This seemed cooler than it actually is, as practically everything the program generates is completely nonsensical.
Partly because of this, I doubt that there is really much "AI" going on here. To me, this looks very much like simple probabilistic Markov chaining, with maybe a couple of rules to demark meaningful game elements that can be treated as a unit.
On second thought, I will reply. Your statement that there is no supporting evidence is laughably false, and could only be made by someone ignorant of the subject. Hell, even Al Gore and Michael Mann don't have the audacity to claim there is no contrary evidence. There most certainly is.
Here is what intellectual dishonesty is. Starting with the first point I made:
It starts out presuming that climate change is an existential threat, and that if you don't believe so, something must be wrong with you.
Fact: nobody has shown that AGW is a real threat at all, much less the existential kind. Nobody has presented any convincing evidence that it has caused a single flood, or a single drought, or any other instance of extreme weather. The idea that it has been getting hotter these last 18 years is contradicted by a great deal of... wait for it... scientific evidence and data. If you have actual evidence that it has caused any of these things, then by all means show us, because despite what you seem to be claiming, nobody else has.
Another big assumption is that certain primitive cultures chose to overfish or deforest... when a far more likely reason is that they just didn't know better.
His example of Easter Island is a flat-out guess, and nothing more. People have theorized about it, but we have no solid evidence that any of those theories is better than any other.
A third big assumption is that a survey performed by The Guardian somehow resembles science.
Do you have any contrary evidence? Do you honestly claim that The Guardian is an unbiased source?
And then we get to quotes of Al Gore and the thoroughy-and-frequently-debunked "97%" claim, which plainly marks the author as someone who has no idea what he's talking about.
I'll just leave Al Gore aside for now, and discuss the "97%". Yes, I can show how that has been thoroughly debunked. In the peer-reviewed scientific literature, too, not some "denialist" blog post.
So I am left to ask: exactly what part of my comment do you have a problem with, and why? We can have an intellectual non-laziness contest, eh? It should be amusing and informative.
No, you said they were first to "operate on the principle that it was practical," which allows both of you to be right on this point.
Well, then, allow me to amend my comment: they were the first to demonstrate that it was practical. Which they have. They haven't quite got it yet but they did show pretty clearly that it could be done. And with only a couple of trial runs. Pretty impressive, actually.
After I quoted Honisch et al. making this point, Jane said he knows "what the chemistry of ocean acidification is" and doesn't "need a lecture from you about it."
You're talking to yourself. That is correct: I don't need a lecture about it from you.
I know you were talking about rapid changes. I wrote it myself above. I repeat: you seem to have serious reading comprehension issues.
Also, again as I stated before, the Hydro dams in the inland NW neither emitted a large "pulse" of CO2 when they were built, because there wasn't much vegetation to begin with. But more to the point, I will repeat what I wrote above: by your statements we must criticize ALL large bodies of water because of the CO2 they emit. I am really surprised that you aren't advocating draining all the lakes.
And I repeat, too: beavers probably back up more water than hydroelectric dams do.
It used to be that the alarmists called skeptics stupid. Now they're resorted to "unevolved" and even insinuating defective brains. It's all very ridiculous.
I am highly amused by the assumptions in TFA. It starts out presuming that climate change is an existential threat, and that if you don't believe so, something must be wrong with you.
Another big assumption is that certain primitive cultures chose to overfish or deforest... when a far more likely reason is that they just didn't know better.
A third big assumption is that a survey performed by The Guardian somehow resembles science.
And then we get to quotes of Al Gore and the thoroughy-and-frequently-debunked "97%" claim, which plainly marks the author as someone who has no idea what he's talking about.
One of the things that the General Circulation Models (GCMs) do not model well is precipitation. This is one of the big holes in the whole AGW theory, because precipitation is a gigantic energy transfer.
And on a 15.5 km grid pattern, good luck. It's not useless, probably, but it's not very useful.
After 9/11, FBI announced that it would (without any Constitutional or Congressional authorization) demand records from local libraries. Records about who checked out which books, when.
The head of our local library board (who I don't mind saying is a bit of a heroine of mine) said: "We have no choice? FINE. We'll stop keeping records!"
And they did.
The only records they keep now are currently-checked-out books, which realistically they have to do. In addition to that, they keep records of overdue books. ONLY until the overdue is paid, then EVERYTHING is deleted and you're back to zero.
It was my local library's "Fuck You" to the Federal government. And they made it stick.
The only time you will find a Statist (usually these days the political Left) recommend encryption is when they can suggest using their "special approved brand" which they can back-door. You know: government-approved encryption algorithms.
If you trust Government to regulate your encryption, you are a fool. I really don't know a better, more polite, or more subtle way to say it and still be honest. For decades now the U.S. government has consistently PROVED in is untrustworthy in this regard.
Find a good, non-gov encryption tool and stick with it. (TrueCrypt has proven to be good. No significant faults found by independent body, anyway.)
As I see the issue is still "if you have something to hide, you encrypt", making you "half-criminal". It is still not on by default and there is no working and easy-to-use authorative chains of use, usually it's just peer-to-peer "one layer" data encryption. I would go as far as to say "encryption never works".
No, you skipped right over the real problem.
If "encrypting" makes you a "half-criminal", then we are living in Orwell's "1984". You seem to think that is a small thing but in fact that comes very close to the dividing line between slavery and freedom.
Proper encryption DOES work, and that's why the Statists loathe it so much. Secrets mean they cannot control your life to the extent they would wish.
