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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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 Carrier comparison (Score 2) 208

Many who comment here will have a reason that they chose one carrier over one other carrier. They may have switched carriers. I always found that the latest carrier plan was better than the competition, and that it would go back and forth or be too confusing to come up with one clear answer. I actually have iPhones and aPhones on 5 carriers. I also travel the world quite a bit. Domestically, all the carriers are good for most unless you live in an area not covered by some. I remember times when Verizon was faster but now it seems that AT&T is faster for me, most of the time. I remember when you could buy international data from Verizon that covered 200 countries, while the AT&T list was only about 50 countries. That affected me in places like Russia and South Africa, back then. T-Mobile has incredible data plans for here and away but they don't seem as fast as claimed unless I'm in the store. Sprint has gone far out of their way to help me with issues, including a stolen phone number. Right now I believe that the best carrier I have, for my own needs, is Google Project Fi because the plan works in over 100 countries. You can even order a free data-only SIM for free, without even a shipping charge, to use it on iPads and the like. I would never say that anyone's choice of plan is bad in any way though.

Comment Re:No. (Score 5, Informative) 198

A whole interview rarely carries over. I was asked if I thought Apple would be around in 100 years. My reply even referred to IBM, along the lines of what you can do and how many restarts you can get when you are that big. I facetiously jabbed at the idea of Trump seeking advice from today's huge internet companies by telling the reporter that they would all ask for lower taxes and become larger yet.

Comment Re:I don't care about the average (Score 1) 516

Do you believe that public K-12 school is "coddling, hand-holding, everyone wins shit"? Conservatives always talk about the trickle down, how a rising tide lifts all boats, etc. This is always in terms of economic output, but why don't we apply it to education? Education at any level should be an entitlement. We have such a vast untapped resource in this world of deprived minds. "But who will dig ditches, clean the streets and serve us our McDonalds?" you might ask - this question is already being answered ominously by the rise of automation.

Comment Re:Echo-chamber fake news (Score 1) 408

Ah, the "seriously, not literally" defense. In despair I tried to rationalize Trump using this argument as presented pretty well by Peter Thiel shortly before the election. I thought wow, maybe they're right, and maybe Trump really can buck the establishment and do some great things!

What a fucking farce. He's worse than I had originally feared. He is a brainless troll that has packed his cabinet with billionaires and is executing (ineptly, at least) the establishment GOP plan to a tee. Oh, and on top of it attempting to literally implement his bizarre campaign promises, e.g. the idiotic wall.

Completely disregarding the Russian conspiracy circlejerk - I absolutely believe the man is not of sound mind and therefore unfit for any public office, let alone the presidency. There is no other adequate explanation.

Comment Political Commentary? (Score 1) 288

I can't help but notice that this comes out on the same day (nearly the same moment, in fact) as Trump's "yes I'm serious about the wall" EO (executive order). Even followed up by "we'll begin building the wall within two months." (Musk stated that [they] "Plan to start digging in a month or so") If it is some kind of commentary/joke, I'm not sure I get it... but hey what do I know?

Submission + - Trump Appoints Net Neutrality Opponent To Lead FCC 1

Mickeycaskill writes: US president Donald Trump has appointed Ajit Pai as chairman of the country’s communications regulator, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in a move expected to boost efforts to dismantle US network neutrality rules.

His appointment gives the Republican party a majority at the FCC, something expected to aid efforts to remove regulations put into place by the Obama administration.

Pai was elevated from a commissioner’s role and his appointment doesn’t require a confirmation hearing. His term expires at the end of the year, however, and he will require reconfirmation to continue.

Submission + - Trump Appoints Neutrality Opponent Ajit Pai to Lead FCC (nbcnews.com)

bsharma writes: President Donald Trump promoted a critic of net neutrality on Monday to chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the agency responsible for enforcing those regulations.

In a statement, Ajit Pai, a telecommunications lawyer whom President Barack Obama appointed to a Republican seat the FCC in 2012, said he was looking forward to working with his colleagues, thew Trump administration and Congress "to bring the benefits of the digital age to all Americans."

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 1) 433

There is no way to trace what they did, no way to confirm their methods. Sadly the masses are not equipped to scrutinize the nonsense. [Steve A Morris, 2017-01-11]

You can trace what Hausfather et al. 2017 did by downloading the code they made freely available at bit.ly/2jXSy7G. You can confirm their methods by reading the full paper and following the links at the end which lead to all the data they used. Interested members of the public can read or watch the background they shared.

