×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

"Mammoth Snow Storm" Underwhelms

Atzanteol Re:jessh (393 comments)

So it's worth people dying in order to proclaim us to be a nation of "not-wimps?"

2 days ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Where Can You Get a Good 3-Button Mouse Today?

Atzanteol Re:We don't all work in Windows + efficiency (427 comments)

All of which are *much* more efficient than "ctrl+c" + "ctrl+v". I'll be honest - I like the highlight + center-click thing for the most part. But there are a number of times where explicit copy/paste is much nicer. And I think at this point it's actually more efficient overall. ctrl+c is pretty damned easy to hit and removes the accidental copy issues one can run into. Also having *one* copy/paste buffer is *enormously* better than Linux's sorta-kinda-two. Yes, workarounds...

4 days ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Where Can You Get a Good 3-Button Mouse Today?

Atzanteol Re:We don't all work in Windows + efficiency (427 comments)

and occasionally less efficient - especially if you want to paste *over* something like a URL.

Select new URL, select old URL, paste, oh crap, delete old URL, got *back* and select new URL, paste.

4 days ago
top

What Will Google Glass 2.0 Need To Actually Succeed?

Atzanteol Re:A Cyrano de Bergerac app (324 comments)

Yeah I would kill for such an app.

Sounds like this app would be very helpful then.

about a week ago
top

US Senate Set To Vote On Whether Climate Change Is a Hoax

Atzanteol Re:denial as a negotiation tactic (666 comments)

This is why I feel scientists and others need to distance policy decisions from the science of climate change. Get the facts accepted first. Worry about policy afterwards. After all - that *is* the area of politics (for better or for worse).

Heck - maybe Republicans would offer a very good market-based solution once they get on board with the science? We can't know until they do.

about a week ago
top

Systemd's Lennart Poettering: 'We Do Listen To Users'

Atzanteol Re:Just keep it away from Gentoo and I'm good (551 comments)

Why does init have to handle ntpd?

It doesn't. If you don't want it to then don't install systemd-timesyncd.

about two weeks ago
top

WSJ Refused To Publish Lawrence Krauss' Response To "Science Proves Religion"

Atzanteol Re:Yawn (556 comments)

Who or what did I compare to Nazis or Hitler?

Hint - nobody.

about three weeks ago
top

WSJ Refused To Publish Lawrence Krauss' Response To "Science Proves Religion"

Atzanteol Re:Yawn (556 comments)

You seem to be confusing "I don't care about it" with "it's not newsworthy." Your strongest argument is "they have the right to do it."

Well damn - nothing ever newsworthy involves somebody doing something they have the right to do? So if they start publishing pro-nazi propaganda that's not "newsworthy?"

The very fact that people are discussing the issue makes it newsworthy - your apathy notwithstanding.

about three weeks ago
top

WSJ Refused To Publish Lawrence Krauss' Response To "Science Proves Religion"

Atzanteol Re:Yawn (556 comments)

Strictly speaking that is true. However many religions don't simply claim "god exists." They make other claims that are testable (age of the Earth, effectiveness of prayer, etc) however. It is exactly in these areas where science *does* have an opinion - and a strong one at that.

about three weeks ago
top

WSJ Refused To Publish Lawrence Krauss' Response To "Science Proves Religion"

Atzanteol Re: Yawn (556 comments)

Your dry-cleaner looks at a wart on your face and tells you to just apply some vinegar - you'll be fine.

Your dermatologist looks at the same wart on your face and tells you you should do some tests to ensure that it's not cancer.

Whose "opinion" are you going to take?

about three weeks ago
top

Neil DeGrasse Tyson Explains His Christmas Tweet

Atzanteol Re:Kind of disappointed in him. (681 comments)

Very filbisteric of you. If only I could hergmo such peolistic amacronisms.

about 1 month ago
top

Ask Slashdot: What Can I Really Do With a Smart Watch?

Atzanteol Re:are you serious? (232 comments)

I do it under similar circumstances (not a clean room, quite the opposite)

Not sure you know what "similar" means...

about a month ago
top

In Breakthrough, US and Cuba To Resume Diplomatic Relations

Atzanteol Re:Failed state policies (435 comments)

That fact doesn't matter nearly as much as you might think it does. He flies in doctors because the Cuban ones aren't as competent and because he can personally afford to. That has zero bearing on whether people have access to healthcare - though it does speak to the quality of the healthcare they are being given.

about a month and a half ago
top

The Dutch Village Where Everyone Has Dementia

Atzanteol Re:$6k to 7$7k/month (231 comments)

As a connoisseur of "libertarian crap" let me just say you have a bit of a ways to go my friend. "collect?" I think you mean "steal!" And never explain that you mean taxes by that - it just weakens your over-the-top hyperbole. Not to mention "subsidize?" Next time say "give away your hard earned income."

