So, here is the truth, which you already damned well know, and deny, apparently for trolling purposes:
My first sentence was about the second link, not the first. As just about any native English speaker would easily understand.
But now YOU are admitting that you did post the link after all, which also proves you know which link I meant.
You're the one who isn't getting his argument straight, and who is by now blatantly trolling. You DO know, do you not, that deliberate trolling has been linked with other sociopathic behavior?
He expressed concern that the reviewer was biased, but never argued that he was wrong. If you can provide a quote to the contrary that would be helpful.
Again you are trying to prevaricate.
A claim that the paper was rejected because it was biased, is a claim that the reviewer did not reject it based on science.
Try using a little logic, rather than insisting on being such a dense hardass. Your behavior reminds me very much of someone else I know here on Slashdot.
Again you are wasting my time, just as you did in the other thread.
Which equates to 71 i7 processors. If you assume that each neuron takes 1000 transistors to simulate (to make the math simpler), and if you take the release price for an i7 as listed on Wikipedia, that totals at $21.3M. Expensive, but not impossible.
There are some rather egregious assumptions to this math. 71 i7 processors would be massively parallel... but the brain is not parallel in the same way. Those neurons are interconnected, most of the many multiples of times, and work together in ways we still do not fully comprehend.
So while 71 i7 processors might emulate the sheer number of neurons, it does not come even close to modeling the same complexity. It might emulate a brain if neurons were simple on/off switches, but they're not. Not even close.
The author DID deny that the reviewer's comments were valid, and claimed that his paper was rejected because it was "unhelpful" to the cause of AGW. That's what the whole news story was about.
You're trying to tell me things that clearly contradict the printed record.
I would call your comments, in both this thread and the other one in which you have been pestering me, both examples of "denialism". In this case, you clearly denied that the author claimed what he did claim, which was the whole basis of this news story. In the other case, you denied that you linked to a page, and denied that text on that page existed, when it very clearly did exist.
And in BOTH cases, you have been wasting my time.
If you were less polite about it, I would call this deliberate trolling. By now I suspect it anyway politeness or not.
Nope. It's not there. I suspect if it was you could provide a link. Of course, this is all beside the point that your quote is disproved by the source material.
Yes, it is there, and I got there in exactly the manner I described: clicking "Parent" in this same thread until I got there.
And if you click on the link in that post of yours, which takes you to this page, you will indeed see the words I quoted further up in this thread.
And I repeat: you are grossly wasting my time. I shall not help you find your own goddamned references again.
Human beings perceive light, for example. (They can also perceive electricity, to a degree, but that is not as relevant to the point.)
But while a human being might perceive that a flashlight at night has shined his/her way, it takes the same amount of time, roughly, a a fiber optic signal from the same distance. So what?
Generally, it is the speed of perceiving and interpreting the signal that takes time, not the speed of its propagation. We communicate at lightspeed, too. Or close to it. Anybody who has had a video chat has done that. Did that make you superintelligent?
We have never built an "AI". And in fact we have NO reason to believe -- no evidence whatsoever -- that its speed of perception and interpretation would be any faster than our own. There is a very good chance that it would be much slower... at least in the beginning.
I would like to remind people that the idea of "intelligent" machines has been around for almost 100 years now. AND we still don't have any solid evidence of being close to achieving such a thing. Sure, computers can do a lot, and what they DO accomplish, they tend to do very fast. But what they accomplish is not "AI". Even Watson is not "intelligence", it is only the illusion of it.
Do you know how to view parent? All you have to do is click "Parent" under a comment to go up one level.
If you click "Parent" on my comments in THIS thread (i.e., your exchange with me), you will eventually get to a post you made that contains a link. The only post with a link to which *I* replied.
If you then follow that link, you will find the passage I quoted.
I repeat: you're a fine one to talk about others' qualifications, if you don't even know the contents of the references YOU linked to, or in what context. I am done here. I have better things to do with my time.
If you can't follow this thread back up a few levels to see and perhaps even follow the link YOU posted, in a comment to which I directly replied, then you probably aren't qualified to be making arguments on Slashdot.
And then you talk about other peoples' qualifications?
You are probably the most unqualified person to judge.
And you concluded this based on? What evidence?
The fact is, "one cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals"
That isn't a fact, that was a comment by a reviewer about someone else's paper. The FACTS aren't known unless and until we see the actual paper.
No, they weren't. I can read English as well as you, conceivably even better, and that isn't what they were saying. I quote here:
"Far from denying the validity of Bengtsson's questions, the referees encouraged the authors to provide more innovative ways of undertaking the research to create a useful advance."
In plain English: he did point out real errors. They don't deny that. They just don't like the way he did it.
They encouraged Dr. Bengtsson to find some error that they could publish. Instead, he just pointed out that three things that ought to be different were in fact different. That is not useful.
