Forgot your password?

Comment: What's needed is convenient proxy addresses (Score 1) 256

by presidenteloco (#48209333) Attached to: Michigan Latest State To Ban Direct Tesla Sales

I mean virtual "physical home" addresses that you can rent, along with the suitable internet proxy server to make you appear to be from that state. Combine this with a "we will deliver your purchased goods to your real address for a nominal fee" service, wrap that all up in a bow, and voila: shiny new car !

Comment: Re:Global Warming (Score 3, Interesting) 201

Yeah. You know it's almost as if the Russians didn't get a copy of the memo that says we are only permitted to use about 1/3 of the current known reserves.
You know, the memo that notes that if we don't leave the other 2/3 in the ground, we are COMPLETELY SCREWING OURSELVES and our little dogs too, on the climate front.

You know, sooner or later, our current "leaders" are going to be held liable for this criminally insane path they are steering us down with a greed-twisted grin on their faces. I can only hope it is sooner.

Comment: The article says science = experimental science (Score 5, Insightful) 795

by presidenteloco (#47965829) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Whereas science needs both hypothesis generation and experimental validation/repudiation of hypotheses.

Hypothesis generation sometimes has to go out there, and invent new concepts that have so far only been thought about, not yet tested.

So to summarize, science needs both creative conceptualization (ontology formation) and experimentation (validation or repudiation of the ontology and/or hypothesis).
These need to go on in circular reinforcement. (Spiral development model).

Experimentation without re-conceptualization will eventually run dry, because it will get stuck in a local-maximum paradigm, and people won't know what new things/aspects to test any more.

Remember, relativity was discovered in a thought experiment by Einstein. Is a thought experiment a real experiment in the article author's view? I doubt it.
Einstein, from the outside, was doing "magic". Speculating about the larger truth.
Relativity was an example of theory creating a completely new set of concepts that were way ahead of the ability to carry out experiments that could validate or repudiate them. It was a well-formed theory, in that it clearly suggested new kinds of experiments that could test it, but it was pure non-experimental theorizing nonetheless.

Darwin also, most likely, happened on his key theoretical insight about natural selection (the simple core of it), by thinking about the generalization of many observations, and having a theoretical insight.

Experimentation has its essential place in science, no doubt (keeps the theorists honest and humble), but it is only half of the game. The other half is innovative philosophy, carefully practiced, in the mind.


Comment: Re:Science creates understanding of a real world. (Score 1) 770

by presidenteloco (#47857077) Attached to: How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation

Look, there's nothing stopping anyone from studying the evidence from which the consensus arose.
Them saying there's a consensus so believe it is just their way of saying "I don't have time to explain all the myriad details to you until such time as you indicate sufficient interest and cognitive capability of grokking the general area of scientific inquiry, say, by getting an M.Sc. in it, then we'll talk about/debate the finer points."

Ok, I lied. There's scientific journal paywalls stopping you from studying the evidence in detail, but that's a whole other egregiously unacceptable story.

Comment: Re:Did I miss an upgrade? (Score 1) 81

Just creating links to your image is not copying it.
Deep linking is legal or the entire WWW is illegal. Can't have it both ways.

Just organizing links to your images with my own text surrounding the links is not copying it.
Creating a program to programmatically present a sequence of links to your images over time to a web-browser-image-copying-program is not copying it.

Some else's web browser may indeed copy your image onto their computer, but you were definitely allowing that anyway by publishing the image on the open worldwide web.

Comment: Re:Science creates understanding of a real world. (Score 1) 770

by presidenteloco (#47853653) Attached to: How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation

People are innately wired for a tendency to social agreement, it's true. So all groups of people who share commonalities may tend to come to general consensus on many issues. But scientists, of any group, are likely to diverge from the group consensus if they can prove their case, because they will become leaders of a new consensus group. And their reasons for daring to promote a divergent theory or scientific conclusion, by and large, would be rational and because of strong evidence, because otherwise, they'd be shot down rapidly.
Scientists are more likely than other types of groups to be individually convinced to switch teams if the evidence starts leaning strongly the other way. They are governed by a process (scientific method, use of logic and mathematics, and peer review) which facilitates that.

So the presence of a PERSISTENT near total scientific consensus on an issue does tend to suggest that no strong opposing evidence has made it through the ringer of scientific peer scrutiny.

Comment: Re:Science creates understanding of a real world. (Score 2) 770

by presidenteloco (#47853531) Attached to: How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation

Talk about setting up a straw man to knock it down.

If you prefer, we can do it this way:

1. Set limit on total carbon budget into the atmosphere. Humans can net-emit 1 trillion tonnes and have a 50/50 chance of staying under 2 degrees Celsius global temperature rise . We are a little over half way through the trillion tonnes now, but our pace of emitting is still increasing.

2. Set a function for carbon pricing (carbon tax, taxed at source) so that the price will increase exponentially so as to keep the emissions under the budget.
If you prefer, the revenue from the tax can be redistributed as corporate and personal income tax reductions. Some would advocate devoting a good portion of it to transition funding, split between job transitioning funding and alternative energy and transportation technology R&D acceleration.

3. Under those conditions, let the market take hold and determine the best solutions.

On the first and second points, to which you will object, remember that physics does not negotiate. It's the most extremist of them all. It's not just gravity. It's the law. It's not just differential absorption/reflection/transmission of EM radiation energy by the atmosphere with different chemical composition. It's the law.

Comment: Re:This initiative is futile (Score 1) 51

by presidenteloco (#47789545) Attached to: IEEE Guides Software Architects Toward Secure Design

I'd say security failure is partly due to incentive alignment failure for developers.

Bad security design is a problem that's going to bite, but usually a little later, after version 1 is out the door and everyone's paid.

Not meeting the pretty much arbitrary and insanely optimistic delivery schedule is going to bite developers right now.

Corners will be cut, even if some of the developers know what SHOULD be done.

In general, almost every architectural aspect of software, including security, (well-factoredness, maintainabilty, scalability, extensiblity, low-coupling, you name it) is hidden, except to a few experts who aren't usually those in decision-making roles. That's why so much software delivered is a Potemkin village.

Comment: Re:Fire the Architects (Score 1) 51

by presidenteloco (#47789531) Attached to: IEEE Guides Software Architects Toward Secure Design

I don't know about you, but I'd say that someone who is creating architecture, is, oh, I don't know, an architect.
Who cares about the title. "Chief codemonkey with a clue" will do just fine.
There seems to be some mythology out there about software architects who don't come from coding.
Sort of like MBA managers.
Never seen one of those. If they're not still coding, they don't love the craft enough to be good architects.

To me, it's just someone who can model a complex system in different cross-cutting aspects, can understand big-picture and long-term concerns with the goals and evolution of the software, know and use many appropriate tried and true patterns, and pragmatically marry that with project realities.

Comment: Re:Fire the Architects (Score 3, Insightful) 51

by presidenteloco (#47786705) Attached to: IEEE Guides Software Architects Toward Secure Design

I suspect that most programmers who don't see the need for software architecture work within the confines of already heavily architected frameworks, platforms, and network stacks.

Thus their comments are akin to saying "I don't think we need an architect to help us rearrange the furniture and paint on the walls".

Put no trust in cryptic comments.