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:This is a bit absurd... (Score 1) 198

My gods, programmers have gotten lazy. What's next, extra CPU consumption for bold text? The system slowing down every time it beeps?

Or, we could at least allow for the possibility that the behavior was unintentional. If you've never written a program that inadvertently spins a core rather than correctly blocking while waiting for the next event in the event loop, then feel free to cast the first stone, but I imagine most programmers have made that mistake.

Comment Re:Conflict of interest (Score 1) 234

Ambiguous law tends to be thrown out in court. Sadly most people don't bother to take it to trial because the pre-trial hearing dismisses the case or offers no points and a signficiantly lower fine and/or traffic school.

They do this on purpose because they know they'll lose in court, setting precedent.

Comment This is a bit absurd... (Score 1) 198

How is it that four decades into the personal computing era and ANYTHING in the UI is using any significant amount of CPU?

A blinking cursor?? The Apple II had a blinking cursor in 1977, and it was implemented in hardware. It used zero percent of the CPU.

My gods, programmers have gotten lazy. What's next, extra CPU consumption for bold text? The system slowing down every time it beeps?

Comment Re:The Lemming Society is pathetic. (Score 1) 350

You get five stars for being over-the-top judgmental and insulting -- apparently that's a requirement on the Internet -- but unless you have the time and money to see every movie, try every restaurant, etc, then you have to decide which ones to try and which to avoid based on something. What you're advocating is either making random decisions (which can be fun occasionally but also leads to wasting a lot of time and money suffering through crap), or making decisions based on other, less relevant criteria (such as which movie has the most competent advertising team, or which restaurant happens to be located in front of your eyeballs when your stomach rumbles).

If you want to make your decisions based on subconscious reasoning that you don't even understand yourself, go ahead, but don't blame others for trying to make an informed decision.

Comment Re:Poor business (Score 1) 350

The problem is that any given reviewer wont "mesh" with what *YOU* like. Or what *I* like.

That's the point of aggregation sites like RottenTomatoes. Any given particular reviewer might have tastes that differ from yours or mine, but if 999 of 1000 reviewers all say the movie stinks, then it's very likely the movie stinks. Sure, you might be the rare exception whose tastes are similar to the lone holdout, but that's not the way to bet.

Comment Re:In before global warming whiners... (Score 3, Insightful) 187

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

Rose's story ricocheted around right-wing media outlets, and was publicized by the Republican-led House of Representatives science committee, which has spent months investigating earlier complaints about the Karl study that is says were raised by an NOAA whistleblower. But Science Insider found no evidence of misconduct or violation of agency research policies after extensive interviews with Bates, Karl, and other former NOAA and independent scientists, as well as consideration of documents that Bates also provided to Rose and the Mail.

Instead, the dispute appears to reflect long-standing tensions within NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), based in Asheville, North Carolina, over how new data sets are used for scientific research. The center is one the nation’s major repositories for vetted earth observing data collected by satellites, ships, buoys, aircraft, and land-based instruments.

In the blog post, Bates says that his complaints provide evidence that Karl had his “thumb on the scale” in an effort to discredit claims of a warming pause, and his team rushed to publish the paper so it could influence national and international climate talks. But Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and he never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms.

Tuesday, in an interview with E&E News, Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” he told reporter Scott Waldman. And Bates told ScienceInsider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change. But it was important for this conversation about data integrity to happen, he says. “That’s where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people,” he says.

At a House science committee hearing yesterday, Rush Holt, CEO of AAAS (publisher of Science and ScienceInsider) stood by the 2015 paper. "This is not the making of a big scandal—this is an internal dispute between two factions within an agency," Holt said in response to a question from Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), the panel’s chairman, and a longtime critic of NOAA’s role in the Karl paper. This past weekend, Smith issued a statement hailing Bates for talking about “NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.”

Some climate scientists are concerned that the hubbub is obscuring the more important message: that the NOAA research has generally proved accurate. “I’m a little confused as to why this is a big deal,” says Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist with Berkeley Earth, a California nonprofit climate research group that has examined surface temperatures. He’s the lead author of a paper published in January in Science Advances that found Karl’s estimates of sea surface temperature—a key part of the work—matched well with estimates drawn from other methods.

Researchers say the Karl paper’s findings are also in line with findings from the Met Office, the U.K. government’s climate agency, which preceded Karl’s work, and findings in a recent paper by scientists at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, an alliance of 34 states based in Reading, U.K. And although other researchers have reported evidence that the rise in global temperature has slowed recently, they have not challenged the ethics of Karl’s team, or the quality of the data they used.