No, they said that the errors he pointed out were not "helpful" to them, and that he did not sufficiently explain, to their taste, what the cause of the errors were.
However, that position is not a scientific one. The cause of the errors is neither his concern nor his responsibility. Pointing out the presence of errors is important. Taking an arrogant stance against apparently valid dissent is not. I repeat: this is supposed to be science, not a social club.
You can't have an inconsistency if no consistency was to be expected. His paper was comparing apples to oranges and then implying that there was some inconsistency because the apples were not like the oranges. That is not an inconsistency, although the reviewer pointed out that it would be interesting to investigate why the apples are not like oranges.
I would have to see the entire paper before I could judge. While it's not proof of anything, it does seem rather unlikely that a recognized researcher would do something quite that naive.
Until I know more about it, I still say that it sounds like the reviewer is calling the author an ignorant fool, when his past work would suggest that he's anything but.
OP is fighting the law of diminishing returns. If he can't get family members to remember to turn on the alarm, he can do these things which might actually help:
(1) Better doors with good locks. If you got it at Home Depot and paid less than $100, it probably isn't "good".
(2) Bars on the windows. Note that in some places those are illegal for a residence unless you provide some kind of emergency escape other than windows.
(3) A homeowner's insurance policy with theft protection at full replacement value. Then back that up by supplying them with a comprehensive home inventory list, including pictures.
They get a lot of noise, and his name was misspelled.
Irrelevant. It was misspelled in a way that is entirely common and should have been anticipated. Has nobody at NSA even heard of Soundex or any of those other word-matching algorithms? It would appear not, but in reality of course they have. So why weren't they using one or more of them?
I'm doing work where such algorithms might end up coming in handy eventually. And I know about them and they are readily available. And I'm hardly a highly-paid NSA employee right now.
He's talking probabilities because that's all they base anything on these days.
I'm not too sure about that. What he's talking about is BS, not probabilities.
If he wanted to talk about genuine, important statistics, then he would also be talking about the probability that anything the NSA is doing would actually prevent or deflect such an attack. Given the actual evidence we have so far, I would estimate that probability at close to zero.
So we have huge costs, in economic, social, and personal freedom terms, with little probability of success.
Sure sounds like worse than a waste of time to me.
Basically, pointing out errors is not enough - it only makes us look bad.
Which is "basically" incorrect.
Climate science isn't some social circle. In science, pointing out other peoples' errors is an invaluable service, and advances everyone's knowledge. And that's what science is all about.
Also, it isn't required to point out why or how someone made an error. That's their problem. Simply pointing out that an error has been made, even without knowing a cause, is a valuable contribution to science.
I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
Saying "(false)" is in itself overly-simplistic. And that is being polite.
The inconsistencies pointed out were not "false", as the reviewer himself actually stated elsewhere, if in less direct terms. Then the reviewer claims that an explanation of why the inconsistencies exist is necessary. But that is disingenuous.
(Just as an aside: if the claims were actually "false", then the reviewer would not have had to demand an explanation of the cause. Things that do not exist do not have causes.)
If one person tells me the sky is green and another that it is indigo, when observation says it is actually a light blue, it is perfectly proper in science to point out how those statements are inconsistent with each other and with observations. Making that simple point might actually be valuable to any genuine study of the phenomenon. I am not obligated in any way to postulate why those people might say those things, in the name of "good science". That might be nice, but it's not something that "good science" requires.
My thought processes are if we fight among ourselves they win as people feel if they straight republican or democrat a utopia will appear if we follow ideology.
That's all great. But you are assuming things I didn't actually say.
If we say LIBERALS ARE THE CAUSE then we debate with each other and meanwhile politicians do not hear what we have to say.
The (R)s voted no because Wheeler's proposal didn't go as far as they wanted in the dismantling of Net Neutrality.
I think the Rs voted "no" because they still have some sense of political reality, and what the public wants.
In contrast, from where I sit it is looking like Obama and his fellow Democrats have been willing to push their ideas off on the public without regard to whether most Americans think they're actually good ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
THE REVIEW was biased, troll.
And now I am not JUST convinced you're trolling, I think I even know who you are.
Just for your information.
No, and now I am positive you are trolling.
So, here is the truth, which you already damned well know, and deny, apparently for trolling purposes:
My first sentence was about the second link, not the first. As just about any native English speaker would easily understand.
But now YOU are admitting that you did post the link after all, which also proves you know which link I meant.
You're the one who isn't getting his argument straight, and who is by now blatantly trolling. You DO know, do you not, that deliberate trolling has been linked with other sociopathic behavior?
He expressed concern that the reviewer was biased, but never argued that he was wrong. If you can provide a quote to the contrary that would be helpful.
Again you are trying to prevaricate.
A claim that the paper was rejected because it was biased, is a claim that the reviewer did not reject it based on science.
