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:Intel is blowing (Score 1) 96

I prefer Samsung's RAPID mode myself. Up to 1GB of RAM used as read-cache, though no write-back caching to ensure protection of data (not everyone has a UPS on their desktop, and most RAID cards have a lithium battery onboard to assist against write-back caching data loss). It's fast, and will scale back if more system resources are needed by the OS and apps; though that's only an issue for systems with 4GB of ram, and 8GB in rare cases. Did I mention it's FAST!?. Can't execute anything faster than DDR4 at the moment on a desktop :)

Intel can suck my fat one.

Comment Re:The good ones (Score 0) 151

The US is bankrupt; just cutting to the chase of it all. In essence, oversupply of labor (in any field) puts deflationary pressure on value. Here in the US, the government is printing money to support an employed workforce. Meanwhile, the Indian and Hispanic birthrate is outstripping demand, so expect the wages to drop further in the global IT market.

Deflation, marked with inflation = FUCKED!

What's the answer? There is none. But what can not going on forever, wont; and you can take that to the bank.

I recon WW3 to be honest. It's not want I want, but historically strife leads to war; so there you have it.

Comment Re:This is why i didn't buy day 1 (Score 1) 90

How many times did the XBOX get recalled and redesigned to address the RROD? How many times did Sony address the CD lens issue in the PS1 and PS3? I'll grant you that the NES was long overdue for a product revision due to a design flaw in the cartridge slot, but I still stand behind my original statement of this predominantly being a Gen5 to Gen6 issue.

Comment Re:Reminds me of a conversation with a colleague (Score 4, Insightful) 265

I don't think most people really understand why the West is (more or less) organised, developed, peaceful, democratic (more or less).

And I wish there was a simple answer. But the list of factors just keeps growing. There are many lands in the world where nation states just will not start up, no matter how much aid is given nor ordinance be dropped.

A major factor is the tribal nature of societies, which don't transition well into nationhood because its government institutions become tribal, nepotistic, and so simply raise resentment amongst the youth who are not well connected. Look at the global corruption index for a measure of why having fair, open, meritocratic, institutions are essential for countries to "work". And how do you make an institution meritocratic and fair if everyone you hire is tribalistic and used to the tribal loyalty and connections way of doing business?

Then, that's just one factor. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying tribes are bad. They have been humanity's answer to social order for 50,000 years or more. It ain't going anywhere anytime soon.

A place like the UK started to rewrite the social rules starting with the Magna Carta 800 years ago. It has had time to work its way into the institutions.

Then, on top of that, you have a regional war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. They run proxy wars though all sorts of groups, in a region where population growth and failed modernity has provided a lot of young unemployed men who love the idea of brotherhood and so readily form militias and want to kick ass. All that weaponry funding is coming from somewhere, namely the Saudis and Iranians and in turn, their Western allies and their Russian and Chinese allies.

And that's just for starters, before we even get to the 100 shades of Islam and the authoritarian nature of that religion which on the one hand, makes people want to have a peaceful, ordered, highly moral life, yet on the other hand, is quite uncompromising and has a retro-revival ethos going, making it highly puritanical, and is being actively weaponised by various political and religious leaders.

And that's before we even get into more complex factors.

So basically, no, just repatriating migrants and getting tough with regimes isn't going to get very far.

Comment Re:Similar (Score 1) 211

Climate science is "systems science". It is very much a hard science; however, there'll always be uncertainties for political ideologues to talk up. We've got about a 10% of creating a disaster, and no second planet earth yo move to, and that alone means we should be talking about appropriate actions, and not *if* there's a problem. It's very easy for the oil industry to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt over the science, which is just a tried and true political game. The scientists themselves will not (by and large) explain what to do -- that's not their expertise -- but they are convinced that there is a problem, and their reasons are clearly explained. has a summary of "skeptic arguments" and what scientists say. You can always read the peer reviewed literature yourself. But somehow I think you'll just retreat back to your blog and news sites, which give you the information you want to believe.

Look, I am sure you won't like this or agree, but as a human being, I can only say it as best as I have come to see it, and from trying to follow this issue over the last 15 years or so, there's a couple of things I see quite clearly, albeit, had I not read the stuff I read, I would not see it this way, but for what it is worth, as reasoned debate here's a couple of key points:

All of us are part of one sub culture or another and we all make value judgements. The environmental movement is a values driven culture, and is broadly about human's place in the ecosystem, which is a values judgement which says that humanity is one species on the planet. That particular values judgement downplays the role of human, seeing human as just another species. That's kinda the deep ecology view. Now there's variations on that, as not everyone goes that far, but that is an example of values judgements. That humans are less valuable than forests.

