Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Philosophy of Science (Score 1) 363

by Tablizer (#47966489) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

the religious would see creationism as validated no matter how much evidence you put in front of them

Those who are stubborn, mentally protect their ego against being wrong at all costs, or have an agenda (like offertory funds) indeed won't budge. But some are generally more curious than they are egotistical and not afraid to consider alternative viewpoints.

In other words, just become some students are stupid doesn't mean all are.

By the way, a creator is a valid scientific argument to consider. Monsanto is a creator of sorts, and we may be in a giant simulation managed by a being (sysadmin), which is not outside of physical possibilities and thus not inherently "supernatural" in the traditional sense.

But the hard part is how to test for intelligence. If somebody says that a being put red crusty stuff on their metal mailbox instead of it being natural rust, how does one go about testing for both possibilities? Why doesn't the plastic mailbox have the red stuff? Does Occum's Razor always favor natural processes? Get the wheels turning in students' heads.

Comment: Models (Score 1) 363

by Tablizer (#47966329) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

The most compact description of science I've seen is "the process of finding the simplest model(s) that explains observations".

The model is typically math or algorithms, but is not necessarily limited to those (although life is usually easier if you do.)

The model may not necessarily reflect underlying reality, but until we have more data we cannot tell if it does or not. For example, epicycles and regression can produce "matching" models to an extent of certain physical phenomena, but further observations often end up showing they are limited, such as with 3-body orbits. (Epicycles and regression can offer prediction ability under a fixed set of circumstances, at least, which can still make a useful tool.)

If the global warming deniers can produce a model that is accurate (explains the past and continues to predict the future) that is of equal or lessor complexity than the human-caused global warming models, then they may have a leg to stand on. So far, they just criticize existing models without proposing a complete alternative.

We don't have to argue over who is the most biased or bribed; let the models do the speaking.

As far as the general public understanding the models, well, that's a trickier one. Complexity is complexity.

Comment: Re:The article is more extreme than the summary (Score 1) 363

by drinkypoo (#47965249) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

You are definitely part of the problem.

Here's a nothing, kid. Buy a dictionary. "conformity with fact or reality; verity", "actuality or actual existence", "accuracy, as of position or adjustment" ... Science is the pursuit of truth. What it is not is a declaration that a matter is forever settled. Everything is open to question. Some of the debates are considered settled for all practical purposes, and don't really need to be revisited unless other base assumptions are challenged by new findings, but that still doesn't mean that science is not a pursuit of truth. That everything is open to question is you know that it is. If the goal were to feel good, then we could declare all current matters closed.

Comment: Re:Mark Zuckerberg is a liar. (Score 1) 222

by Tablizer (#47961915) Attached to: Mark Zuckerberg Throws Pal Joe Green Under the Tech Immigration Bus

that won't get you hired on a high-paying job right away. You have to start as a junior, and suck it up when they offer you low pay initially.

That's not how most companies work. If they want to fill position X they want a perfect fit for X, or as close as possible. They don't want juniors nor PhD's, but the exact qualifications with nothing more or less. (If you have excess qualifications, that's seen as a risk of leaving.)

Comment: Re:Mark Zuckerberg is a liar. (Score 1) 222

by Tablizer (#47961901) Attached to: Mark Zuckerberg Throws Pal Joe Green Under the Tech Immigration Bus

If you owned the company, wouldn't you want the same?

Sure, but they hide their real M.O. from Congress and voters. There is no general shortage, but a shortage of those who instantly fit the profile our company wants. But I don't tell Congress that because then I wouldn't get want I want.

All you need to do is put "expert in " and you will get past the HR screen in 90% of the companies.

You mean lie? In both cases you seem to be endorsing lying.

Perhaps to you that's just the way to play the game in the real world, but it backs my original premise that the H1B program is based on a lie. You just don't seem to think that's a "bad thing", or accept it as the ugly-but-necessary reality of politics and capitalism.

Comment: Re:Corporations are belong to people = have rights (Score 1) 88

by drinkypoo (#47960971) Attached to: Is Google's Non-Tax Based Public School Funding Cause For Celebration?

Specifically if I invest money in a corporation with certain rights, I have the right to expect to see those rights not tampered with.

Nonsense. Laws are changed all the time. There's no constitutional guarantee to any of those rights, and many of them are based on deliberate misinterpretation of existing laws in any case.

Comment: Re:Mark Zuckerberg is a liar. (Score 5, Insightful) 222

by Tablizer (#47960551) Attached to: Mark Zuckerberg Throws Pal Joe Green Under the Tech Immigration Bus

There are some problems you ignored. First is that the industry claims there is a "shortage" to justify high quantities of H1B's. There is no evidence of a general shortage, only spot shortages, which are necessary for those with glut skills to be accepted into new-trend skills.

Second, is that during IT recessions they don't shut off the H1B spigot: visa workers keep coming. IT has been booming and busting since at least the 80's and I see no reason this pattern will change.

And I have seen H1B workers being abused. Your example is only a spot sample.

In general, the industry wants "instant employees" rather than spend time and money on training. This means that if a US techie loses their job in a glut area, they cannot get retraining for the new area because the company will hire an H1B worker that already has experience. The citizen can read books etc., but companies prefer existing paid experience.

Companies just want what they want when they want it and don't want to pay anything inconvenient for these goals.

Regardless of whether there are some H1B abuse myths floating around, the whole premise is based on a lie.

Comment: Re:kill -1 (Score 2) 417

by squiggleslash (#47960039) Attached to: Fork of Systemd Leads To Lightweight Uselessd

Must admit that's news to me. Kinda fed up of the subtle changes to shell commands we've seen over the last few years especially as this one conflicts with the kill -{SIGNAL} syntax we're used to.

Either way, this sounds like a non-issue. (1) if we're routinely trying to determine how to kill EVERY CORE PROCESS ON THE SYSTEM then we have bigger fish to fry than whether init/systemd is capable of working with that.

(2) It sound scriptable to me, assuming systemd itself isn't capable of doing it. /proc should give you all the information you need.

I worry that this is the kind of concern holding back adoption of systemd. Good reasons I understand. Bad ones, that seek to blame systemd for major system problems that exist under init too, are bad.

"The Amiga is the only personal computer where you can run a multitasking operating system and get realtime performance, out of the box." -- Peter da Silva