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 Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 1) 203

men can make women pregnant

No, if we're staying legal here, men can only offer to have sex with women. He can't make her have sex, he can't make her stop taking birth control, he can't prevent her from getting an abortion.

women can't make men pregnant

But they can make men pay child support, even if he never wanted kids, even if he never consented to sex. Can you at least admit that that isn't fair?

Nope, they won't. Dead lock that the OP will bring up another wrong of men as a counterpoint. Unknowingly, they help create the present day toxicity towards males, as all males get tarred and feathered according to the actions of some of us. But there is a real problem when doing that.

There is a present day problem of "Where have all the good men gone?" as women hit their 30's and want to start raising a family. And it's a big problem as a fair number of men are opting out of wife and family, and it turns out to be the analytical and thinking men who are more likely to be a "good man".

Oddly enough, the reaction to this is an attempted shaming of men as not growing up, being selfish, which makes a weird mix with the other accusations thrown at them of being rapists deadbeats and the whole litany of problems men cause.

Which of course, just exacerbates the problem. Sex and marriage and family are actually options for a person, not legal requirements.

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 1) 203

The legal system for child support came about because plenty of "real fathers" were only too willing to abandon their families when the going got rough or a more winsome piece of ass drifted on by.

Is someone questioning the reality of deadbeat dads?

The problem, such as it is - is that the pendulum has swung the other way, and in a weird and counterproductive direction. You can leave and divorce your spouse because you found that she decided to create a child with another man, and you will be responsible to pay support for their child. The courts are very upfront about this, actual paternity is irrelevant.

You can simply be a sperm donor, and become responsible for child support.

So the legal system has taken the problem of deadbeat dads, and turned it into a different problem as increasing numbers of men choose to opt out of procreation and marriage.

Comment Re:Could climate science be affected, too? (Score 1) 114

Its also good to point out that the fraud was in the review process, not the work itself. So the tools that did it were extra stupid in their laziness.

That's speculation. The only KNOWN thing is that the authors of the papers perpetrated fraud to get peer reviewed and published. No research has been done into replicating methodology, experiments, or results.

So if you are agreeing with me, fine. If you are disagreeing with me, try reading what I wrote again.

Comment Re:Could climate science be affected, too? (Score 2) 114

If a middle school teacher or a museum curator can't manage not alienating people, try employing a magician.

I suggest getting all our science information off of politicians who are paid for their votes and beliefs. Hard to go wrong that way, and its proven by history to be the only sure fire path to the truth.

Comment Re:Could climate science be affected, too? (Score 2) 114

Its also good to point out that the fraud was in the review process, not the work itself.

So it turned out the papers weren't really peer reviewed at all. So much for science then. Good they were retracted.

Yes, it was good they were retracted. That's science working to expose the people who don't follow the rules.

Comment Re:Could climate science be affected, too? (Score 1) 114

Its also good to point out that the fraud was in the review process, not the work itself. So the tools that did it were extra stupid in their laziness.

If they didn't do the peer review, it's probably because the work wouldn't survive it.

That doesn't account for laziness. We don't know if the work itself was bad. I'm suspicious it might be, but it needs reviewed properly.

Climate models are huge and complex, only a few people can truly claim to understand them. They're not lab experiments where you can easily isolate causes and exclude other factors or extrapolate how the ecosystem will respond. There's huge local variations in climate that people use as proof or counter-proof because this year was particularly cold or warm without any validity as a global phenomenon.

Deniers often do claim that the weather outside their window is enough data to refute AGW. I have no doubt that they might have a little problem understanding the modes and the data.

But you and I both know that isn't the real issue. I don't hear anything about radioactivity not being real, and that nucs are some other process is involved. its just accepted. We don't hear much about cosmology, even though it isn't remotely as settled as the greenhouse effect, and there are some pretty active controversies going on, and not many people understand it.

Its money, and who's ox is gored, and who is getting paid for their vote, and inertia, and how somehow the laws of physics has become affiliated with a political party or not. Where once upon a time, not many years ago, the greenhouse effect was believed by most, and how now, scientists are scrambling to save climate data before it is destroyed http://www.businessinsider.com... Who knew that in 21st Century America, that science could become illegal?

That said, just because there's a lot of detail we're working on doesn't mean there's much doubt about the big picture. Take evolution for example, we're still doing tons of research into the exact mechanisms that create and divide species but there's no real scientific competition from creationism or lamarckism that genetics isn't real. "Survival of the fittest" does work as a one-liner summary.

The greenhouse effect is clearly real, if Earth had no atmosphere it would have a surface temperature of -18C instead of +14C.

