Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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:What precentage caused by man? (Score 2) 268

I've been modded down already

Well it wasn't one of your more accurate contributions was it? Oooops.

Beside the confusion between Penn State and the University of East Anglia, to say Dr Mann is "really really bad at statistics" is perhaps to overstate the actual criticism leveled at his now infamous 1998 paper. In any case subsequent reconstructions, --and the last word, I presume, goes to Marcott et al. 2013 --more or less confirm the original conclusions of Mann et al.. I'm would assume you (and I genuinely respect your intelligence and erudition phantom) are already aware of that.

it's also worth mentioning that this paper is using computer models

And, invaluable though they may be, we would certainly exercise caution when considering the findings of simulations. In any case, we would naturally be sceptical of any only recently published paper. It's the weight of the extant literature of course, including the examination and perhaps replication by the entire profession of newly published work, that forms the best available science.

I realise that the plural of anecdote is not data, and I realise that warming here in Australia is occurring at a faster rate than globally, but this summer just gone has been truly alarming. Driving my family through 46C heat on the NSW South Coast in Feb was the first time I was literally scared of the temperature (not just uncomfortable but frightened that the vehicle and air-con might give out).

Comment How often do you reinvent the wheel? (Score 5, Informative) 268

why isn't there more recent material published showing the proven change?

For the same reason physics journals are not filled with recent papers investigating whether falling objects move towards or away from Earth. The human contribution (established not only by the C12/C13 ratios but also by estimates of rates of fossil fuel consumption) is no longer a matter of serious dispute. The argument has moved on to issues of climate sensitivity; just what the actual effect will be on tropical storm formation &c. If you want to see the original work establishing the human fingerprint you would need to look at papers from last century, when this was still a live issue. You are better off going to the most recent IPCC summation of the science (which will link you through to original papers), which in this case would be Chapter 8 and Chapter 10 of the 2015 WG1 report of AR5.

In the meantime that link provided gives a very nice concise summary of one of the lines of evidence by which the human fingerprint was established.

I would think that ...

... you would have thanked OP for that informative link. Or were you not the AC who wanted to know how we know about the anthropogenic contribution to observed warming?


Netflix Replacing Star Ratings With Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down ( 97

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Variety: Get ready to say goodbye to star ratings on Netflix: The company is getting ready to replace stars with Pandora-like thumbs ups and thumbs downs in the coming weeks. Previously-given star rating will still be used to personalize the profiles of Netflix users, but the stars are disappearing from the interface altogether. Netflix VP of Product Todd Yellin told journalists on Thursday during a press briefing at the company's headquarters in Los Gatos, Calif., that the company had tested the new thumbs up and down ratings with hundred of thousands of members in 2016. "We are addicted to the methodology of A/B testing," Yellin said. The result was that thumbs got 200% more ratings than the traditional star-rating feature. Netflix is also introducing a new percent-match feature that shows how good of a match any given show or movie is for an individual subscriber. For example, a show that should close to perfectly fit a user's taste may get a 98% match. Shows that have less than a 50% match won't display a match-rating, however.

Comment Where's the risk? (Score 1) 130

The article, accurately summarized and absent any clickbait titles: "They have a faster supercomputer than we do. That means they are ranked higher, and are faster than ours. We want the fastest supercomputers. Whoever has the fastest supercomputer can solve all our problems, but that person only. It should be us, so we need the fastest supercomputer."

It's About Time Astronauts Got Healthcare For Life ( 283

Miriam Kramer, reporting for Mashable: NASA astronaut Michael Lopez-Alegria flew to space four times for the space agency between 1995 and 2007. While in space, his eyesight deteriorated, a well-documented medical issue NASA's known about for years, and one that many astronauts have experienced first-hand. For many astronauts, their eyesight readjusts once they get back to Earth. That wasn't the case for Lopez-Alegria, though. His eyesight got significantly worse during his time in orbit, and NASA isn't paying for his contacts or doctor visits today, years after his retirement from the agency. However, he still travels to Houston, Texas once per year to allow the agency to gather data about his health, without any expectation that NASA will offer treatment for any conditions that may have developed because of his time in space. In other words, while Lopez-Alegria's eyesight deteriorates, NASA benefits from the data he provides to the American space program, without medical recompense to him today. The lack of health care for former astronauts has long been a sore spot at NASA, but now it threatens the agency's future. Deep space missions beyond the moon, like a mission to Mars, require a better understanding of how extended spaceflight affects the human body.

