Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:If it's "settled", it ISN'T "science" (Score 1) 301

The people saying "global warming" are all paid to say "global warming" to get/keep Government funding, so that government can dictate to everyone (except rich n powerful) that we need to give up every technology that makes the world run.

The fact is, ever number has been fudged to get the results they are wanting, to prove what they need to prove, to keep getting funding to support something that has no basis except "consensus"

When every major prediction has failed, the the consensus cannot be right. I remember all those predictions of "worse hurricanes" followed by "almost no hurricanes", and "Polar Ice caps disappearing" only to have "polar Ice caps expanding (which is now the new "proof" of global warming), on down the line.

not to mention the Greening of Africa, when it was supposed to be getting drier and more desert like: http://news.nationalgeographic...

The problem isn't Global warming, it is that EVERYTHING is blamed on it. Ice growing or shrinking .. GLOBAL WARMING, more snow GLOBAL WARMING, more rain and greening in Africa GLOBAL WARMING!

In fact, global warming may in fact be good for the planet, even if it isn't good for Humans. ;)

Comment Re:If it's "settled", it ISN'T "science" (Score 1) 301

Just to be fair, 99.9991% of Slashdot posters are NOT climate scientists. They simple cut and paste talking points from their favorite websites that support their personal view.

There is never a Climate Science "debate" on Slashdot. It's a bunch of amateurs tossing around bits and pieces of what they largely don't understand, calling each other names. Useless.

Comment Re: Cool (Score 1) 145

My objection is that they are assumed "law" but never having been through the Legislature, cannot be "law" ... by definition. So the assumption should be "these aren't laws, more like guidelines".

The problem isn't executive orders, it is that they aren't really laws, but are still treated as laws.

Comment Re:If it's "settled", it ISN'T "science" (Score 1) 301

Gravity, from our understanding of Newton's laws, we now know Newton was wrong (technically) but close enough (approximately correct). We know this because Einstein's models are more accurate (and yet .. still not correct). The problem with science is that it evolves as we gain understanding. AGW has so many different variables in it, that it is bound to be wrong, and we can't even tell how wrong it is.

This is why people use terms like "consensus" instead of "proven", because quite frankly it is still hypothesis and not even a very good one.

Comment Re:If it's "settled", it ISN'T "science" (Score -1, Troll) 301

When the answer to "it is settled" is based on "consensus" and not actual facts, then there is a problem. Once upon a time, Piltdown Man was "consensus" (and considered fact) science. The problem is that Science isn't consensus, it is fact based.

Now, go and look at the Actual facts on AGW propopents, and you'll find all sorts of arbitrary and politically motivated "adjustments" to climate models whenever they break. Like the 15 years of "no global warming" (and counting) and the whole slew of predictions gone wrong. With a track record of failures why should we believe the GW proponents?

IMHO the Science isn't settled, because science isn't consensus.

Submission + - Australia Cuts 110 Climate Scientist Jobs

An anonymous reader writes: With an ax rather than a scalpel, Australia’s federal science agency last week chopped off its climate research arm in a decision that has stunned scientists and left employees dispirited.

Why? Because the science is settled there is no need for more basic research, the government says

No doubt many will experience a case of schadenfreude as they see those who have long claimed the Science is Settled face the inevitable and logical consequence of that stance.

Comment Re:Math is a Chore (Score 3, Insightful) 183

Yes, but there needs to be a context and a purpose to that chore.

When you are learning to read first grade books, the teacher is reading third grade level books to you. You see what's possible. YOU want to read that book. But you can't. So you work harder on the books you can read in order to be able to read the higher level books.

It's like being taught to sculpt marble by MichaelAngelo, but he only lets you see the 6 square inches around the chisel.

Comment Math is a Chore (Score 5, Insightful) 183

The way math is taught, Math is a chore. The way common core teaches it, it's a stupid, idiotic chore.

There is never an example of the wonders of math. No examples of what can be accomplished and how you can actually benefit. It's just a series of numbered problems with the answers to the odd numbers in the back and precious little explanation. Something to finish before class is out and to remember just long enough to pass the next test.

Math is a chore because it's taught like a chore.

Comment Re:Time for unions! (Score 1) 200

None of it is logical. Don't you get that? Do you think it's going to result in better products? Better support? More smooth inner-workings of the company? Better internal communication? No. This is a common example of management by spreadsheet, where the predicted gross profits are the only driving factor in the decision.

The reality is that often the whole paradigm will cost the company more money in the long-term, if only in the lost revenues from customers who refuse to by the garbage their product has become. But it doesn't stop them from driving forward so that the CEO who happened to be at the helm that year can show on that years assets that they reduced labor costs by a factor of X, takes a huge bonus for that year, and when he or she is fired when the rest of the shit hits the fan they still get a nice multi-million dollar parachute on their exit.

Comment Re:can't the state do something about this? (Score 1) 200


The next sentence reads:

Much of the email, including its subject line, were redacted, making it difficult to discern the topic and full context of the document.

Talking points are useless without context. The context could very well have been classified, and wouldnt have specifically been what would be shared with the press. State decided the information was sensitive enough to redact it before release, so it would not have been included in what was shared to the press at the time.

Comment Re:Time for unions! (Score -1, Troll) 200

Why should anyone be required to lean on an union to litigate a pretty obvious violation of H1-B visa? Or to file suit for wrongful termination? Or half a dozen other legal arguments? There are realistically hundreds of thousands of layers in the US slavering over the payouts of a civil rights lawsuit like this. They dont need a union. They just need to suck up start researching their own rights and the legal avenues available to them. They don't need some union siphoning their paycheck and then doing nothing more than trying to increase the paycheck only to ensure higher dues payed them.

Comment Re:can't the state do something about this? (Score 1) 200

How about NPR ( )

One particular email drew scrutiny Friday — a June 17, 2011, exchange between Clinton and adviser Jake Sullivan. In that email string, she tells Sullivan she did not receive the evening's talking points — typically specifics used to speak to the press and for briefings.

"They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it," he writes to Clinton. She responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success. -- Christopher Lascl