Now your values judgements may or may not line up with that. That's not my point. My point is that you are making values judgements, one sort or another, as for example, all the people who say we must act, and then pick solutions which are base do the belief that humans are essentially selfish and consume too much and don't know how to live in balance.

People who say that would not, for example, say that a human is a part of nature, created by nature, and that a human is merely living out their natural competition and drive in evolutionary natural selection to become the dominant species and transform as much raw material as possible into survival advantage, and that therefore the answer to running out of resources is to go to space and mine asteroids, because that's what nature does, expand and propagate life as fas as possible.

Can you see the implied values judgements in saying that humans should cut back on consumption? Now I'm not saying that's a wrong judgment, but it is a judgment, ie. ethics and not facts, it is a human ethical judgement, and only then do people decide what we "must" do to combat climate change. Instead, people who don't have this judgment about selfishness will more normally go for the "adapt" with "new technology" ideas, rather than the "reduce" and "consume less" ideas.

Climate change as an issue about solutions is all about values judgements. And that's why oil companies as symbols of big bad polluting uncaring capitalism are seen as the only ones driving the politics, whereas the good guys like wind are seen as just doing the right thing based on the facts.

Yet, we use lots of energy so any solution will be a big solution, and wind farms are not little friendly wind mills, they are billion dollar installations, and before long they'll be trillion dollars' worth of installations, and that by definition is big energy, and I find it hard to believe that those big companies don't have vested interests in promoting the idea of man made climate change and decarbonisation.

And nuclear has a vested interest too. Now we may say they are "clean" but they will have vested interests in driving the climate change narrative. It is a very simple point. Even that ultra right wing "bitch" Margaret Thatcher took to talking about decarbonisation as a way to break the coal unions back in the 70s. But these days, because "decarbonisation" is morally linked with "less greed", activists overlook the vested interests of the big alternative energy companies, companies which are looking to receive billions, in wind, gas, and nuclear.

Second point, by "soft" I mean it is hard to prove. There are some fields now where they asking whether the work is actually science or more like philosophy.
Why? Because when it strays from hard testability then you wonder whether it is just an elegant sounding philosophy.

The whole "we have to act" mantra largely covers over this flaw, that climate models inside computers are NOT experiments, they never were experiments, and they never will be experiments, but they get called "experiments". That alone, just for starters, should tell you something is slipping in the standards and reasoning. And there is a historical precedent for this kind of slip.

Back in the 50s and 60s there was the idea that eating fat caused heart disease. There was also the idea that sugar was the real culprit. And the experts at the time knew the evidence was not conclusive. But they said, "gee the health of the nation is at stake and we must do something to provide the public with urgently needed guidance to stem this epidemic of heart disease, so we cannot afford to wait for 'certainty', we have to act!" and so they did and here's the real problem: they got it wrong, and actually drove people to eating the very foods which DID give them worse health.

It went from what was a somewhat worrying heart disease problem, into a vastly worse epidemic of diabetes and obesity, which is so bad it may ruin the health systems of some nations, as they struggle to cope with it.

See, there is no "safe" answer around climate change. Whatever you say we "must" do will have consequences. And there is no shortcut to the truth. You either do the science properly (such as for example not calling computer models "experiments" and treating them as validated when they are not) or you simply say, "well, we don't know, we just don't know." and then saying, well, given WE DON'T KNOW, how should we as a society deal with that uncertainty? Um... make backups of key infrastructure for example?

Become better able to adapt to CHANGE, whatever it might be? See, that's a very different set of answers to "we are greedy humans and we must consume less".

So, to stop this getting too long I left a lot of stuff out, but that's really two key points: all sides in this are making values judgments; and there are no shortcuts in science, it is better to say we don't know (because if you stop calling people denialists and actually start to look, you can see it isn't known, and this is not the first time major scientific bodies all rallied behind a theory which was lacking real evidence). Then we can start to look at rapid climate change (warming, cooling, rain bands moving, desertification, re-greening of the planet, etc and whatever) and design ways to protect infrastructure and systems.

And by all means let people continue to champion for a less materialistic, more connected, more humanistic, more united planet, but do so for ethical reasons.

Don't bother trying to shoehorn an ethics into a science theory. Because then the science theory is never allowed to be wrong because it "invalidates" the ethics, which is stupid, as ethics is its own justification, as a real area of human inquiry. Be nice to your neighbour, not because of climate change, but because that is ethically a rational thing to do for a better world and for everyone.

