Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Folding@Home (Score 1) 23

Wrong. It was funded by the customers of big bad Pharma.

Customers didn't choose to fund the research, hence, it's not their baby. And are we going to credit the banks too? They fondled that funding a little bit, sometimes between customer and pharma company. Maybe some drug dealers of the illegal sort? Fast food restaurants? ATM machines?

There's a saying that I think applies here. Money has no provenance. It doesn't matter where the money came from. The people who decided to fund the research are the ones who should be credited for funding the research.

Comment Re:Not a Sex Offender's Register (Score 1) 218

So if I murder someone and have not yet been proven guilty then I should be allowed to roam the street freely? The sentiment is nice but I don't think it works well in the real world.

It works better in the real world than punishing people on flimsy excuses.

Comment Re:Anarchy in Science (Score 1) 223

Well, except their predictions are empirically tested against new observations constantly.

They need a lot more new observations. Currently, it's one year of new data every year.

You may even find that actual, practising climatologists understand the limitations of their own models far better than you do.

Or I night not find so. There is a remarkable and unwarranted public confidence in climate models. Some of that overconfidence may come from the researchers themselves, in which case I do understand the limitations of their models better than they do.

Comment Re:Watermelons! (Score 1) 223 some alternate universe where Soviet bureaucrats had an enormous and direct incentive to cut corners, the way capitalists do. There isn't only one way to cut corners. The near destruction of the Aral Sea didn't happen because someone wanted to make a quick buck.

Or maybe note your American Exceptionalist ass uses 30 times the resources of some poor shlub in a developing country.

So what? Even if that were true, there's plenty of resources to go around even at seven billion people.

Or that the United States produces a quarter of the world's pollution while having 4% of the worlds population

Even if that were true, (and it's not because you are counting mass of CO2 as equivalent to mass of mercury,particulate soot, etc, which is ridiculously dishonest), that's still only a factor of six which isn't that bad.

and that's not including all the coal plants in China producing cheap crap in offshored factories for sale in Wal-Mart.

Which is a smart consideration since that is Chinese pollution not US pollution!

Oh noes! All those jobs lost in the manufacture of asbestos, lead paint, and DDT! Will no one think of the poor beleaguered capitalist cock!

Again, my point is not to completely eliminate regulation but to make it so that it isn't a society-destroying burden. And let's face it, if your false dichotomy were actually true that the US would have to forgo regulation altogether or continue with the current suicidal regime, then the US would be face with increasing pollution at some point. The real variation would be whether they were a vassal of China at the time.

Comment Re:Anarchy in Science (Score 1) 223

This is not a useful assertion, as you could say that about everything outside of pure mathematics.

That statement is logically incorrect. For if you were correct, then the above statement being outside of pure mathematics would be incorrect by its own assertion.

Plus the previous poster already granted the basic idea by saying:

This doesn't mean Newton's model isn't useful as long as you are aware of the assumptions and their limitations.

They already state why incorrectness matters - when you try to apply the model beyond the regime where it works.

Most people are well aware that there no absolutes in reality (certainly most scientists), so declaring commonly-used models to be "incorrect" or "disproven" does not advance the discussion - rather, it seems to more often be used in attempts to undermine the scientific case against the declarator's beliefs.

That doesn't mean the effort is invalid. To the contrary, it is more often a valid, scientific reason for rejecting the model in question. For example, a universal problem with climate modeling is the lack of empirical testing of these models. That in turn is a valid reason to reject using those models for extraordinary costly endeavors.

Comment Re: Alert! (Score 1) 223

Scientific results exists even if you personally cannot confirm them. The point is that someone can confirm them, and does.

And the obvious rebuttal is a whole lot of people can confirm their invisible sky gods.

Can you personally confirm that electrons exist?

[...] Can you personally confirm that the Pope exists?

The answer is that yes, he can do that.

Comment Re:Watermelons! (Score 0) 223

If people with private/corporate power didn't act like selfish dicks a lot of the time, maybe we wouldn't need as much government. And maybe we wouldn't be wiping out species and ecosystems at 100 to 1000x background extinction rate, and maybe we wouldn't be warming the climate and acidifying the oceans.

The USSR is a great example of why that "maybe" is a waste of consideration. A powerful government will take the environmental shortcuts too and it'll waive the regulations for itself.

And it's worth noting here that most developed world spending does nothing to help the environment. But it does help to fund cronies and hide government abuse and lack of enforcement of environmental regulation.

Finally, what's wrong with the environmental regulation of the past 40 years? Well, aside from being a job-killing morass that is. If you want to change environmental regulation, do so in a way that helps businesses rather than just encourages the ongoing shift of power to China and elsewhere.

Comment Re:Not a Sex Offender's Register (Score 2) 218

It's tempting to take the position that until something is proved in court the only fair thing is to do nothing about it. I'm not sure that gets the balance right - you risk harm to innocent parties in either case, so there is no good solution.