And yet, people will differ http://www.energycentral.com/c... http://blog.nosuchthingasgreen...

So when they're talking about trying to keep the temperature change because of human activity under 2C we're really talking about a <10% change in the effect. We are just a small part of a pretty big puzzle of how this all works.

It is small in some respects, rather large in others. In addition, there are some wild cards such as methane released by warming: http://www.natureworldnews.com...

Comment Re:Huh? What? (Score 1) 215

I do not see an adjustment for obesity. People who drink artificially sweetened beverages typically are overweight and therefore trying to lose weight. Other studies have shown that that doesn't actually happen, presumably because it doesn't affect actual caloric intake (i.e., they just ingest more other stuff). So, since obese people are more likely to suffer cardiovascular events, and obese people are more likely to drink artificially sweetened beverages, it stands to reason that artificially sweetened beverages -- of all types -- will be associated with a higher risk for cardiovascular events.

Exactly. And a point that doesn't seem to have been taken into account anyhwhere in the study. That's like a study on the health effects of people who work with radioactive substances, and eliminating radium exposure form the study.

Comment Re:Scott Adams disagrees (Score 2) 114

More immediate funding is at stake, more groupthink applies, it will be decades before others can prove you wrong, and unlike falsified cancer research, people won't die because you misdirected searcher.

There's more money in cancer medication than climate science.

But if you don't want to wait decades, you can simply make a competing model that matches past observations, but predicts a different outcome, and publish it.

Exactly. Now that climate research is being actively suppressed, and even the word is verboten, and the leader of the free world wants the names and workplaces of all of the scientists who don't agree with the USA's now official truth that Climate change is a plot by the Chinese - exactly what awesome advantager to the climate scientists have?

Now that politics and ideology have once again shown that the laws of physics are no match for the triumph of will, in much the same way as communism proved that Lysenkoism was the correct science over thouroughly debunked genetics. Sounds more like the start of a good old fashioned pogrom than the evilz scientizzzs taking over the world.

Comment Re:Could climate science be affected, too? (Score 4, Informative) 114

If cancer research is affected by incidents like this, what's to say that climate science isn't similarly affected?

Pay no attention to the research assistant behind the curtain!

As long as humans are involved, there will be fraud along the way. But there is one beg difference between science and the religio-political world. We seek out and correct our fraud and errors. And once the fraud is exposed, the perp is a pariah, as opposed to the other world where they are often re-elected or otherwise rewarded.

Its also good to point out that the fraud was in the review process, not the work itself. So the tools that did it were extra stupid in their laziness.

As for AC's hand wringing, climate science is not cancer research, with obscure aspects only a few people know anything about. The physics is out there, the data can be perused by anyone, it's like permanent peer review.

In fact, if we want to see intellectual fraud vis-à-vis climate science, we need only look at the denialists work. We'll have to give some rope here, because denialists tend not to publish actual papers, but "publish" on line denial.

But you do the same process. You look at the claims and walk them back to the source. You look at the graphs and check for accuracy and graphic tricks. You check references - although in denialist work, there are not many. You also check timeliness. In an ongoing field of research like climate science, is the latest data being used?

So AC need not worry, climate scientists are acutely aware of the political scrutiny of their work, and are very very careful.

Comment Re:Non-starter 'flying car' (Score 1) 152

This flying car won't fit in my garage, won't travel down the highway (or any road for that matter), won't land at the grocery store and pick up milk. It only works if you live at an airport and your house backs up to the runway.

Unfortunately, this is going to be like an autonomous taxi. We probably won't be able to get one.

Comment Re:User's need to take responsibility too. (Score 1) 216

The fuck is a coalroller? Why the hell treat me as such for stating an observation of mine?

Coalrolling is an activity performed by some deisel vehicle owners, who alter their (usually trucks) to put out large amounts of smoke when they see people in cars like the Prius, which gets good gas mileage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Apparently this puts the roller in a superior intellectual place.

I have no idea if you are a coal roller or not - I certainly hope not. But the concept of people going out of there way to use vehicles that put out more pollutants than is legal, just reminded me of the silly practice. Regardless, it assumes that the person in the Prius is some sort of timid thing who will just shy away. The most crazy conservative itchy trigger finger guy I know drove a Prius. He liked the technology. If someone rolled coal on him, they would probably find he took a second amendment solution on them. Sad, yet perhaps fortunately, the tortured soul has passed on.

Why am I even bothering!?

OH THE HORROR

Chillaxe brother, it was mere jest.

I do joke, or at least I will until someone takes a second amendment solution on me.

That was also a joke,

Slashdot Top Deals

PL/I -- "the fatal disease" -- belongs more to the problem set than to the solution set. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5

Working...