Try using a little logic, rather than insisting on being such a dense hardass. Your behavior reminds me very much of someone else I know here on Slashdot.
Again you are wasting my time, just as you did in the other thread.
I am truly done with this.
You're quite right, I don't know how that URL got in there.
Nevertheless, the point is still made: you did post the link, it was where I said it was, and the page contains the text I quoted above.
Which equates to 71 i7 processors. If you assume that each neuron takes 1000 transistors to simulate (to make the math simpler), and if you take the release price for an i7 as listed on Wikipedia, that totals at $21.3M. Expensive, but not impossible.
There are some rather egregious assumptions to this math. 71 i7 processors would be massively parallel... but the brain is not parallel in the same way. Those neurons are interconnected, most of the many multiples of times, and work together in ways we still do not fully comprehend.
So while 71 i7 processors might emulate the sheer number of neurons, it does not come even close to modeling the same complexity. It might emulate a brain if neurons were simple on/off switches, but they're not. Not even close.
The author DID deny that the reviewer's comments were valid, and claimed that his paper was rejected because it was "unhelpful" to the cause of AGW. That's what the whole news story was about.
You're trying to tell me things that clearly contradict the printed record.
I would call your comments, in both this thread and the other one in which you have been pestering me, both examples of "denialism". In this case, you clearly denied that the author claimed what he did claim, which was the whole basis of this news story. In the other case, you denied that you linked to a page, and denied that text on that page existed, when it very clearly did exist.
And in BOTH cases, you have been wasting my time.
If you were less polite about it, I would call this deliberate trolling. By now I suspect it anyway politeness or not.
Goodbye.
Nope. It's not there. I suspect if it was you could provide a link. Of course, this is all beside the point that your quote is disproved by the source material.
Yes, it is there, and I got there in exactly the manner I described: clicking "Parent" in this same thread until I got there.
And if you click on the link in that post of yours, which takes you to this page, you will indeed see the words I quoted further up in this thread.
And I repeat: you are grossly wasting my time. I shall not help you find your own goddamned references again.
OP's entire premise is pretty thin.
Human beings perceive light, for example. (They can also perceive electricity, to a degree, but that is not as relevant to the point.)
But while a human being might perceive that a flashlight at night has shined his/her way, it takes the same amount of time, roughly, a a fiber optic signal from the same distance. So what?
Generally, it is the speed of perceiving and interpreting the signal that takes time, not the speed of its propagation. We communicate at lightspeed, too. Or close to it. Anybody who has had a video chat has done that. Did that make you superintelligent?
We have never built an "AI". And in fact we have NO reason to believe -- no evidence whatsoever -- that its speed of perception and interpretation would be any faster than our own. There is a very good chance that it would be much slower... at least in the beginning.
I would like to remind people that the idea of "intelligent" machines has been around for almost 100 years now. AND we still don't have any solid evidence of being close to achieving such a thing. Sure, computers can do a lot, and what they DO accomplish, they tend to do very fast. But what they accomplish is not "AI". Even Watson is not "intelligence", it is only the illusion of it.
Do you know how to navigate Slashdot, or not?
Do you know how to view parent? All you have to do is click "Parent" under a comment to go up one level.
If you click "Parent" on my comments in THIS thread (i.e., your exchange with me), you will eventually get to a post you made that contains a link. The only post with a link to which *I* replied.
If you then follow that link, you will find the passage I quoted.
I repeat: you're a fine one to talk about others' qualifications, if you don't even know the contents of the references YOU linked to, or in what context. I am done here. I have better things to do with my time.
We don't need to see the paper to know whether IPCC ranges are PDFs. Obviously.
We DO need to see the paper to know whether what the reviewer said he did is what he actually did, since he is apparently denying it.
Obviously.
What page I linked to?
This has gotten beyond ridiculous.
If you can't follow this thread back up a few levels to see and perhaps even follow the link YOU posted, in a comment to which I directly replied, then you probably aren't qualified to be making arguments on Slashdot.
And then you talk about other peoples' qualifications?
You are probably the most unqualified person to judge.
And you concluded this based on? What evidence?
The fact is, "one cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals"
That isn't a fact, that was a comment by a reviewer about someone else's paper. The FACTS aren't known unless and until we see the actual paper.
And you call ME unqualified to judge?
Where? No citation was given. How about looking at the actual review?
I was quoting the page YOU linked to. Sheesh. Didn't recognize your own citation?
Not every paper gets published. That is not a sign of a massive conspiracy. It's just life.
I didn't say it was. That wasn't part of MY argument. I'm just saying that the reasons it was rejected appear to have extremely thin justification.
Exactly what the reviewers were pointing out.
No, they weren't. I can read English as well as you, conceivably even better, and that isn't what they were saying. I quote here:
"Far from denying the validity of Bengtsson's questions, the referees encouraged the authors to provide more innovative ways of undertaking the research to create a useful advance."