... they simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets because its data is "more ambiguous". Translation: "It doesn't fit our needs." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Read the paper to see if Lonny's "translation" is reasonable: "... Two of the three Argo near-SST records assessed, APDRC and H2008, agree well with the buoy-only and satellite-based records and suggest a cool bias in ERSSTv3b during the 2005-2015 period, when sufficient Argo data are available (Fig. 3). The RG2009 series is more ambiguous, with trends that are not significantly different (P > 0.05) from either ERSSTv3b or ERSSTv4. ..."

Lonny Eachus is wrong to claim that Hausfather et al. "simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets" (presumably a reference to RG2009). They used 3 independent Argo near-SST (near sea surface temperature) datasets, and reported the results from all 3 datasets. Anyone who reads the full paper will see that they mention RG2009 a total of 17 times while reporting the results of using that dataset.

... the study's argument is rather weak. ARGO data has best coverage, best instruments. Yet they arbitrarily throw out 1/3 of the ARGO data sets because they don't agree with their preconceptions. ... In sum, it appears that this paper committed the same likely error as Karl et al. That is to say: ignoring arguably better data because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Wrong. Hausfather et al. didn't "throw out" or "ignore" 1/3 of the Argo datasets. Look at figure 3 (backup). They show the results of all three Argo datasets, including four instances using the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "arbitrarily throwing out" and "ignoring".

Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Again, Hausfather et al. didn't "leave out" or "ignore" the RG2009 dataset. Look at figure 4 (backup). They show the results of all 3 Argo datasets, including the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "ignoring".

Figure 4 examines four composite SST records: ERSSTv4, ERSSTv3b, HadSST3, and COBE-SST. These composite SST records are compared to instrumentally homogenous datasets (which just means "from a single type of instrument"): buoys, CCI (satellite), and all three Argo near-SST datasets. Figure 4 subtracts all those datasets from each composite SST record, then calculates the trend. If a differenced trend includes "zero" inside its 95% confidence interval, scientists say that particular instrument's trend agrees with that particular composite SST record's trend at the 95% confidence level.

For both examined timespans, buoys and CCI agree with ERSSTv4 at the 95% confidence level, and disagree with all the other composite SST records. The H2008 Argo dataset disagrees with all composite SST records because it shows more warming than all composite SST records, although ERSSTv4 is the closest match. The APDRC Argo dataset agrees with ERSSTv4 and COBE-SST. The RG2009 Argo dataset (which Lonny wrongly claims they "ignored") is in fact the last dataset shown in figure 4. RG2009 agrees with all four composite SST records at the 95% confidence level. That's what Hausfather et al. meant when they said RG2009 is "more ambiguous".

Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Presumably Lonny's "new contrived data set" is ERSSTv4, which Jane/Lonny has complained about ad nauseam. Look at figure 4 again. Buoys and CCI satellite datasets agree with ERSSTv4. The Argo APDRC and RG2009 datasets agree with ERSSTv4, but they also agree with other composite SST records so those results are more ambiguous. The Argo H2008 dataset disagrees with all composite SST records because H2008 shows more warming than all of them including ERSSTv4, though ERSSTv4 is the best match.

In other words, they didn't ignore any data, and most of the data matches ERSSTv4. In fact, the RG2009 dataset which Lonny wrongly claims they "simply don't use" is "more ambiguous" precisely because it does match ERSSTv4 (and all the other tested composite SST records). The Argo H2008 dataset is the only one which doesn't have a trend matching ERSSTv4 at the 95% confidence level (because H2008 shows more warming than ERSSTv4) and it also shows that ERSSTv4 is a closer match than any other tested composite SST record.

That really is what they did, though. As I described. They transformed data in ways that are not 100% clear. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No, what Lonny described really isn't what Hausfather et al. 2017 did. In fact, it's hard to imagine how Lonny's description could have been more wrong. See above. Or just read the paper to see that they didn't ignore data and made their methodology 100% clear by making their code freely available.

I find it amusing that climate scientists are prone to argue "surface temp. records are better than satellite". But then claim that the satellite record is "better" than ARGO floats. Just as they did with satellites, climate scientists crowed about their new ARGO floats. "Best thing ever." Then, just like satellites, when the new data does not fit their preconceptions, they just omit it. That has been a very noticeable pattern in the field of climate science. ... a pattern of behavior is a pattern of behavior. Always excuses to omit inconvenient data. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Again, Lonny's delusional narrative where "scientists crowed" about satellite data before "omitting" them is completely baseless. And even though he probably won't ever admit it, deep down Lonny should realize that his new delusional narrative about Hausfather et al. "omitting" data was also just shown to be completely baseless.

