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 Transparency of public officials (Score 3, Insightful) 268

It's the essence of the "If you haven't done anything wrong, why is your privacy so important to you" argument.

The salient difference being that privacy is to be enjoyed in abundance by citizens qua private individuals, but should to be afforded only sparingly to public officials qua public officials. Transparency, not privacy, is the the expectation we should have of government.

History shows that the privacy enjoyed by individual citizens is inversely proportional to the privacy government officials are permitted in the exercise of their power.

Comment Re: Positive (Score 1) 316

You attempt to mislead others ...

No they were exploring etymologically, why it is that Corporations are persons ('people' is not exactly the correct word even though the idea is the same).

Also, a corporation/incorporated business consists of investors that aren't really have anything much to do together besides "business".

The same might be said of an unincorporated company. What primarily distinguishes a corporation from an unincorporated company, is that the corporation is a person in its own right (and can therefore enter into contract, sue and be sued etc), whereas the unincorporated company can only conduct itself in the name of the people .. sorry the persons .. it comprises.

People are humans.

Natural persons are humans, corporate persons are corporations.

Comment Re:Some privacy is more equal than other (Score 1) 470

The abortion question comes down to one thing.... when does a human life begin? Everything else is irrelevant.

Life, in the biological sense, cannot begin at conception obviously, since a dead sperm or a dead ovum cannot make in living diploid human. Much less can it begin at birth for obvious reasons. Life doesn't begin it's passed on, so the question lacks coherence and we can easily reject a life-based analysis for resolving this question. That is, of course, unless you are using some specialised defintion of 'human life.' But this means this question resolves itself to how it is that we define the term.

Now we can sensibly ask when some form of legal personhood begins (which some people might mean by 'a human life'), which at common law is birth (but being law subject to re-definition). That this is arbitrary, and therefore philosophically unsatisfying, has at least the benefit of producing a definitive answer.

Philosophically we might consider the fact of individual human consciousness (which does have a beginning) that might more sensibly be considered in resolving the ethics of abortion. The question would be, at what point does the possibility of some form of rudimentary self-awareness begin? Which, I suspect, would lie at some point after conception, but before birth.

HOWEVER, there is also the question of the individual human consciousness and the bodily autonomy of the human who is to host the fetus. To sit around and insist that "the abortion question comes down to ... [the question of] when does a human life begin" or even "when does an individual human consciousness begin" is a characteristic of those whose bodies are unlikely ever to be called upon to act as a host. The abortion question, for many in the debate, comes down to one thing, whose has the right to decide what a woman may do with her own body (including carrying or not carrying a fetus from conception to birth). Everything else, they might insist, is irrelevant.

Comment Re:The takeaway (Score 1) 356

Speaking of reading skills. OP quoted the report to the effect that:

It found that white women with four years or less of experience actually ask for more ...

Which you will find is not invalidated by the observation that:

A gap in the other direction begins to appear in candidates with six or more years of experience, however, with white women in tech both asking for less ...

So women ask for less...and they get it.

Yes and, taking the above changes in asking behaviour into consideration, the order might run: women get less and learn to stop asking for more. That's only one explanation, of course, it might also be a generational issue.

That's individuals undervaluing they're worth,

It's a class of individuals undervaluing their worth. If it was just an unbiased sample of individuals you wouldn't see so obvious a gap based on gender. Or is it simply that men who ask for pay rises are seen as suitably ambitious while women who do the same are seen as greedy? Whatever the cause, the takeaway is that women qua women are being made to feel that it is inappropriate to ask for as much as their male counterparts occupying same skill positions. How the fuck is that not "sexist"?! Srsly.

Comment Re:Stop spreading BS. (Score 1) 209

The claim is untrue. The full text of the legislative acts (statutory text) are freely available on the public website as is mandated by law, and they are not copyrighted ...

I suspect the claim may be untrue, but you have not answered it. That Lexis makes a stripped down version available as it is required to do by law is not contested. To repeat: the claim being made is that the official version ... is the annotated version. So which is the authorised version, the annoted version, the stripped down version or neither?

The annotations are not generated by a legislative act and are not the law.

Obviously! Hence the concern expressed in the second leg of my comment. Anyone can annotate legislation and it would be wrong for one publisher to be granted a monopoly by making their particular annotated version of legislation the authorised version of legislation for that jurisdiction.

Perhaps if you saw some annotations it would be more clear.

Thanks, but IAAL who works in legal publishing, so I get what annotations are.

Comment Re:Stop spreading BS. (Score 2, Interesting) 209

The link works fine for me ...Georgia law is also available for free at the Library of Congress website [].

It links back to the same source. In any case the official version of legislation is, almost by definition, not "also available" elsewhere.

Fake news and garbage journalism, designed to manufacture outrage and generate clicks, rather than inform.

The claim being made is that the official version (i.e. the law) is the annotated version and that consequently you cannot freely access the actual legislation, such as it would be proper to rely on in court. Is that claim untrue?

Additionally, were the claim true, there would also be the serious issue, raised by the promoted comment of ip_what to TFA, that this outsources to an un-elected and non-public body, and exclusive right to change the face of the official legislation of the state. Which would be rather worrying.

Comment Re:What precentage caused by man? (Score 1) 369

Let's talk about the current paper: what do you think of the way Mann calculated error bars and uncertainty?

LOL, you mean you are not going to let me get away with being "sceptical of any only recently published paper" while the actual experts in the field boot it around for a year or so; you want me to read beyond the abstract?! I really ought not allow you to draw me here ...

To be frank I lack the expertise to form any reasonable opinion (which is why I defer to the orthodox position). My own science degree (and it was a mere BSc) was in Pharmacology & Psych, where papers were altogether an easier beast methodologically to pull apart. Moreover, there's a lot of water under the bridge and my NY resolution finally to learn 'R' and revivify my stats is yet to come to fruition ...

Sooooo you'll forgive me if I'm very slow on the uptake here ... but unless you are pointing to the fact that there are no error bars on the graphs per se, the uncertainly expressed (in Table 1) is +/- 1 SD. That would be a fairly common measure of uncertainty. You find that inadequate to the task?

Comment Re:What precentage caused by man? (Score 1) 369

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) 369

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) 369

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) 369

"...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) 369

[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:What precentage caused by man? (Score 4, Insightful) 369

I've been modded down already

Well it wasn't one of your more accurate contributions was it? Oooops.

Beside the confusion between Penn State and the University of East Anglia, to say Dr Mann is "really really bad at statistics" is perhaps to overstate the actual criticism leveled at his now infamous 1998 paper. In any case subsequent reconstructions, --and the last word, I presume, goes to Marcott et al. 2013 --more or less confirm the original conclusions of Mann et al.. I'm would assume you (and I genuinely respect your intelligence and erudition phantom) are already aware of that.

it's also worth mentioning that this paper is using computer models

And, invaluable though they may be, we would certainly exercise caution when considering the findings of simulations. In any case, we would naturally be sceptical of any only recently published paper. It's the weight of the extant literature of course, including the examination and perhaps replication by the entire profession of newly published work, that forms the best available science.

I realise that the plural of anecdote is not data, and I realise that warming here in Australia is occurring at a faster rate than globally, but this summer just gone has been truly alarming. Driving my family through 46C heat on the NSW South Coast in Feb was the first time I was literally scared of the temperature (not just uncomfortable but frightened that the vehicle and air-con might give out).

Slashdot Top Deals

Consultants are mystical people who ask a company for a number and then give it back to them.