And try to work in a reference to the Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged or Nazis next time 'kay? If I'm gonna read this crap it should at least be entertaining.

about 2 months ago
top

American Express Seeks To Swap Card Numbers For Secure Tokens

Atzanteol Re:Bootstrapping a cell phone as the second factor (130 comments)

They call you on your land-line with a voice recording and a IVR system asks you to press 1 if you approve the purchase.

about 3 months ago
top

Creationism Conference at Michigan State University Stirs Unease

Atzanteol Re:So they got their reservation using deception? (1007 comments)

Yes - I believe we agree here. I think, perhaps, we've been using the verb "silence" a bit differently which may be the cause of some confusion. I'm using it with a perhaps more "liberal" meaning. Not to actively silence (censor) but to not allow a voice (refusing to acknowledge). Depending on ones POV either can be considered to be "silencing." I'm more against the former than the latter.

There exists a word for what you want to communicate: "ignore". There is no reason to use "silence" to mean "ignore" except to confuse.

Sort of - Ignore isn't quite what I had in mind. Something stronger than that. Refusing to publish the paper of a quack, for example, isn't just ignoring - it's removing that opinion from the public sphere. Or maybe something like not hiring a professor of evolution who believes in creationism for example. Something with consequences beyond just being ignored but not quite censorship. I'm not sure English has a word for it.

Science is not simply "opinions offered by smart people." They are hypotheses supported by data. It doesn't even matter if the people doing it are smart or not - the data is what matters. Sometimes data contradicts one's personal beliefs and you get "pseudoscience" - a discipline that accepts what it has already decided is true first and then seeks to prove it with the data. Typically this involves cherry picking data and other poor practices.

Your argument is that scientific experts are special and better than experts in any other field of knowledge.

No - it is that *science* is a better tool for producing facts about the world than any other discipline. Did you miss where I said "the data is what matters?" I'm not claiming science is better or that other disciplines are bad. But if you want to know something about world then the best tool for the job is a scientific approach.

But don't apply it to literature and art.

That completely ignores that scientists are human, are subject to the same corrupting influences of other fields, and that not even peer review is sufficient to remove bias and guarantee truth. (See studies on repeatability of peer reviewed studies)

It doesn't at all - that's why I said the *data* is what matters and not *people*. Science is a self-correcting methodology. It's like an algorithm for generating facts about reality. It's not perfect (nothing is) but it works quite well and is reasonably fault tolerant. The philosophy of science is about refining science to take into consideration for, and correct, the flaws that you mention. The process run over time is what makes science work. Not any single study or finding. The repeatability issues you mention are *exactly* what makes science great at what it does! They're exposing the flaws in the individuals! Would you rather we just blindly agreed with the first study and get on with it???

Think about it. How many scientific consensuses have been overturned in the history of science? Why would you treat any particular consensus as the final word on the matter, when the very nature of the scientific method provides contingent results? (We have not yet proved X to be false vs. We proved X to be true)

You're tending towards extreme philosophical skepticism here a bit. "How can we know anything at all?"

You're the only one talking about absolutes like "guaranteeing proof" or removing bias completely. Lets not commit the nirvana fallacy.

For the most part scientific consensuses have not been overturned - augmented and modified yes but not overturned. Example: Newton was "pretty right" about gravity but there were anomalies. Einstein got closer. Somebody else will undoubtedly do better. But that is not to say that Newton was "wrong." That's what you expect from science - a better theory than the one that you had. Not a whole-sale throwing out of a prior theory but modifications on it. Gravity didn't turn out to be "intelligent falling." It's still an attraction between massive bodies. I doubt that will change.

The consensus forms *after* it has been shown to be mostly correct. Perhaps with accepting some flaws (everything is flawed - deal).

I get the feeling you're not comfortable with probabilistic truth. Bayesian thinking is much more useful that full right/wrong. It does not leave us with proofs or 100% certainties though. It leaves you with something in between based on "prior probabilities" and whether you have supporting or conflicting data.

I'd love to hear about all the scientific consensuses that have been overturned by some sort of magic or miracles.

The list goes on. All of these are demonstrably false.

You cannot possibly prove creationism false with science. Creationism is fundamentally a historical claim, which is outside the realm of the scientific method.

The best you can do is say it unlikely by logic and cumulative evidence - but that is not a scientific result, however true it may be.

Talk about damning with faint praise. "You can't disprove me" is the battle-cry of those with no evidence to support their claim.

I reject your claim though that Creationism can't be dis-proven. Certain components of Creationism can certainly be tested. 6,000 year old Earth? False. No common ancestry? False. The human race began with 2 people created from dust? Do I really need to tell you this is false? And if the "theory" depends on these components then, well, the theory fails.