In plain English: he did point out real errors. They don't deny that. They just don't like the way he did it.
They encouraged Dr. Bengtsson to find some error that they could publish. Instead, he just pointed out that three things that ought to be different were in fact different. That is not useful.
No, they said that the errors he pointed out were not "helpful" to them, and that he did not sufficiently explain, to their taste, what the cause of the errors were.
However, that position is not a scientific one. The cause of the errors is neither his concern nor his responsibility. Pointing out the presence of errors is important. Taking an arrogant stance against apparently valid dissent is not. I repeat: this is supposed to be science, not a social club.
You can't have an inconsistency if no consistency was to be expected. His paper was comparing apples to oranges and then implying that there was some inconsistency because the apples were not like the oranges. That is not an inconsistency, although the reviewer pointed out that it would be interesting to investigate why the apples are not like oranges.
I would have to see the entire paper before I could judge. While it's not proof of anything, it does seem rather unlikely that a recognized researcher would do something quite that naive.
Until I know more about it, I still say that it sounds like the reviewer is calling the author an ignorant fool, when his past work would suggest that he's anything but.
So what about the 20 year veteran who knows how to program her way out of a paper bag, AND knows the latest web technologies?
Some people seem to think those are mutually exclusive.
We've hashed this out on Slashdot before, more than once. OP is just wrong that older programmers in general don't keep up.
Study after study have shown that older programmers are generally more productive, even after adjusting for the higher salary they tend to expect.
While he appears to be genuinely sympathetic, his personal theories don't quite qualify as statistics.
Yeah, don't.
This.
OP is fighting the law of diminishing returns. If he can't get family members to remember to turn on the alarm, he can do these things which might actually help:
(1) Better doors with good locks. If you got it at Home Depot and paid less than $100, it probably isn't "good".
(2) Bars on the windows. Note that in some places those are illegal for a residence unless you provide some kind of emergency escape other than windows.
(3) A homeowner's insurance policy with theft protection at full replacement value. Then back that up by supplying them with a comprehensive home inventory list, including pictures.
They get a lot of noise, and his name was misspelled.
Irrelevant. It was misspelled in a way that is entirely common and should have been anticipated. Has nobody at NSA even heard of Soundex or any of those other word-matching algorithms? It would appear not, but in reality of course they have. So why weren't they using one or more of them?
I'm doing work where such algorithms might end up coming in handy eventually. And I know about them and they are readily available. And I'm hardly a highly-paid NSA employee right now.
He's talking probabilities because that's all they base anything on these days.
I'm not too sure about that. What he's talking about is BS, not probabilities.
If he wanted to talk about genuine, important statistics, then he would also be talking about the probability that anything the NSA is doing would actually prevent or deflect such an attack. Given the actual evidence we have so far, I would estimate that probability at close to zero.
So we have huge costs, in economic, social, and personal freedom terms, with little probability of success.
Sure sounds like worse than a waste of time to me.
Basically, pointing out errors is not enough - it only makes us look bad.
Which is "basically" incorrect.
Climate science isn't some social circle. In science, pointing out other peoples' errors is an invaluable service, and advances everyone's knowledge. And that's what science is all about.
Also, it isn't required to point out why or how someone made an error. That's their problem. Simply pointing out that an error has been made, even without knowing a cause, is a valuable contribution to science.
I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
Saying "(false)" is in itself overly-simplistic. And that is being polite.
The inconsistencies pointed out were not "false", as the reviewer himself actually stated elsewhere, if in less direct terms. Then the reviewer claims that an explanation of why the inconsistencies exist is necessary. But that is disingenuous.
(Just as an aside: if the claims were actually "false", then the reviewer would not have had to demand an explanation of the cause. Things that do not exist do not have causes.)
If one person tells me the sky is green and another that it is indigo, when observation says it is actually a light blue, it is perfectly proper in science to point out how those statements are inconsistent with each other and with observations. Making that simple point might actually be valuable to any genuine study of the phenomenon. I am not obligated in any way to postulate why those people might say those things, in the name of "good science". That might be nice, but it's not something that "good science" requires.
My thought processes are if we fight among ourselves they win as people feel if they straight republican or democrat a utopia will appear if we follow ideology.
That's all great. But you are assuming things I didn't actually say.
If we say LIBERALS ARE THE CAUSE then we debate with each other and meanwhile politicians do not hear what we have to say.
In that case, I'm awfully glad I didn't say that.
The (R)s voted no because Wheeler's proposal didn't go as far as they wanted in the dismantling of Net Neutrality.
I think the Rs voted "no" because they still have some sense of political reality, and what the public wants.
In contrast, from where I sit it is looking like Obama and his fellow Democrats have been willing to push their ideas off on the public without regard to whether most Americans think they're actually good ideas.