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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Scott Adams answered. (Score 1) 11

Are you talking about assertion #3?

I wasn't but I accept #3 as responsive and concede the point.

On the other hand he basically says, "Why yes, we do use human intuition to tune the models every year rather than let the math rule." For a system that's novel and investigatory I'd be inclined to let that slide, but for a system being used to justify trillions of dollars in economic change, I find the models' slipperiness concerning.

scientific consensus arises naturally

There are a couple of meanings that get applied to the word "consensus." One of them is "general agreement," as in no participant objects. Another is "the judgement arrived at by most of those concerned" which is a slippery version of majority vote. There are even variants like "strong consensus" meaning explicitly 100% concur and "rough consensus" meaning that the remaining holdouts can like it or lump it.

Which is your version of "scientific consensus"? My version is that if you have to prove that consensus has been attained then it hasn't. Because actual consensus is just that obvious.

Comment Re:Scott Adams answered. (Score 1) 11

Well I did read it, and let me tell you what I read. I read a claim that the models continue to be adjusted to fit the new data and I read a response that no, the data is not being adjusted to fit the models. That's what's called a straw man argument. Instead of refuting the claim that's made, pick a claim that sounds vaguely similar and refute it instead.

Now, you say the AR4 model has been good. And you link to a graphic which does not say "AR4" anywhere on it and instead lists predictions from several models. And more importantly, doesn't demonstrate any controls.

Where's the chart that says, "the AR4 model predicted this line for 20% more emissions than we had and it predicted that line for 20% less emissions than we had, it predicted this line for the upper bound of the error band on the emissions we measured, and it predicted that line for the lower bound on the emissions we measured. Oh look, the actual prediction tracks the measured results while the test predictions clearly miss as expected."

I'm not just being rhetorical here. I've waited years to see a chart that said, "here's what happened, and here's what would have happened if we'd done X instead." With a change in result that's outside the error bands. I'm still waiting.

As for "consensus," you can dress it up as a survey of scientists deemed credible but in the end it's just a vote with a sloppy tally.

Comment Scott Adams is right. (Score 0) 11

Scott Adams is right.

A model isn't predictive until it demonstrates predictions which are confirmed. That doesn't happen until the model is stable, that is until it no longer has to be adjusted to fit new data. You don't have to be an expert in any particular science to know this because it's true in every science, part of the basic methodology of science.

Moreover, the old saw about Congress repealing the law of gravity reveals a basic truth about the operation of science. Voting is politics not science. When scientists resort to voting about something, the result has left the realm of science.

Finally, the fastest way to prove something is to vigorously attempt to disprove it... and fail. A political climate in which such experiments are impossible to rationally discuss (denier! denier!) and impossible to fund is inimical to science.

Comment Re:Yeah but... (Score 4, Interesting) 202

I have the perfect comeback to those ignorant fucks..."Are YOU gonna accept responsibility and pay for any and all damages if your site serves malware? No? Then you are knowingly aiding and abetting malware vendors, kindly fuck off".

If they want to be treated like legitimate businesses? Then they have to accept the responsibility legitimate businesses have. If a business doesn't secure their premises and cause harm to their patrons? They are responsible for the clean up, look at the mounds of money TJ Maxx and Target had to pay for their lack of security, but these websites want us to treat them as legitimate businesses show the same lack of responsibility as some fly by night topsite? Sorry can't have your cake and eat it too, either you have the same responsibilities as a real business or you don't deserve any more consideration than a cracksite or any other dodgy place on the wild web.

Comment Re:Let me tell you a story about NIPRnet (Score 1) 314

Just the fact it isn't on a government network is a fail on the audit itself. BTW I do audit networks.

As a member of the bureaucracy she bucked, I can understand you being annoyed but good God man, your vitriol is off the scale.

And for the record, I said the state department's email system was audited and implied (correctly) that it routinely receives poor grades for security. I made no statement about Clinton's server being audited let alone by government auditors or using any particular government standard. Before calling someone a liar, try to understand what they actually said.

You may cause me to retract part of what I said... not because of any misinformation about Clinton and her server but because your disrespect for fact in your position as a federal auditor implies that government servers receive improperly poor grades.

