Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



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 And masterfully so (Score 0) 417

Trump was adamant that there should be a vote yesterday, presumably because it was the ACA's anniversary.

And few people have noticed that Trump masterfully defeated Ryan, put all the blame for the failed attempt on Ryan and the GOP, and is letting the fuse burn down to the Obamacare implosion.

No matter what happens, it's a win for Trump. He is manipulating the system, just like he did during the campaign.

We're stuck with Obamacare for the next year or two, let's see how well that plays in the 2018 elections.

Comment Believing crazy things (Score 1) 249

Virtually all of the posts critical of global warming are now at -1. These views are being censored, despite raising very credible objections.

See also: creationism. vaccines cause autism. chemtrails. lizards control whitehouse. smoking is good for you.

wake up sheeple!

So your argument is: "because some other people believe crazy things, your position is crazy".

That's your argument against climate change sceptics. Right?

I've read a lot from people who have theories of how the universe works, or how to make a free energy system, or how to make anti gravity.

Occasionally a physicist (or chemist, or whatever) will point out a logical flaw in that person's theory, and ask them to explain the inconsistency.

You can probably imagine what their response is.

I just want to be clear on where you're coming from.

We can point out potential flaws in the measurements, theory, prediction models(*), and political actions, and ask for an explanation.

And your response is "because some other people believe crazy things, your position is crazy".

That's what you're saying. Right?

(*) A good potential flaw: Why is there more than one predictive model for climate? Shouldn't there be only one model that everyone uses?

Comment Very interesting! (Score 2) 87

This is a very interesting development, and use of the bitcoin/blockchain technology.

Hypothetically, it's difficult to collect works of art in media forms that are easy to copy. For example, it'd be hard to have a 500 print "limited edition, collectible" screensaver image.

But an artist could mint their own cryptocoin sell one with each registered copy of their work. The person who "owns" the official copy would keep the bitcoin safe, and be assured that only 500 of the limited edition versions were ever made. (Along with some security from the artist, publishing their crypto signature for provenance verification, and so on).

This wouldn't prevent people from copying or using the screensavers, but it could make certain forms collectible. This would eliminate counterfeiting in those forms.

The trading cards are just one example of this.

Submission + - The Senate let's ISPs to sell your data without your consent (arstechnica.com)

ventsyv writes: The Senate, in it's infinite wisdom, has decided to bar the FCC from enforcing rules that required ISPs to get you to opt-in before selling your data. The resolution passed narrowly on a partisan vote — 50 Republicans voting for it, 48 Democrats against.
If the House approves this and the president signs it, ISPs will be able to sell your browsing history to the highest bidder.

Submission + - SPAM: On Site Computer Repair Service Ann Arbor

An anonymous reader writes: Arbor Computers was started in 2004. The driving forces behind the company has more than 18 years of experience in IT On Site Computer Repair Service Ann Arbor
Link to Original Source

Comment Re:Fake news, see the MASIE data for yourself (Score 0) 201

Climatologists are not mechanical engineers, they are PhD's. I agree, engineers are very careful about the details. However, PhD's don't have life-risk to consider. I fact, there is overt manipulation of the data upon which most (if not all) of the climate "conclusions" are based.

Further, engineers don't have the luxury of being influenced by confirmation biases or other cognitive issues.... because engineering data is wholly-objective and extremely repeatable. "climate science" is neither; the inductive processes they apply seem to lead down paths that would follow confirmation bias, repeatedly. I'm involved in science and a great mentor of mine once said that, "if you torture the data enough, it will tell you anything you want to hear...."

Submission + - Terrifying anti-riot vehicle created to quash any urban disturbance (ibtimes.co.uk)

drunkdrone writes: A formidable remote-controlled anti-riot vehicle called the Bozena Riot has been designed to make light work of angry mobs with a giant expanding shield and packing an arsenal of crowd dispersal tools.

Built by Slovakian company Bozena, the high-tech security system keeps law enforcement units safe with its shock-absorbing barrier, which can be expanded out to 7.5 metres to protect 36 officers and features a rising platform to give riot police an elevated view of their surroundings and provide tactical advantage against aggressors.

The shield has ports for firing non-lethal projectiles and is equipped with tear gas guns to "guarantee control of crowds" when things get dicey. Mounted loudspeakers can be used either to issue instructions to officers or to appeal to crowds, and the vehicle can optionally be equipped with smoke grenade launchers and a radio jammer for blocking mobile communications.

Comment Re:Fake news, see the MASIE data for yourself (Score 1) 201

Mark Serreze is a well-known person in the climate debate community. But the link above is to HIS OWN data which directly contradicts his statements in the NYT article. I'm not attacking him personally, but I have substantive conflict with the way he conveyed the veracity and conclusions about his own data.

Comment Re:In before global warming whiners... (Score 4, Insightful) 201

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 Fake news, see the MASIE data for yourself (Score -1, Troll) 201

Actually, the sea ice extent was LOWER in 2006, for NASA's own data. Further, this years ice extent is roughly equivalent to a couple years, over the past decade. What's happening hear is that several thousand people whom rely on the climate change scam, for their paycheck, are ramping up the BS so they can remain on the gravy train.... Here's the graph of the MASIE data.... feel like a real scientist, review it for yourself! https://realclimatescience.com...

Slashdot Top Deals

The gent who wakes up and finds himself a success hasn't been asleep.

Working...