Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:No global deletion (Score 1) 76

Remind me again who is having their free speech silenced by this

Google. And in practice, the people who rely on it to have their content be found (i.e. everyone else).

3. Why does Google have free speech rights that normal companies don't, e.g. credit references can't report things that happened long ago by law, and can't claim free speech allows them to.

Maybe those companies should? The solution to "some idiots excessively weight events that happened 20 years ago" is not censorship of facts, it's to educate people that other people change and that needs to be taken into account.

Comment Re:Cool! (Score 1) 216

They have been trying to detect GW's for roughly half a century, making instruments gradually ever sensitive when nothing found. Was their magnitude so uncertain that they had no idea how sensitive the detector had to be to detect them?

If it's nearly a guaranteed result, as you implied, then why the huge uncertainty over the sensitivity needed? Or did the early trials merely hope the models were wrong when trying to detect results beyond what the tech of the day could handle relative to the (faint) magnitude the models suggested?

For example, why build a detector that is only sensitive to waves of 100 units or larger if the models say the actual waves should only be 2 units of size? You wouldn't build the 100 unit-size detector unless you had a decent reason to believe the models could be wrong. But I've never seen that assumption stated in the write-ups over the years they've been building all these detectors.

Comment Re:buh? there's non-Human scientists? (Score 1) 216

yet another proof of the global alien conspiracy.

The Trumpenians have invaded! They suck all our sour lemons dry, make our casinos cheesy, spread a virus that shrinks our babies' heads to lollipop size, steal Tony the Tiger's catch-phrases, and wear orange Tribbles on their heads.

Comment Re:Predictions, so far, have been accurate (Score 1) 550

"The problem I have with critiques of climate models like yours is they are non-sequiturs and born from ignorance, they don't make any sense because they are sourced from MSM articles that (for political reasons) aim to convince you that modeling physical phenomena is some kind of scam that scientists are using to make money."

Woah, that is a number of rather fantastic leaps.

First you claim my argument is a non-sequitur. My argument is that the model is not accurate enough to qualify as hard science. My premises are that the sample size of 50 years is not a statistically significant sample of billions of years of behavior. That premise does indeed seem to relate to my conclusion in that demonstrates the evidence supporting the model is not statistically significant. My next premise is that the model proved to be accurate to only a single decimal place meaning there was a 10% chance of having reached an equally correct answer by purely random number generation or guessing. That premise also supports my conclusion. My final premise was that the answer the model predicted, 7, is also statistically the answer most likely to be guessed by random laymen meaning an actual human being making a guess had a far greater than 10% chance of giving a result as accurate as this model. Now, you may attack my premises but the argument present is valid and of correct structure therefore not a non-sequitur.

"Hindcasting is the standard method to test any FEA model, doesn't matter if you are modeling the casting of an engine block or the earth's climate."

Indeed, and in the case of climate what you lack is a sound statistically significant sample of reliable historical data. Your examples of other areas of science where massive variance is still considered an accurate result share this common problem they all lack a statistically significant set of reliable data upon which to base their models. Just because it's the best you can do with what you have to work with and can be better than nothing or even useful for some purposes doesn't mean you start pretending the results of those models or any model in those fields shouldn't be taken with greater skepticism than more exact sciences. Some fields are vast enough that there are both flavors of science within them with certain types of models providing very exact results and other models being best effort so far but you shouldn't exactly go killing your child to prevent a more horrible consequence predicted by one.

Your own argument is a non-sequitor. I have no idea what "MSM articles" refers to. I have not stated any sort of political agenda in this thread although in others I've stated that rather than trying to convince everyone to behave differently climate models indicate it is too late for this to resolve the issue whether humans are the cause or not. So elsewhere I have suggested this should be treated as an engineering problem and we need not only combat the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions (which are natural) for the biggest bang for the buck but we must engineer mass scale sequestering technologies which likely means GMOs. Introducing methane processing GMO gut bacteria in livestock also seems like a reasonable action to me. Why do I suggest taking these actions when I think our climate models lack a high degree of certainty? Because they still remain the best guess we have and the risks of heeding it are low while the consequences of failing to do and it proving to be any level of correct are devastating.

"If you want to critique the models then write a paper explaining why you need "eight nines" to convincingly demonstrate to others that the north pole is melting."

Why would I do that? That is a strawman, I'm arguing you need greater precision to demonstrate the validity of your model before it can be trusted with a reasonable degree of certainty. Climate models aren't needed to show the poles are melting or that the earth is getting warmer.

Demonstrating that the Earth's climate is changing and the poles are melting are demonstrable with measurements taken that are built on classic physics models that have met 8 digits of precision predictions thousands of times over again. These are simple facts. They hardly prove that any climate model is an exact science, the failure of the model to predict the result of those measurements with an equal level of precision merely demonstrates it is less sound than the models used to build the instruments which are used to test it. Even the more classic physical models used to build such instrumentation, they are well proven to behave as expect on or near Earth today but lack the proof over time to show the same results and physical constants behind them were valid a billion years ago or will be valid a billion years from now.

Comment Re:Wasn't the C64 just a BASIC interpreter anyways (Score 1) 117

Asking about 80's computers and knowing about 80's computers are two different things. I've read the original post 4 times. There is nothing objectively wrong with my reply. I will agree there are perhaps valid alternative interpretations, but that's no reason to complain about my interpretation in such a rude way. If someone by chance interprets it different, they can give a re-phrasing of it based on how they interpret it. No reason to rudely accuse the other person of reading it wrong.

Comment Professional or not? (Score 3, Insightful) 136

A truly professional "IT Pro" will learn to forget the things he has seen about his/her colleagues.
We've all had to do things like: check mail spools, check user directories, enable debug-level logging on various systems, etc. and seen embarrassing or personal things. The question is: are you a professional who learns to forget it and stick to the relevant data or are you a shithead who spreads rumours and makes us all look like privacy-invading assholes?

Comment Re:Subpoenas and the right against self-incriminat (Score 1) 166

It sounds to me like the problem is a flaw in the constitution or the way it's being interpreted, to be honest. The prohibition against incriminating yourself is very obviously there to stop people being tortured until they falsely claim they are guilty. But giving up a password is not a proclamation of guilt or innocence either way. All it can possibly do is yield more evidence, hopefully leading to a more accurate outcome of the case.

I mean, under the same logic, search warrants should be illegal because by letting someone into your house you'd be "self-incriminating". Doesn't work that way.

I think the simplest fix to this problem the FBI has is for courts to stop treating "you must tell us the password" as falling under the self-incrimination clauses. It doesn't make logical sense, would yield a reasonable balance of power (FBI/other agencies cannot do bulk data harvesting from phones, which is the real danger here), puts protection of the device or not under the control of the court, etc. This is the compromise other countries have arrived at and it seems to work OK most of the time.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Card readers? We don't need no stinking card readers." -- Peter da Silva (at the National Academy of Sciencies, 1965, in a particularly vivid fantasy)