Comment Re: Victim Blaming? (Score 1) 113

So what do you propose instead? Keep in mind that blaming the accused (before evidence or judgement is given) is basically as wrong as blaming the accuser. How do you express skepticism or withhold judgement in a way you see as correct?

As you say it's "basically as wrong" to go one way or the other. I already answered this above, but to recap: What I propose is nothing more radical than adhering to the ordinary presumptions a court is required to make, for example, in a criminal process. That is to say that a) the accused is entitled to the (rebuttable) presumption of innocence and b) the accuser(s) (and indeed all witnesses) are entitled to the (rebuttable) presumption of honest testimony. As I wrote above, the process can be thought of as a resolution of the contradiction thus set up.

If there is relevant evidence tending to speak to a client's guilt, one seeks to exclude it on the basis that it is unlawfully obtained; hearsay; tendency or coincidence evidence; &c. Bearing in mind the restrictions due to the credibility rule, one seeks to impugn the reliability or character of the witness; to show the testimony is self-serving; &c. And of course, where possible, to show that the evidence led is demonstrably false. However, the mere fact that evidence that tends to show the guilt of an accused is not a reason to presume that evidence is false (and then have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, its veracity). The point of the presumption of innocence, after all, is that the state lead evidence to rebut it.

Now as private citizens reaching mere opinions, we need not, of course, be anywhere near as punctilious as a court, much less need we work to a criminal standard of proof (my opinions are held on the 'balance of probabilities'). However bearing in mind the proper presumptions as we consider the limited evidence available should stop us jumping to hasty conclusions either than an accused is guilty or an accuser a liar.

What's the right thing to say when one of your friends states that either the accuser or the accused has done Horrible Things?

How about: "You know I really envy your confidence in coming to quick conclusions with very little direct evidence." ;) Being the contrary bastard that I am, I often begin arguing the opposite of any position put to me. TBH, I'm a bit self-centred, probably you'd get on better with people if you just go along with the tribal prejudices of your friends.

Comment Re: Victim Blaming? (Score 1) 113

A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. --Prov 15:1

It's amazing how judgemental you can be when you phrase it kindly :)

Yes, I was left with an uneasy feeling that this might be going on here .. but as I said above, I withdraw. Looking at the totality of your contributions I find nothing to persuade me from the presumption ;) that you have anything but the best intentions in mind.

Your basic point, if I understand you, is the all too common to rush to blame the victim, even where blame is clothed in the mantle of "scepticism," (e.g. "I'm not saying you're lying, but I won't believe you until you prove you are not lying") is a wrong and we should guard against expressing our doubt in that way. It would certainly be intolerable where the accusations are well founded (which we cannot know until the evidence is examined), and as against OP assertion that "[v}ictim blaming happens far less than false claims," one rather suspects the exact opposite to be the case.

Comment Re: Victim Blaming? (Score 1) 113

If you lead with sympathy, you're good. If you lead with accusations, then you're bad.

A problem, I think, is that too many people assume the presumption of innocence we must extend to an accused, involves a corollary presumption of guilt against the veracity of the accuser. That is not so. Someone making a complaint is entitled to the rebuttable presumption that their accusation is made in good faith, just as the person against whom the complaint is raised is entitled to a presumption of innocence.

The "process" --and this clearly applies to a curial process, but arguably it ought also apply to an investigative one --might be understood as a process of resolving the contradiction, by reference to the available evidence, between the two presumptions reason (or law) requires us to make.

Comment Re:Read the response... (Score 1) 244

Right, no one likes that. But that's besides that point that someone lies to you and that reveals some inconsistency in your preferences, it seems like a good time to re-evaluate.

Even so aren't you privileging the taste of the stuff above all other considerations? What if my preference was to be a single-malt drinker? If Lagavulin turns out to be blended, the fact that it tastes so good won't assuage the injury, since it is my sense of self not merely my sense of taste has been affronted. ;)

Slashdot Top Deals

Error in operator: add beer