Again, Lonny's just projecting. Jane/Lonny previously cited ocean heat content (OHC) measurements based on Argo and satellite data until I showed him that those data doesn't support his incorrect claims that there hasn't been any global warming for 18 years. For years, Lonny has shown a pattern of behavior where he ignores the "best measure" of global warming: OHC data from Argo which reveal ~90% of Earth's added heat. Maybe Lonny omits those data because they don't fit his preconceptions?

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 1) 433

Regarding recent Hausfather et al. paper, which is the source of the latest hype about "no pause": As Anthony Watts points out, the study only goes to 2015, and the middle of its strong El Nino. If it had gone to the present, after record cooling, it would show less or no overall warming. Quote Watts: "Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate" Here's the quote and some other criticisms of Hausfather et al. dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/new-study... [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No. When Hausfather et al. 2017 was published (long after it was submitted) the most current available NOAA data ended in November 2016. Nick Stokes showed that even if Hausfather et al. had used a time machine to include those data when submitting their paper, it would have showed more warming. Even the silly opinion piece Lonny linked notes that "climate models will more closely match observations once 2016 data is included".

... its conclusions might have been different after the record cooling we've seen, post- El Nino. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Ironically, Zeke Hausfather showed that including all the 2016 data available at publication actually increases the observed warming trends compared to their paper's conclusions using data through 2015. This is still true using the full 2016 NOAA data which just became available on January 18. Lonny could verify this by repeating these least squares trend estimates with the monthly data, or just noticing that the annual ocean average was even higher in 2016 than in 2015. Zeke Hausfather challenged Anthony Watts to find an ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. Watts couldn't name one or bring himself to retract his claim. Can Lonny?

... Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate. ... the data only goes to December 2015. They've missed an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data... Looks like a clear case of cherry picking to me, by not using all the available data. ... [Anthony Watts, 2017-01-04]

Watts accuses Hausfather et al. of ignoring the most current data and missing an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data. Since Hausfather et al. 2017 was submitted in early 2016, they'd have needed a time machine to include the ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data that Watts accused them of ignoring and missing. In contrast, Sou notes that Anthony Watts presented an AGU poster in 2015 without data from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, or 2009.

Global Warming Lies: thinkprogress.org/climate... "It's Happening Now"
No, it isn't. NO warming — zero — for 18 years! [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-06]

Nonsense. The Earth continues to warm. I'd already told Jane/Lonny Eachus that his very ironic accusation is wrong. I'd even shared code and data showing that there hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends.

But more importantly, I'd also already told Jane/Lonny that ~90% of Earth's added heat goes into ocean heat content (OHC) measured by Argo, etc. Why are Lonny Eachus and "FriendsOScience" ignoring the fact that OHC keeps rising when they keep wrongly claiming that there hasn't been any global warming for 18 years? Are they ignoring Argo data because Argo data show that Earth continues to warm, which doesn't agree with their preconceptions?

Comment Re:Browsers are NOT slow (Score 1) 766

That's not my experience at all either - chrome tabs are and always have been instant for me, as are the search bar and thumbnail sites. Chrome is RAM intensive (~100-200MB per tab for me it seems!!!), and I have a 16GB laptop... I suppose that could be it.

Now when I run IE11 in a Win7 VM on my laptop I see massive performance issues, while chrome on the VM is a bit slower (the VM has 6GB when running) but still pretty snappy.

Comment Re:Floss (Score 4, Interesting) 257

I don't care if there is no evidence of medical benefit, or correlation with cavities/gum disease - those things are intangible. Flossing teeth after just 2-3 days of NOT flossing produces so much gross tangible stuff from between the teeth I still feel a lot better after doing it, no matter what.

I'm going to guess there is no evidence of medical benefit to applying deodorant every day, but FFS please do.

Comment Apple TV (Latest) + 2xChromecast (Score 2) 226

On the main TV I have a new Apple TV, problems abound at first but as seems to be the custom with Apple sh*t a few updates later and it's pretty smooth. The trick I found is to embrace the Siri interface. Pretty quick and easy to get around once you get used to it. On other TVs or while traveling I use chromecast, it's pretty slick but of course I can't stream amazon prime to it. I'm really resisting getting yet another device to stream Amazon, I'm hoping at some point they let it stream on either Apple or chrome. I can stream my laptop browser to chromecast while watching amazon prime, but sheesh.

Would love to cut the chord, the only thing keeping it is the fact that my father in-law wouldn't know what to do with himself if he couldn't watch sports when he's here.

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life. -- Dave Butler

Working...