It's not just tempting, it's the right thing to do. The problem here is what's the threshold of proof to get on a list of "suspicion" registry? If it's not just as firm as actual conviction of a crime, then it's punishment without due process, perhaps libel as well.

A free society has no place for public accusations or suspicions without evidence that can be gamed by anyone with a grudge, particularly the authorities.

Obviously, this is over the top in this case - sadly police have got more process driven, and common sense has gone out of the window a bit.

There's one word to describe this situation - unaccountability. Established procedures can be used to insure that some common task, such as arresting someone, is done right. But they can also be used to evade responsibility. Zero tolerance policies and similarly heavy-handed responses no matter how slight the issue are an example of procedure gone wrong.

Comment Re:Lead the horse to the source (Score 1) 1042

This is just me pointing out a lying bully who is deliberately misleading people.

The obvious rebuttal here is that words have meaning.

Bully: a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to others who are weaker

Blustering means among other things threatening. Since I have yet to be threatening in this thread, a key component of bullying is missing. Similarly, browbeating is coercion to get someone to do something. That's not happening either.

Similarly, "lying" means intentional spreading of a falsehood. You never bothered to say specifically what of what I wrote was a falsehood or why. You apparently do disagree with the observation:

This is an example. We have a bald assertion that the Hugo picks by "the puppies" were chosen on the basis of politics.

Note that no one in this thread has bothered to provide evidence or reason to dispute my observation. It's all empty assertions and noise. One can get very tired of that.

This is no "debate".

True, I won that when you refused to and continue to refuse to back up any statements you made. You've only made my argument stronger emotionally since.

Nobody cares that you think for some bizarre reason that I'm a lying bully. You give out those insults like candy and with about as much thought as breathing. There's no weight or credibility to it. And as I noted earlier, that accusation just strengthens my rhetorical position. Unfair, aggressive attacks do that for the one attacked.

You start off arguing to fail. Stop that. You need to up your game.

Comment Re:Lead the horse to the source (Score 1) 1042

Your shotgun "inexperienced" thing is a textbook case of attempting to bully the kiddies and hilariously having utterly no idea that you are discussing things with someone older than yourself.

Except that it's not. You're just saying shit again.

Above I was just correcting what appeared to be deliberate misdirection and misinformation on your part and you got very insulting about it.

In your usual thoroughly incompetent way. If I really were delivering deliberate misdirection and misinformation, I couldn't buy better support than what you've given me. You need to learn how not to bake failure into your arguments. For example, a weak ad hominem attack like you started with, because of assertions you made which you can't even bother to back with the minimum of evidence, is a classic way to come out swinging and losing.

But in turn, I get easy theater and narrative to show to everyone else. Look? See how I'm getting unfairly persecuted by this ignorant guy for being right?

It doesn't matter now, but some day, you'll be in a situation where you need to persuade someone else to keep something bad from happening or lessen its impact. Maybe a friend or loved one is harming themselves, maybe your company is thinking about doing something really stupid, maybe your society is pushing the self-destruct button. Even if persuasion can't prevent or reverse bad choices, it can still result in a better outcome. But you have to have the skills in the first place for it to work. Slashdot is a place you can learn those skills, should you ever choose to pay attention.

Comment Re:Economics IS a science (Score 1) 152

Look at historical debates such as "does smoking cause cancer" and current debates on climate change .... many sciences are subject to the influence of politics and agendas, and tragically, there are scientists who allow themselves to be so influenced.

Sure, there are many subjects with significant financial or ideological value, but there's more than that where the only things at stake are the egos of the researchers involved.

Comment Re:Economics IS a science (Score 2) 152

Economics is not a science, no matter how many times you and your finance buddies tell yourselves that it is.

But neither are physics, chemistry, etc, sciences because of how many times you and your finance buddies tell yourselves they are. They are all sciences because they are systematic empirical studies of some part of the real world. The difference with economics is that there are far stronger incentives to corrupt observations and models than with most other sciences.

Comment Re:Citibank (Score 1) 248

Glancing at Google, "detailed" means "having many details or facts; showing attention to detail." I don't think the report qualifies since it doesn't actually have that many details.

How else did you manage to find something to pick at with the report?

I knew where to look for the problems. And the number one problem with this sort of study is an artificially low discount rate which exaggerates future costs.

Comment Re:Lead the horse to the source (Score 1) 1042

What an utterly pathetic shotgun attempt at bullying in the hope you hit someone younger.

Bullying doesn't mean disagreement or even insults. Nor do I care if you are physically older or younger than me. What I care about is your completely inadequate and incompetent efforts at debate.

I have to say, my original accusation looks now to be statement of fact than the witty rejoinder I originally planned it to be. If I really were as dishonest and fraudulent as you seem to think I am, I couldn't pay someone to do a better job for me than you are doing right now. Maybe you ought to think about those unintended consequences?

The world is coming to an end--save your buffers!