This is why you have the political polarisation in climate change, because it is really both sides turning a science hypothesis into their own "moral" drive. Same happens with abortion/creationism/etc. And it is quite stupid and unnecessary to mix ethics and science so neither can do its job properly.

So I apologise that's a long post but without context I'm more likely to be brandished one of those alt-right denier troll types.

Comment Re:Nope (Score 1) 144

2014 called -

Forget Makerbot - did you warn them about the Paris attacks? The Ankara bombings? The Metrojet bombing? Did you tell them to have Robin Williams visit a psychiatrist? Did you tell them to have Carrie Fisher visit a cardiologist? Did you have them warn Ukraine not to underestimate Russia in Donbass? Did you tell Germanwings to up their game on psych evals? Did you tell them to teach Podesta basic email security? Did you tell about Brexit? Did you warn them about Trump? Did you have anyone tell Clinton that she'll be best known for email servers and a conspiracy theory about a pizza parlor's occult child pornography dungeon? Did you warn Bowling Green about the horrific terror attack, and the cruel irony that people will forget about it?

Comment Re: Nope (Score 3, Interesting) 144

Is it really that expensive? I know some people who had run a small startup automaker that raised 30-something million. They were about 3 months out from first commercial deliveries (having made a couple dozen prototypes to various degrees, ranging from empty shells to full builds), with about $10m still left in the bank - when the board decided to bring on a guy from Detroit (Paul Wilbur, the guy responsible for the Chevy SSR, and a bunch of other train-wrecks-in-car-form), who then proceeded to run the company into the ground.

Are aircraft that much more expensive than cars, that you can't even build a demonstrator for that kind of money? To be fair, the automaker's vehicle was technically classified as a motorcycle, so their regulations weren't as onerous as for most cars (but they still did full crash and crush tests anyway, voluntarily). But, I mean, they just churned out prototypes one after the next.

Comment Re:Similar (Score 1, Troll) 211

Um, the point is, dare I say this, that there's very hard science and there's soft science. There's findings which are highly testable, repeatedly, and there's findings which are verging on the non-reproduceable. And whilst science tends to self-correct, sometimes, just sometimes, it can take decades for that self-correction to take place, simply because as you say, it is impossible to remove any bias and error all the time, yet science as a practice must go on.

We are just now, for example, a big example, witnessing a 100% reversal in the thinking behind dietary advice which was the basis for public health advice for the last 50 years. It seems it was soo wrong, that it actually created the epidemic of obesity, diabetes, and maybe even dementia. But this correction is ongoing, and we'll probably need another 50 years to know whether this correction is actually correct.

And it was all science. Albeit, given the limitations of what you can do to people in a lab, it was all soft science, but despite it being soft, the authorities and people in charge still pushed it as pretty definitive and correct. See, that's risk.

Put aside all the politics and questions of morality and ethics and whether humans are too stupid to do the right thing, there is always risk that the big theory is wrong, dead wrong, and that it will have consequences. And when you look at what things like, "97% of scientists are in consensus" are actually based on, you can see it is being oversold, for the sake of "saving the planet".

We cannot, well some people do, rule out the bias of "expert bias". It happens. We know it happens, from time to time. Especially when there is apparent consensus. I used to believe global warming 100% and assume it was all correct, because I normally trust science, but then started to wonder why people were touting consensus and virtual certainty.

Science, the one thing is needs to be in practice, is self-correcting, but once people declare consensus and virtual certainty, we can no longer know whether it can be trusted because that one thing, self-correction, it being open to question by anybody, "on the word of no-one", as the motto used to go, goes out the window.

It cannot self-correct if any dissenting scientists gets lambasted as deniers.
It may be right it may be wrong. Wait another 100 years to find out.

Act in the meantime as you see fit. May the consequences be on your head.

Comment Re:In before global warming whiners... (Score 4, Insightful) 211

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 Re:I know (Score 1) 252

About the only way of getting offended is if you take things massively out of context.

Surely not a lack of honesty. That would never offend anybody.

Oh... were you telling us what is and is not offensive while also instantly proving that you dont find even obvious dishonesty offensive...

Comment Re:The actual real problem with Mars... (Score 4, Insightful) 103

The profit (a minority of their profit, it should be added) is coming from saving taxpayers money. What the heck is your problem with that?

If they were making some amount of launches cheaper - sure - but that's not the case.

Yes, it is the case; they cost vastly less than ULA.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The value of marriage is not that adults produce children, but that children produce adults." -- Peter De Vries