Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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:Education gap still WIDE OPEN (Score 1) 421

I agree with you that Boys are behind, but I don't believe that there is enough evidence that Teachers are to blame. The first thing I'd do is attack that nasty relative age effect. It impacts boys more than girls, but it does impact both. It results in younger children being miss diagnosed with ADHD, and more. By changing the school year to 5 quarters using Summer to create the 5th quarter you can cut into the Relative Age Effect substantially. Have all kids have the quarter their birthday falls in off, and each kids 1st quarter is is the very next quarter after their birth quarter. That way all kids are three months or less assuming they are on track. The second thing I'd look into is the Part-Time Wage gap that's creating a lower debt tolerance for men who work Part time with an Associates degree or Bachelor's degree. It could be the result of their chosen major resulting in a graduation disparity with poor men. However, this could also be the result of Part Time labor discrimination on College campuses. For example, if the Psychology department favors paying Women more than Men for part time work the result would be a higher graduation rate of women with Psychology degrees along with a high graduation rate for women overall. And yes Women are paid $1.12 for part-time work with an associates degree working part time between the ages of 18-34 compared to men of the same and get paid $1.20 for a Bachelor's. Since we know that the issue with men and college is a result of debt tolerance in lower income families for men, this would be worth investigating.

Comment Re:Sampling Bias (Score 1) 257

The Media was much more guarded than Mr. "I won in a landslide of a negative margin in raw votes!" so you know who you should be snarking at, if you had some sense.

Guarded? The media was so "Guarded" that it was in tears, and shock by 9 PM. They all failed to read the stats correctly. Most polling had both of them well within the Margin of Error. The State polling was so bad that you were dealing with 5+ MOE being treated as if it had 1 point MOE with a 5 point lead which in fact they were all within the MOE and far too close to estimate states going to Hillary with their "Blue Wall" nonsense. They'd honestly convinced themselves by election night that it was impossible for any Republican to ever win again. Then you had the flood of bad polling. NBC believed that their Survey Monkey Poll was somehow newsworthy with a 1 percent MOE totally ignoring Selection and Mode Bias.

Comment Sampling Bias (Score 4, Insightful) 257

Sorry but the survey only lists that it was an online survey. How was this sample selected, and where if the response rate? Since I see no delineation between Sample Size and Completes I assume this was just a meaningless web survey that wasted their time weighting data that has no meaning because it's missing critical data points. This is how the media got deluded into believing Hillary was destined to win VS Trump. Honestly, if you're going to include a methods section then give me a bit more meat.

Comment Re:More Evidence of my GW Dissent Hypothesis (Score 1) 170

It's mostly different data that should corroborate global warming if the global warming hypothesis was correct. It is far more accurate than using High and Low temperature since the evaporation rate is a continuous measure where High and Low are points in time. For example, if the High temperature was 100 degrees for 1 second, and the low was 0 for 1 second that wouldn't tell you how much energy load was in the atmosphere. The average temperature could have been 50 degrees, or it could have been 75 degrees. High and Low don't tell you much about Energy. If you had the average temperature that would be better, but how frequently you sample the temperature will alter your average. Global Warming Advocates assume that if the High or Low changed the Average must have too, but that's an assumption that the Pan Evaporation rate does not Corroborate. In the case of average temperature you don't know if things are changing due to an improvement in sampling methodology, or due to a genuine change in the environment. We also don't have a lot of long-term average temperature averages until we automate with computer assisted weather stations giving us visibility only from about 1970 to present. As for other measures that can and do corroborate my finding the Precipitation Rate does as well. It may be subjected to a bit more randomness since it doesn't rain at a station every day where evaporation will occur until it freezes, and not all sites freeze.

Comment Re:More Evidence of my GW Dissent Hypothesis (Score 1) 170

The Pan Evaporation Rate is the rate at which water evaporates from a Pan. The are stationed at weather stations near water reserves so that we can manage and monitor evaporation loss. If Global Warming actually increased the water cycle we would see it in the yearly change in evaporation. Unless one wants to abandon the claim of Global Warming altering the Water Cycle.

Comment Re:More Evidence of my GW Dissent Hypothesis (Score 1) 170

Dissenter actually, and since the Pan Evaporation data only goes back to 1950 under a single collection methodology that's as far back and this particular point can go. You can consult with the US Geological Survey about how the prior method was worthless in measuring the evaporation of Lake Mead. I have that prior data, and before 1950 the measurements are erratic and too few. Temperature data can be used, but ultimately boils down to whether you believe in climate scientists weighted data, or climate dissent raw data. Ice and snow pack data can also complement, but it has an unfortunate collection record resulting in a blind spot before 1950 and after about 2008 due to budget cuts. Those collection errors would lead to the need to weight and comes down to who's weighting do you believe. Pan Evaporation has no need of that. It needs to be very accurate to measure the water loss in our reserves, and that's it. We don't have thousands but give me a couple hundred high quality data points over a thousand separatistic data points any day of the week.

