Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Scottish independence (Score 1) 238

The country called Ireland is independent. You are referring to Northern Ireland, which is a contituent part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

But the country Ireland is not entirely independent, it's a constituent part of the island Ireland, which is composed of two countries, Ireland (the country), and Northern Ireland (part of the United Kingdom), the former being a country and not an island, though it's located on an island by the same name. Furthermore, Ireland (the country), while independent of the UK (which includes Northern Ireland (the country), is a constituent part of the EU, which will very soon not include the UK, nor the entirety of Ireland (the island).

I feel like a character in a Monty Python movie....

Comment Re:Scottish independence (Score 1) 238

Would it still be "Great" Britain if it was just England and Wales?

Your question makes zero sense actually.

"Great Britain" is not a country. It's an island. It has 3 countries on it, England, Wales, and Scotland. It will always be "Great Britain", regardless of any political divisions, unless 1) it sinks into the ocean, 2) some wacky geological process causes it to merge with continental Europe (not likely, the English Channel is actually rather shallow and used to be dry land not that long ago), or 3) people for some reason simply stop calling it "Great Britain" and call it by some other name.

The name of the country you're thinking of is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Really a rather ridiculous name IMO. It's usually shortened to "United Kingdom". If Scotland leaves, I don't really see why they'd be forced to change the name; it doesn't specify that the UK occupies the entirety of GB, just that it's largely located there, which won't change with Scexit. However, if Northern Ireland also decides to leave this sinking ship, then they really will be forced to change the long-form version of their name. But it'll still be called "UK" for short, even though the union only composes two countries (England and Wales), plus some other territories (Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Gibraltar, etc.).

What'd be really interesting is if Wales also decided to secede. It's unlikely of course, since the graphs I saw showed very strong support for Brexit in Wales, but suppose they all changed their minds and managed to secede. Then there really wouldn't be anything that could properly called "The United Kingdom", since a union of one political entity really doesn't make sense. I suppose they could hang onto it out of nostalgia, or try to argue that the various Shires are united, or that the presence of territories like Isle of Man still make it a "union", but it's pretty weak, but they can call themselves whatever they like. But at that point it'd make more logical sense to just call themselves "England".

Comment Re:Lack of privacy (Score 1) 57

Comcast can't insert ads into email you read on a webmail platform like GMail, thanks to it being https protected. Of course, the webmail provider (like Google) could insert their own ads, but at least there you have a choice of provider and can change if you want. You can even set up your own webmail system with squirrelmail on your own server.

Comment Re:Most of the alternatives he describes... (Score 1) 57

The problem is getting everyone (or even a critical mass) to adopt it. Email was created back in a time when academia was running the internet, and wasn't interested in marketshare, profits, vendor lock-in, etc. It became universally adopted, and then when the internet became commercialized email was a necessity so the corporations had to adopt it or else be irrelevant. Now it's not like that. The corps won't adopt any kind of open, universal standard on anything (look at the mess that exists with IM protocols: open ones are shut down in favor of closed, proprietary ones). Google could create an open standard for email 2.0, and Microsoft and Yahoo will refuse to adopt it, for instance, and without support in MS Exchange/Outlook/OWA, it won't go far. MS could make email 2.0, but of course their version is going to be vendor-locked somehow and require license fees from others to implement.

Comment Re:What precentage caused by man? (Score 1) 345

Why? Mainly because it most clearly demonstrates the issue.

It's not clear to me, especially in light of the faux pas about CRU, just what issue that is. My intervention, as you will see if you refer to my original post, as well as pointing out that you had the wrong Man(n) (you had Jones) and taking issue with the hyperbolic attack on the statistical failings, such as they were, of the good Professor: was that the original hockey stick paper has long been superseded.

In any case, it is my (limited) understanding of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998, is that it is generally accepted both that better statistical methodology could have been applied; and that the methodology actually used contained identifiable mistakes (however minor they may have been). I believe Dr Mann himself concedes as much. "Really really bad," however, probably tends towards hyperbole.

If he knew what he was doing, then he was actively trying to deceive people, which is far worse.

That's a reading the "hide the decline" [of correlation between tree-ring and other proxy data relating to the sub-set of Russian trees after mid C20th, was that it?] comment might naturally lead someone to form. But really isn't it just the that the blow-tourch of criticism on this particular subject matter renders good-enough methodology not nearly good enough? Scepticism, where it is informed, is a great boon to science.