Read on. It's worth it. The short of it: Bates was demoted by Karl several years back. Bates accepts both AGW, and the conclusions of Karl's paper, but decided to post a nitpicking complaint that he had used the ISTI land data in addition to the base NOAA data (the former of which isn't as high quality), without specifically commenting about the data source quality difference:

The Science paper would have been fine had it simply had a disclaimer at the bottom saying that it was citing research, not operational, data for its land-surface temperatures, Bates says.

But Mike Tanner, director of NOAA’s Center for Weather and Climate at NCEI, says there’s no NOAA policy that requires such a disclosure. “There's nothing. That doesn’t exist,” he says

The article also goes into the split within NOAA over how strongly to focus on new data and approaches that capture effects which old data and approaches might have missed, vs. old ones which are less accurate but more validated. The land data people tend to fall into the former category while the satellite people tend to fall in the later category. Karl was a land guy and Bates was a satellite guy.

It's interesting to read Bates' blog post with "Karl" replaced by "The guy who demoted me":

The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of the Guy Who Demoted Me et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Guy Who Demoted Me study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s (Federal scientists say there never was any global warming “pause”). ... In the following sections, I provide the details of how the guy who demoted me failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below. I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future. Finally, I provide some links to examples of what well documented CDRs look like that readers might contrast and compare with what the guy who demoted me has provided.

Comment Re:40.000 deaths (Score 2) 234

There is always a specific point where there is indecision about whether to stop or keep going when the light turns yellow.

- Stopping means hitting the brakes hard, possibly causing an accident due to someone rear-ending you.
- Proceeding means you might shave a bit of the red.

Shaving a bit of the red is generally not going to cause an accident because it takes time for cars to accelerate and get going. There is also a dead-time between one direction turning red and the other turning green. However, as someone who was nearly rear-ended for stopping at a light because I had to brake very hard, I'd much prefer to proceed than stop in these cases.

Comment Re:Conflict of interest (Score 2) 234

Not to mention, if you *ENTER* the intersection on yellow it's perfectly legal, even if the light turns red once you're already in it.

The law states that the state of the light matters the moment you enter the intersection. Once you enter, you must exit the intersection as quickly as possible, but the light doesn't matter at that point. This is what also allows you to dwell in the intersection when making a left on green, and finish the turn when the light turns yellow->red.

Comment Re:British "free speech" norms (Score 1) 70

I read that and immediately said "Bullshit!" and I was right. He was arrested for abusive behaviour and assault, not for quoting the Bible.

RTFA:

Did you RTFA?

At Kilmarnock Sheriff Court last month, Sheriff Alistair Watson ruled there was no case to answer and acquitted Mr Larmour of threatening or abusive behaviour, aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation. The sheriff also found him not guilty of a second charge of assault aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation.

He was arrested for threatening and abusive behaviour and assault. He may have been accused of those crimes because he was quoting the bible (the story does not even attempt to present the complainant's story), but he was actually arrested because he was accused of assault.

it is absolutely not OK for you to lie about it.

The sad thing is you seem to think that what the defendant claims happened is what actually happened, even when the facts are right there contradicting his story. So try reading and understanding the entire article next time, before you start spreading bullshit around. You duped yourself into believing a Fake News story here, and you have no one to blame but yourself for exposing the fact you are an easily manipulated fool.

Comment Re:Methane [Re: No complaints here] (Score 1) 364

I, as a "denier", obviously know more about AGW than you as a "true believer" do. That should actually concern you, but by tomorrow you will forget this happened and deny facts given to you to keep your flawed viewpoint while calling other people fact deniers.

This is a fairly common phenomenon where people with no expertise believe they know more than experts.

The other poster was correct, Methane may be be 25 times more potent per volume emitted (my sources say 84 times), but Anthropogenic emissions of Methane are estimated to be 300 Tg (300 million tonnes) which is about 0.3% of the emissions of Carbon Dioxide which is estimated to be 10.6 Gt (10,600 million tonnes). At your number, 25x, Methane only contributes 7.5% of the warming that CO2 contributes because there is over 300 times more CO2 emitted every year. That's why people talk about CO2 more than methane. CO2 is the dominant driver because there's so much more of it emitted every year.

You definitely know less, and should try showing some humility.

Slashdot Top Deals

Why won't sharks eat lawyers? Professional courtesy.

Working...