Comment Re:More Evidence of my GW Dissent Hypothesis (Score 1) 170

There are other effects. I'd have to dig up the NASA articles on it. There is a high altitude cloud formation, plasma clouds, that is caused by the plasma that the CME's produce when they leak in. I took one of the local formations a few months back. We actually did see a lot more of these, and NASA predicted it when they started seeing weird things from Cycle 24. Like the entire ionosphere ripping open exposing the day side of the earth to higher levels of solar radiation. Northern lights are complex phenomena that you may not even see unless the conditions are right. Plasma clouds are a lot easier to detect, and just require high energy plasma in the upper atmosphere.

Comment Re:More Evidence of my GW Dissent Hypothesis (Score 1) 170

It's times like these that, as much as I enjoy text, I lament Slashdots lack of image support. Rath than actually attack my argument you deflected to an irrelevant point that you can more aptly strike down. Do you care to explain why the change in the pan evaporation rate is unchanged from 1950 to 2005 doing a very nice random walk back and forth about 10 mm? I'm not sure if you have even a back past your ability to set up a 5 point strawman, but that random walk is just statistical noise. Which means the data shows no global warming for the time period. After 2005 I have to say the data does show a disturbing increase in evaporation, but it doesn't correlate with CO2, and that mean without correlation you have no causation. The most correlation there is after 2005 is with Solar Cycle 24. I may only have a significant correlation, but the evidence like this article is a part of a growing body of evidence to support my hypothesis.

Comment More Evidence of my GW Dissent Hypothesis (Score -1) 170

I know, you're already modding me down as "Off Topic" or "Over-Rated." What people are trying to sell me as a Man Made Global Warming is nothing more than a change in our Magnetic Field that's letting things in that it shouldn't be. Want proof? Want Evidence? Look no further than the Global Historical Climatology Network Dataset hosted by NOAA. The Pan Evaporation rate explains it all. If you map out the average delta from over time, you'll find no argument for any significant global warming AT ALL from 1950 to 2005. After 2005 something goes a bit queer. Negative deltas start to vanish during Solar Minimum. Cosmic Rays in excess? Then with the last solar cycle, the delta follows it. Why would the latest solar cycle show in the evaporation rate, but not prior ones? Solar storms leaking through the Earths EM? But, no, data-driven dissent of Global Warming is entirely unacceptable.

Comment Re:No, they didn't tell you that. (Score 1) 364

Still not buying. The Pan Evaporation Rate Data from NOAA contradicts the narrative so soundly that I won't buy it at all. Sure, the Earth is warming, but if you want me to believe your argument of Cause, then you have to resolve the contradiction. I know, Pan Evaporation Rate, who cares about Water Absorbing heat and evaporating fueling the Water Cycle? It's just used to make sure we have enough water in our reservoirs. There isn't anything it can tell us about Global Warming because if we accept that data, then we know that between 1950 to 2005 there was little to no measurable global warming. I wonder why? Why is it that solar cycle 24 seems to be embedded into the Pan Evaporation Rate, but not the periods prior? That's a bit Odd, doncha think? It's quite queer to have a solar event embedded into a weather measurement so clearly, but not in the previous measurements. Did something change between 2005 and 2011 to explain the change? I don't know because merely bringing up the data gets me labeled some very despicable things just for a wee little bit of dissent. I guess it's just Socially Unacceptable Data; Science has been there before.

Comment Re:Wrong even if correct (Score 1) 255

I'm sure if ANY currency were used for REAL banking it would inflate. Inflation is from banking Borrowing and Lending. There is no real Borrowing and Lending of bitcoin mostly due to most, if not all, of the Bitcoin 'Banks' being Ponzi scams not backed by FDIC, or other Gov Entity, to stop runs. And Certain types of Deflation is ALWAYS bad like deflation caused by a credit crunch because the direct result will be massive amounts of defaults from people being unable to pay their loans. Certain types of Deflation is ALWAYS good like deflation caused by increases in efficiency like how a Low to Mid Grade PC isn't 1500 like it was in the 90's.

Slashdot Top Deals

"We Americans, we're a simple people... but piss us off, and we'll bomb your cities." -- Robin Williams, _Good Morning Vietnam_

Working...