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


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 Re:We scientists must improve our reliability. (Score 1) 178

It's no wonder we're seeing more and more average people question, if not stand against, science. From their perspective, it just isn't reliable any longer.

It doesn't matter if we're talking about nutrition or climate change.

Negative. The problem with food is that there is a bullshit industry built around it that has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with blaming, marketing, and agenda.

I forgot to add lies and bullshit.

All we have to do is look at advertisement. Today, we are starting to eat the healthy sugar again. A third of Americans are avoiding gluten, when only a small number are actually allergic to it. Remember how eating oatmeal was the great health food?

Then we need to talk to vegans, vegetarians, atkins and caveman people, the drink a shitload of water people, and all the other people who have decided that something something was going to make them live longer.

Time and time again average people have been told one thing based on scientific research, but then a short while later they're told that something totally contradictory to the first thing is now correct.

As far as food goes, precious little is science, and marketing and health shaming takes the lions share.

As far as science goes, bring up some of these completely contradictory science based sea changes, and we can discuss.

Science as a whole has a serious boy-who-cried-wolf problem. As scientists we need to be far more careful about the claims we're making, so that people continue to take us seriously.

And a whole lot of people are looking for an eternal truth, an unchanging universe. Religion is probably better for them, and they can reject any and all science, and that will probably satisfy their need.

We can't do what climate science did in the 1960s and 1970s, and predict imminent doom-and-gloom scenarios for the 1980s that don't come to pass, and haven't come to pass even 30 years after that.

A couple points on that. A lot of climate deniers like to bring up an article from the 1970's in time Magazine that they use as proof that scientists believed we were entering a new ice age. Scientists didn't - although I recall a really snowy winter in the Northeast. We've been treated to weird shit like this over the years, attributed to science, but actually designed to sell stuff to people. Imagine if the Cover of time had an article where the headline was "Scientists say we occasionally have a snowy and cold winter. Dramatic stuff indeed.

Now for ridiculous claims. Very few of the imminent climate doom claims have been put out by people who aren't paying attention, the equivalent of healthy food marketing.

But somehow that stuff gets translated to "In the 1970's all scientists first believe that we were in a new Ice age, then they all changed their minds and they all said we were going to be dead by the year 2000." Oddly enough, the same people often talk about the controversy in science, seamlessly shifting between the monolithic scientist meme, and the controversy as suits their argument.

An example not in the weather field is that many young earth creationists use the Piltdown man hoax to discredit all of science. The logic is Piltdown was a hoax, so the earth was created by the Abrahamic god in 4004 B.C.(E)

We can't say today that some food or substance is unhealthy and we should avoid eating it, but then a few years from now say it's healthy, and in fact we need to eat more of it.

If you ask a nutritionist, most will tell you that you need a balanced diet, one with sufficient protein and carb mix, and amounts of vitamins and minerals. Its remarkably boring. And while there have been some changes over the years, most of what you are objecting to is the marketing hype, designed to get you to buy their product, or avoid buying someone else's product.

I recall some conversations with nutritionists who lamented the demonization of eggs, because they were an inexpensive source of protein. And this was at a time when people were cautioned to avoid eggs, certainly no more than 2 a week, or to eat eggbeaters if they were weak willed.

Gluten and healthy sugar are no exception. Almost no one is allergic to gluten, and refined sugar as a healthy alternative to that 50:50 mix of fructose and glucose that is supposedly killing us is by no means settled science This is a fairly good cite of how actual scientists view the matter, not marketing droids https://blogs.scientificameric...

While we shouldn't be afraid to chance our conclusions as we do more research and continue to expand our knowledge, we also can't continue to make claims that fall apart so quickly. We need to be far more sure about the claims we make publicly.

You like the idea of gagging scientists? And good luck with trying to gag marketing droids.

I've heard your argument before. It usually speaks to the subset of people who do not handle change very well, like constancy, and need a blame target.

I'll note that your blame target is irresponsible scientists, and not the forces of marketing, who manage to twist some pretty weak stuff into sales, and the market which tend to operate negatively by claiming another's product is bad for people.

Comment Re:Boycott (Score 1) 79

Yes because UEFA controls the police operation doesn't it? And UEFA is really going to put its foot down on tech that is there to weed out people convicted of violent crimes, fans with match bans, suspected terrorists etc. from attending the game. Because it's not like Europe has a general problem with football match violence or terrorism to be concerned about is it?

Back in the real world, the police plan the operation and they are going to bring all the tools to bear that the law allows for.

Comment Re:Yes, inherently unpredictable, needs percentage (Score 1) 180

I always provide my managers with confidence interval estimated times

That is a great idea - I did the same thing years ago at a past employer - sadly the manager knew not what to make of it, so I only did it once. It was more accurate than the "real" numbers then ended up going with.

But I think giving a range of timeframes with percentages is probably the best way to go, if you have to give estimates at all...

Comment Re:Yes, inherently unpredictable, needs percentage (Score 1) 180

That's pretty interesting - I had heard about Fogbugs for years even before StackOverflow but had never used it.

Clocking in and out of a task is annoying, but if you make it easy enough it is not too bad.

Sadly one of the main systems I use at the moment is the execrable TFS, with no change the company will switch from it.

Comment Re: prediction... more good comments... not (Score 1) 411

You're the fool. The issue is not coal per se. Even the "uneducated, uniformed nit-wits" as you so elegantly put it understand that.

Thanks for the longer reply earlier.

How many permanent jobs will be created by the pipeline, and how will the "hard hit" towns be rescued from their hit? The answer to the first question is around 50 permanent jobs, and the second one, In Pennsylvania at least, after the gas jobs went away, the communities went back to the way they were, perhaps a little worse, because a lot of businesses bought into the idea of long term jobs, and incurred debt. In North Dakota the fracking boom is over, and it ain't pretty.

This is the real issue with things like the pipeline and gas drilling. People are always promised jobs. But while the people who might work in the fields, and have images of restoring themselves to prosperity, and the businesses in the towns who think the same, the truth is it doesn't happen that way. Here's how it works for fracking, and it will work similarly for building the part of the pipeline you want that isn't built already.

A friend of my Wife's husband worked the gas fields in PA. Here's how it works:

Disclaimer - I am not against fracking, and it is one of the least invasive ways to get energy, as long as we are careful.

He answered an ad for a fracking job, and was hired as an independent contractor. He was paid pretty well, but not eligible for workmanship comp, had no health insurance, or other benefits.

He drove an hour and a half each way to a staging area in mid northern PA, and from there they were trucked to the place where they were working. As an independent contractor, the fee was set, and no day was less than 12 hours - much spent going to the well site and back.

The work consisted of either working in the fracking container - they look kind of like shipping containers on stilts, and some transported water for ponds to hold the water use for fracking.

After a well and pad for collecting the gas was completed, they'd move ot the next site.

But here's where it gets less happy. Towns near areas where a lot of fracking was going on, were in fat city for a few years. The difference in the number of gasfield workers during the drilling and infrastructure process is so dramtic that when they move out of an area, they are all gone. The workers might travel to the new site, but no one is going into the stores and eateries and motels any more. As well, some workers dropped out when the travel time became onerous. Then, after so many wells were drilled that the price of natgas dropped precipitously, the companies moved out. All back to quiet PA woods. No jobs, no people staying in hotels, and spending money in the towns.

Now I knew this was going to happen, but it appears that not many others did. It wasn't that I was so smart, just had a good memory of a previous gas boom in the late 60's early 70's. Despite my pleas, My wife's friend's husband and her bought a house and a new car. Then after 6 months, lost his job.

That oil pipeline will follw exactly the same pattern, only the jobs will be fewer during construction, and there will be a few more permanent workers when done because of the length.

At issue is a government that ignores them and ignores good things (like the keystone pipeline) in order to appease a portion of the electorate.

I see. Good to see that you know exactly what every citizen in the United states is thinking. And you were whinging about th e East Coast Elites. Brother, I've met worse egoo cases but your's is in the top 5. Once we get past your inability to focus upon anything other than political, we can go into some actual eddycation about this pipeline you want so badly.

Appease is the right word because the keystone pipeline and fracking is superior to oil drilling in Russia and SA for a whole host of reasons. The pipeline is what killed the Democrats in 2016. Was it worth it?

Oh bullshit, take your placement of the pipeline as the fall of Hillary and put it in the bucket of ll the other excuses.

Now, tell me about the US production of crude oil since that guy you think was born in Kenya became president. Why it has incresed by 50 percent. Here is a link that you'll hate with a passion

Here is what will save America from the moo slims Pay careful attention to the map. See that green part? It's a majick shortcut for something that already exists.

Politics and facts. Not that you'll believe it. That is all, and thanks for playing, although you've been played

Comment Re:prediction... more good comments... not (Score 2) 411

Opinions are fine, but facts are better. An informed opinion is supported by facts or logic and therefor has some value. Opinions without anything to support it can also be valuable in that it can open a dialog, but people have to be willing to change their opinions when presented with overwhelming evidence.

Many have no intention of changing their mind though - that's the problem.

Comment Re:prediction... more good comments... not (Score 1) 411

It's pretty obvious that the best way to have everyone in the US prosper, that not only the minimum wage must be eliminated, that all employees need drastic cuts in their wages. Because if say, you are making 10 percent of your present wage, the company you work for will have more money to hire more people, reducing the unemployment rate. That's how jobs are created. The problem of course, is sustained prosperity. For that, wages must be continually adjusted downwards, until finally, no one is getting paid anything.

While it is easy to say bullshit on that. But to call bullshit, you have to argue that the only inflationary wages are those at the bottom of the list - the minimum wage. All other wages, all promotions and raises have no effect on onflation at all.

Comment Yes, inherently unpredictable, needs percentages (Score 3, Interesting) 180

Even with known and well understood languages/technologies/frameworks, you can and will run into glitches that can take days to complete something that was supposed to take hours - or even longer if the developers are not skilled in debugging and isolating problems!

StackOverflow has helped the industry in this regard, because now a lot of times you can reduce some mysterious problem to a fifteen second StackOverflow search which instantly answers the issue. But not always, and there are always issues when actually programming any design that you can uncover hidden flaws and need to correct them.

What I would love to see is some kind of approach that instead of a time estimate, gave a time along with a percentage of confidence. Two different tasks may seem to take about five hours, with one you are 90% sure it can be done in five hours, with another (like brand new code) it can be more of a 50% five hours. Then you could use this percentage to determine the actual areas of coding likely to cause schedule issues and monitor them more closely. The other nice benefit of this approach is that it factors in the actual developer understanding and abilities more than just a straight hour estimate. Maybe you even put a cap on how high a confidence level a developer is allowed to give until they have met given estimates a number of times already...

Coding is a chaotic system, yes, but it's not like it's fully chaotic, and there are patterns within the chaos I think you could determine over time.

Slashdot Top Deals

All science is either physics or stamp collecting. -- Ernest Rutherford