If you're talking about the Roman Catholic Church stance on the big bang and evolution then sure - you're finally closer to "claims that cannot be proven false." But that only says "we may not be wrong." Yipee? Join the choir of other metaphysical beliefs that also can't be dis-proven.

However if your theory can't be tested then it is not a scientific theory. That's not saying it's wrong but if a competing theory has empirical evidence and is based on good scientific methodologies then the latter should be preferred.

I am curious though. What *better* way of discovering facts about the world would *you* suggest over science? Or are you just anomaly hunting so as to weaken the scientific stance so that you can feel better about a non-scientific position you have that conflicts with empirical evidence?

about 3 months ago
top

Creationism Conference at Michigan State University Stirs Unease

Atzanteol Re:So they got their reservation using deception? (1007 comments)

*I* wouldn't say the school shouldn't allow it though. But neither should they be quiet about distancing themselves from it IMHO.

Then we're agreed that silencing is not necessary. Now, why would you avoid trying to silence people, if you think it justified? I think your recognize that it's a declaration of total war - and that's not going to be pleasant, even if the "right side" wins.

Yes - I believe we agree here. I think, perhaps, we've been using the verb "silence" a bit differently which may be the cause of some confusion. I'm using it with a perhaps more "liberal" meaning. Not to actively silence (censor) but to not allow a voice (refusing to acknowledge). Depending on ones POV either can be considered to be "silencing." I'm more against the former than the latter.

In general I enjoy dissent actually - which is why I am loathe to refuse any sort of complete censorship. Yes - as you say - it would be a "total declaration of war" of sorts which would be bad. However the solution to one bad extreme is rarely an extreme move in the opposite direction.

There is such a thing as "scientific consensus" which is much more than opinion or majority rule. It's the expert accepted view based on evidence and science. If you are arguing against the consensus then you are very likely wrong. I'm not sure I'd call "you" (them) an idiot though - it takes a lot of intellect to convince oneself that something so wrong can be right. And I don't mean that in a flippant way - it's true.

The "idiot" standard is pulled from the post I responded to.

Acknowledged.

That you think high intelligence is required to hold such wrong beliefs should give you pause on trusting a consensus of experts. What are experts, if not highly intelligent people on a subject matter?

I would say there are at least a few important distinctions that come to mind.

1) Consensus implies there has been some sort of peer review of the claims and support from multiple disciplines (very important).
2) Experts are trained in the subject and more knowledgeable about it specifically (not just "smart people").
3) Experts properly following the scientific method are using a tool that is known to produce good results.

Think about it - would you go to your very smart accountant for advice on a heart transplant? Probably not - you would prefer the opinion of an expert.

In military history, how many upsets have we seen where the experts were utterly wrong in a way that cost thousands to millions of lives? It's not limited to warfare. How many financial experts lost their shirts in the economic crashes throughout the past century? Expertise does not equal correct. Even you're not willing to go past "likely wrong/correct".

Military expertise is not a scientific discipline. Nor is finance or economics. Neither is based upon empirical evidence and scientific methods. They're not even in the same ballpark as the original topic.

Science is not simply "opinions offered by smart people." They are hypotheses supported by data. It doesn't even matter if the people doing it are smart or not - the data is what matters. Sometimes data contradicts one's personal beliefs and you get "pseudoscience" - a discipline that accepts what it has already decided is true first and then seeks to prove it with the data. Typically this involves cherry picking data and other poor practices.

Examples:
* Homeopathy
* Creationism (of the sort that makes claims about the age of the earth and evolution of humans)
* Humorism
* Tarot / Psychics

The list goes on. All of these are demonstrably false.

As I said in another post somewhere - forming a group that seeks to prove your point of view is NOT a good way to advance.

about 3 months ago

Submissions

top

Microsoft TFS will support git nativly.

Atzanteol Atzanteol writes  |  about 2 years ago

Atzanteol (99067) writes ""We started talking about having DVCS support for TFS a year or more ago. I even mentioned at the end of this post over a year ago that DVCS was in our future. After a few months of investigation (in the middle of working on TFS 2012), we concluded that adding Git support was the right approach."

It's amazing that Microsoft would adopt git into their offering and I hope they don't neuter it to make TFSVS look better by comparison. I remain cautiously optimistic."

Link to Original Source
top

Atzanteol Atzanteol writes  |  more than 8 years ago

Atzanteol writes "Clear channel is set to introduce one-second long ads called "blinks." These short ads will be stripped of all content save for a familiar jingle such as the Intel sound. Are we one step closer to blipverts?""

Journals

Atzanteol has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?