Comment Re:What precentage caused by man? (Score 1) 345

It's hard to not be an ass towards someone who is willfully ignorant.

Tell me about it!

The only saving grace you can grant Mann here ...

Are you still talking about that 20 year old paper or the present one? And if the 1998 paper, then why? Have I defended that paper in this thread? Beyond foregrounding the fact that the work which has superseded it has "more or less" confirmed the original findings? I merely noted that calling Dr Mann "really really bad at statistics" was "perhaps" to overstate matters. (No really, look back at what I've written).

(Off topic, I did hint at the fact that I don't accept the view science can simply ignore data sources which are subject to difficulties of interpretation, which seems a form of the nirvana fallacy). But it being not strictly germane, and this being an old discussion, I'll decline any invitation to go down that line of argument here. Which nicely segues ...

The only time, I trust, that I am ever willfully ignorant, is in my refusal to "hear" statements clearly irrelevant to the point under discussion ... a perverse outcome of my legal training, you will understand.

The intention of my anecdote, OTOH, was to ask that you try to be sensitive to the fact that those of us already suffering the putative effects on weather of changes to our climate are likely to find an overzealous adherence to the heterodoxy on this topic to be ... hmm ... unusually my vocabulary fails me.

Comment Re:What precentage caused by man? (Score 1) 345

In other words, they weren't able to establish that their measurements were proxies for temperatures.

Don't be disingenuous. They were not able to make, as you quoted, any "statistically robust" reading based on the both the parcity of data and the fact that the C20th is too shorter a period to make any meaningful statement under their methodology. You know this because, once again, it lies adjacent to the cherry-picked verbiage you misquoted:

Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used.


What is sad, is someone is so wedded to untruth that they find it necessary to hide the substantive portion of a quote they muster.

Comment Re:What precentage caused by man? (Score 1) 345

"...and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record."

Comment Re:What precentage caused by man? (Score 1) 345

[Y]ou don't realize weather is not climate.

Don't be an ass mate. The unprecedented weather events we are witnessing with improbably regularity are likely the outcome to changes in climate.

Using tree rings to reconstruct historical temperature was demonstrably a mistake at the time, because they don't match thermometers. Mann knew that at the time

That does not go to the assertion that he was "really really bad at statistics." Which is not to say I accept that statement (from memory, and I'm not minded to go to the effort and check, the problem was with a particular sub-sample of tree-ring data).

Comment Re:It's just smart business. (Score 2) 365

So please don't make up lies trying to paint us as vapid thralls for the Democratic Party.

The problem is that many liberals really are vapid thralls for the Democratic Party. The reality is that there's two sides to the party and its voters: the progressive side, and the establishment side. Hillary and her legion of supporters are in the latter, Bernie and his enthusiastic supporters were in the former. The former is arguably larger (and certainly more vocal), but the latter is where all the big money is, which is the real problem with the Democratic Party: the party insiders chase the big corporate donations and Wall Street for campaign funding, and so the progressives get alienated and the lower-class people don't feel the Dems represent them.

On the Republican side, the politicians chase corporate money, spew a bunch of trickle-down economics BS, and throw in some stupid Christian crap (abortion is bad, gays are evil, Jesus love rich people and AR15s, etc.) and their voters eat it up and happily vote for them.

Comment Re:Where's the news? (Score 1) 250

Are you unable to read? He never said anything about "serious golfers", he said "most golfers", which obviously means casual players.

Serious enthusiasts in any amateur activity always buy higher-end equipment. They even have a name for it: "prosumer". They're not the majority of customers.

Comment Re:1PB meh (Score 1) 150

> So I would leave the write master in the backend and all the POS would have the inventory pretty much in real time on their local read node.

That's pretty much it. So the front end is instant response for the user. Events are timestamped. The back end recombines the data in order when they are attached (normally they are attached all the time) and the inventories are kept in sync. The wrinkle is that the front end stores running state to local disk as pickled data so it can run solo (detached from the back end) across power cycles. Works great for trade shows - you can run it on a laptop.

I can bring down the back end, upgrade the the OS, have a coffee, watch some Netflix and bring it back up again an no one notices.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan