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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Followed by: (Score 2) 277

The system is far too complex for you to be making almost every claim in your comment. You can do a small physics experiment to prove that CO2 increases are causing all of the ocean temp increases? No, you cannot. There could be a feedback system that 100% counteracts that effect or even 175% counteracts that effect and some completely different interaction is responsible for the net increase of ocean temps. And then higher ocean temps will cause more storms? Maybe, maybe not.

If everyone who patted themselves on the back for being "pro-science" would take a couple months and read some philosophy books on science and its methods, I feel like we would end up with far more productive conversations and better research investment and policy decisions. Science isn't s out memorizing facts of what "we know" according to "consensus of scientists". Science is the opposite of relying on what authority figures say is true. That's called religion. It's important for consumers of science to understand what is knowable and how powerful (or not) certain statistical and scientific methods are. The single biggest problem we have in science today is overstating findings that simply are not supportable by the evidence. Scientists included, too -- see: replication crisis, endless reversals in nutrition science, etc

Comment Re:Followed by: (Score 1) 277

> The number of major floods and the intensity of those floods is increasing, and the most likely agent is AGW", well that's a statement of probability.

Except it's not. Floods are steady and the damage as a % of GDP has fallen 75% since 1950.

Truth is you need a much longer time scale before you have enough power to see an effect of climate change in the statistics.

Comment Re:Followed by: (Score 1) 277

Actually I think you got it wrong too. Saying climate change most likely increased the amount of rain is actually a causal conclusion that is not supportable. It's an opinion. The more accurate way to say it is that the amount of rain is consistent with what one might expect given the effects of climate change.

But it's actually just as possible that the rain would have been more if not for climate change.

Comment And... Then there's actual science (Score 1) 277

I actually don't thin Bill is saying it's the result of climate change. He is saying it is consistent with what we would expect from climate change. And then I can't tell if Bill or the journoclown is getting it wrong by making the leap that THEREFORE it was the result of climate change. Of course that does not follow logically.

The power of statistics is such that we would need many decades of data before we could theoretically detect that climate change is indeed changing the frequency or intensity of these events. Truth is that things like floods APPEAR to be dropping when measured in meaningful ways.

When people make these statements, they are worse than people who deny science. They are pretending to be scientific when being quite the opposite.

There are sane people out there. They are rare. But they exist. Here is one: https://youtu.be/meoETyMA4K0

Submission + - Malibu Media stay lifted, motion to quash denied

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: In the federal court for the Eastern District of New York, where all Malibu Media cases have been stayed for the past year, the Court has lifted the stay and denied the motion to quash in the lead case, thus permitting all 84 cases to move forward. In his 28-page decision (PDF), Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke accepted the representations of Malibu's expert, one Michael Patzer from a company called Excipio, that in detecting BitTorrent infringement he relies on "direct detection" rather than "indirect detection", and that it is "not possible" for there to be misidentification.

Comment Self-reporting? Stupid methodology (Score 1) 399

This is garbage. Measuring the effect based on simply asking people if they have been swayed by a Facebook post is a laughable approach and misses how this actually does happen. Yes, nobody (or very few) reads a post containing a logical argument for why Politician X shouldn't have your support and then changes their mind. But many people, especially those who might consider themselves apolitical, absolutely are influenced by their friends mocking Politician X and supporters of Politician X.

Most people do not vote based on a logical viewing of issues. Most people don't even know the positions their candidate claims to hold on an issue, and candidates often switch positions post-election to little or no punishment. People vote mostly based on how a candidate makes them feel and that absolutely is influenced by whether you will have to suffer ridicule from your social circles.

Comment Re:Foward Security (Score 1) 43

End to end encryption is part of a marketing strategy. They aren't out to protect your privacy for some personal mission. They're selling iPhones, and this feature helped sell iPhones. It took this long for anyone to see this shortcut, and I'm sure there are others, which is why iMessage is opaque.

That said, it reminds me of the password manager debate. Strictly speaking, it's insane to put all your passwords in one place and secure it with one master password. But in practice it actually increases security for most people who would otherwise use "password" for their password on every site on the interwebs. Even though iMessage is not 100%, it's ease of use and integrated nature leads to higher security/privacy for most people. For a use case that relies heavily on a network of people who all have a given encryption app installed for YOU to be able to send them encrypted messages, the fact that "normal" people will use iMessage is actually a big deal.

Comment Re:Don't care, not my card, card issuer's problems (Score 1) 385

As I have said elsewhere in this discussion, I have had fraudulent charges on my card many times. Does that mean my card was "stolen"? Not sure and don't care. I travel all the time and yes, it is inconvenient to be out a credit card for a day, especially as I use different cards to keep my expenses segregated. But in every case the company called me before I knew anything had happened, asked me to verify the charges, and overnighted a new card to me.

You're right that I am what you defined as a responsible CC user, and I hadn't thought about how that might affect my experience. The CC company makes money off of me in transaction fees, so perhaps they are more motivated to keep a card in my hand than someone who makes them money on an existing balance that continues accruing interest no matter whether they have an active card in hand. But until I see some hard evidence to the contrary, I'm going to continue assuming people whining about fraudulent CC charges have no idea what they are talking about.

Comment Re:It's still our problem; just well hidden (Score 1) 385

I think you basically validated what I said; you just worded it differently. You don't want to spend more than you have, so you want a debit card. You don't want to track your credit balance compared to your cash balance, so you have a debit card. These things do not suggest to me that the credit card is the problem.

Slashdot Top Deals

This login session: $13.76, but for you $11.88.

Working...