Comment Re:Let me tell you a story about NIPRnet (Score 4, Interesting) 314

Auditors grade the state department's unclassified email system every year. By all reports, Clinton's email server was substantially more secure.

She was careless with classified information, I don't cheer that, but I absolutely cheer her choice to use her own, better secured email server for routine unclassified communication. And I roar with delight that she was willing to buck the bureaucracy doing it when nearly every other politician knuckles under to what the bureaucrats tell them they must do.

Comment Re:Third party standards (Score 2, Insightful) 434

To answer your question the political agenda of the SPLC is simple,it is to promote themselves so they can get more money.

After all if they don't have a new "bogeyman of the day" to shill for the press, why the press won't write about them anymore, and gasp! They might not be able to get those big fat donation checks anymore! You see the flaw in your logic is assuming its automatically a black/white issue and that one has to be beholden to a single political party, when looking at your typical SPLC list its pretty obvious they hate all religions and religious groups equally but their biggest goal is to label damned near every assembly of more than 4 people as a "hate group" so they have someone new to shill to the press because in the end? Their biggest desire isn't the favor of a political party, its good old fashioned money money money.

Comment Let me tell you a story about NIPRnet (Score 4, Interesting) 314

I was called in to help debug a problem with a server running on the NIPR. It seemed several out of every 100 TCP connections it made to the Internet failed inexplicably. An application level retry would immediately succeed but if you let the original TCP socket retry it kept on failing to connect.

So I investigated and it turned out about 2% of TCP -source- ports in the ephemeral range were blocked. Any TCP packet using those originating ports simply failed to arrive at the other side.

So, tracked down the firewall admin at Pearl and she explained that yes, they blocked those ports because they were commonly used by malware. Ports like 1234.

Okay, so even if I buy that that's reasonable, it would only apply to TCP -destination- ports, not TCP source ports. Went back and forth, back and forth. Eventually gave up and hacked the server to avoid the filtered TCP source ports.

And that level of incompetence is why I totally understand anyone who wants a direct Internet connection.

Then again, as someone involved in the Intelligence community he might just have wanted a commercial connection whose IP address wasn't associated with the military for some of his communications. You know, basic opsec.

Comment Re:No principles. (Score 4, Insightful) 600

What is wrong with Bannon? So far the only argument I've seen is the left wing media classic "he is an "ist" and a bad bad man!" in this case an anti-semite over of all things an article 1.- He didn't write, 2.- That was written by a pro Israel Jew, 3.- Which called a Jewish man on the left a "renegade Jew" (the writer of the article says if he had it do over again he would have used traitor) for supporting policies that helped Iran and Hamas, both sworn enemies of Israel.

So I'm sorry but if that is the best they can come up with? Its just more SJW shit, instead of debating the policies just call someone an "ist" and think you can silence them with name calling. We saw this all through the election with the MSM quick to call anybody who didn't support HRC an "ist" and called Trump an "ist" multiple times while completely ignoring how HRC said black teens were "super predators" who should be "brought to heel" like dogs and pushed through 3 strike laws that were specifically targeted at blacks, for example how you'd get a strike for crack but not for powder coke. Anybody wanna bet if it was someone on the right who had said and done those things we'd have heard a dozen times a day how much of an "ist" they were?

Comment Re:I still want short distance & long distance (Score 1) 395

About your sig? Sorry but sadly SJWs are very very real and while its true the world would be MUCH better off if we could just line them up and have them all shot (which would probably please them as most are beta whites and thus you would have less "white privilege" in the world) we can at least take comfort in the fact that being betas most of them will not get the opportunity to breed and thus will die out.

Comment Re:I still want short distance & long distance (Score 5, Informative) 395

Uhhh the US taxpayers paid to the tune of 200 billion for a nationwide upgrade to our intertubes during Clinton and all we got for that money was a low res Goatse from the big corps.

This is why we should give them 90 days to either provide what we paid for, give us back every cent with interest, or we nationalize the whole thing and open it up to competition like we did when we first broke up Ma Bell. If they want exclusives in an area? Let them run 100mbps FIOS to the door and we'll be happy to give them a 15 years exclusivity deal but as it is now? They owe us a shitload of money and we should demand we get what we paid for!

Slashdot Top Deals

Coding is easy; All you do is sit staring at a terminal until the drops of blood form on your forehead.

Working...