Think of MySpace as a prime example of the crap I'm talking about.

Comment Re:A simple proposition. (Score 1) 260 260

One thing about advertising - all of my efforts to block advertising still allow some ads to come through. I do see an occassional advertisement.

Every single advertisement that I DO SEE is hosted on the server which is serving up the content that I am looking at. If you are hosting your own blog, on your own hardware, and you serve up an advertisement with each page, I WILL SEE that advertisement. I may or may not LOOK AT the ad, but it will load, and I will see it, at least peripherally.

Comment Re:A simple proposition. (Score 1) 260 260

"But, it is an accepted social structure"

Accepted by whom?

I'm not even going to attempt to guess what percentage of us refuse to accept it. But, there are those of us who simply DO NOT accept that we must watch meaningless advertisements before we can get to the page contents.

If the advertisers COULD successfully target my interests, I might actually look at an ad now and then - before I did a search for that product, to compare it to other similar products. Then, when I've compared them, I often go to Ebay to see if the item is available at some huge markdown. I'm in the market for a megger, for instance. I don't SEE advertisements for meggers, despite the fact that I've already done a number of searches. Let's SUPPOSE that an advertiser were shrewd enough to catch on to my megger searches. He starts serving up megger advertisements, starting with Fluke. The prices in the ads start at over $1000, because the vendors who pay for advertising need to recoup their advertising costs. More reasonable prices are available directly from Fluke and Fluke approved vendors around $500 to $600. But, suppose that I don't NEED new and/or calibrated equipment - I just need a semi-reliable meter. I can go to those vendors who aren't advertising, and sell the same equipment at less than $500. If I'm willing to settle for a used piece of equipment, I can find my fluke megger multi-meter for AS LITTLE AS $200.

Keep in mind that I've researched and purchased a number of meters over the past few years. Not one time have I ever seen an advertisement for electric/electronic testing equipment anywhere other than Ebay, and a very select number of industrial sales sites.

In short - the advertisers are utter failures. Despite all their attempts at "targeted advertising", they have completely FAILED to identify my interests and needs. Utter failures.

Now - why should I tolerate their in-your-face advertising bullshit, when they so completely fail to offer things that I actually need?

Notice that I'm not even really bitching here that the items advertised are to high. That's just a peripheral consideration to the fact that they've not merely missed the target. The damned fools aren't even hitting the range! They are standing at the east end of the range, the targets are on the west end, but their bullets are flying out north, east, south, and west.

We should reward such gross incompetence? Why?

And, no, meg testers are not the only items I've needed, and searched for. Try it yourself - do a search for industrial grade fuse pullers. There are a small number of different brands on the market, with Ideal being the standard. Do several searches over a few days, and sit back to see how many advertisements you get. I have Ideal fuse pullers in three different sizes in my toolboxes. A couple years ago, I purchased a lot-sale off of Ebay, and got 18 of the smallest for a couple dollars each. I gave them to my work-mates for Christmas. Despite the fact that I have an established history of searching for, and purchasing these things, I've NEVER SEEN AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR THEM!

Sample ebay sale, currently priced around ten bucks:

Comment Re:There we go again (Score 1) 260 260

And - how does that differ from life in the US? Most people . . . niche talents . . . few doing nothing but leading. Especially now that young adults find it necessary to work two or more part time jobs to support themselves, most people do spend most of their time working their niche talents.

A large number of installed systems work by fiat. That is, they work by being declared to work. -- Anatol Holt