If encryption did not work, government would have no reason to fear it. In fact, if it SEEMED to work, but government could get around it, then government would encourage it, not try to suppress it.
Good grief, Jane. I said limited extent, which is also basically what I say about solar, wind, and nuclear power,
Let's review the actual CONTEXT again. Because as much as you pretend you don't get it, you use it to make misleading statements. Quote:
Hydro dams (which don't and can't contribute most of the power in the USA or in the world) cause ocean acidification only to the limited extent that they rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere.
"Limited extent" is overridden by the statement that they "rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere."
Weasel words. They increase CO2 in a "pulse" during their initial loading (which varies according to the ecology behind the dam), which in any event is comparable to a "pulse" from a forest fire of similar extent. Which is why I mentioned that. You do NOT get to weasel your way out of that.
As far as hydro dams contribute to "ocean acidification", there is zero evidence that they contribute any at all, COMPARED TO natural lakes of the same size. Another point I made which you are trying to weasel out of.
Despite Jane's hand-drawn schematic, higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations still don't cause ocean acidification unless the concentration increases rapidly. So it was misleading for Jane to compare values from the Cambrian period to learn about ocean acidification.
I specifically stated that I wasn't "comparing" any sort of rate of change to the Cambrian period. Did you not see that? I made that statement in so many words. Is there something wrong with you?
In fact, I see you quoted my comment about that. Reading comprehension much?
So during the PETM, CO2 multiplied by 3-4, causing ~5C surface warming. If we choose the RCP 8.5 pathway, by 2100 we'd multiply CO2 by ~3 and cause ~5C surface warming. So we actually are looking at something like that in the near future.
But it gets worse. Currano et al. 2007 says "global mean surface temperatures rose at least 5C over 10 ky". On the other hand, RCP 8.5 would warm about that much in just 200 years.
That's ~50 times faster than the PETM.
Sure. If we buy your assumptions. You say a lot about "causes", but you don't actually show any causes. We all know the saying about correlations and causations. But there were A LOT of things going on here, and you don't have shit for showing causes.
You can ASSUME all you like, but that doesn't make evidence.
The idea that SpaceX "did not even come close" is ridiculous. It was the FIRST to operate on the principle that it was practical, and has twice now come very close to getting it done. In only... what... 4 tries?
On a target far smaller than the continents aimed at by Russia and EU?
I find this whole announcement to be saying: "Yeah, us too! Maybe a few years from now."
Java was designed with the intention of every implementation to be 100% compatible.....the same APIs, the same runtime, etc.
Who are you trying to fool?
Of course that's the way Java was designed! But the very moment Oracle gained rights to it, Oracle started adjusting the code and the license to give Oracle unique compatibility and unique licensing. Anyone who thinks otherwise just hasn't watched it happen. Java is the single biggest RECENT reason people have accused Oracle of trying to kill open source. For a while MySQL took the headlines but that's done.
MySQL... same story in a nutshell. That's why nobody uses Oracle MySQL anymore. Everybody who is anybody is now running MariaDB as a drop-in replacement. (If you didn't read that correctly, I will intercept your snide remark: I stated "as a replacement for MySQL".)
The Javapocalypse hasn't happened yet under Oracle, but it's far past the time it was first expected. Yet, the situation hasn't really gotten better.
Like MySQL, it's time someone else forked it HARD and took it away from Oracle. Otherwise it (intentionally) won't go anywhere.
While those of us who remember must agree that Ashton Tate was a big deal at the time, I also agree that a case which was not heard is also not a precedent. If it were, every ridiculous suit brought by anybody would constitute legal precedent, and our legal system would grind to a halt. About 180 years ago.
Absence of NAT is a feature! If not THE feature of IPv6!
PFFFFFT! Absence of NAT was INTENDED as a feature, but that has a huge list of unwanted side-effects. Not everybody wants (and for some extremely good damned reasons) all the machines in their internal network being resolved by, say, Google. Just for one of the MINOR examples.
NAPT is a welcome addition, and IPV6 probably won't be very popular until that makes it into commonly-used router firmware.
Because that's a blatant disregard of what H1-B is about.
And also, unfortunately, what it has largely become used for.
I consider companies which do that to be traitors to the USA. Because treason is betraying the people and principles of your country... it has nothing to do with what government thinks or does.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll contract to do it for them tomorrow for $750,000. Such deal.
They can fly me out and I'll spend a week examining all the specs I need to examine in person. Delivery: 6 months.
I mean, Holy Crap, people. If an Amiga can do it, $2 million is clearly ridiculous.
Oops... I mean... "Eh, MAYBE I could come down that far."
This seemed cooler than it actually is, as practically everything the program generates is completely nonsensical.
Partly because of this, I doubt that there is really much "AI" going on here. To me, this looks very much like simple probabilistic Markov chaining, with maybe a couple of rules to demark meaningful game elements that can be treated as a unit.
A bit more than that, maybe, but not much.
I have no doubt it can happen once in a while.
As for losses being socialized, perhaps you should ask your elected Federal officials who love to subsidize it so much?
Nowhere near as much per BTU as wind and solar, though.
Here is what intellectual dishonesty is. Starting with the first point I made:
It starts out presuming that climate change is an existential threat, and that if you don't believe so, something must be wrong with you.
Fact: nobody has shown that AGW is a real threat at all, much less the existential kind. Nobody has presented any convincing evidence that it has caused a single flood, or a single drought, or any other instance of extreme weather. The idea that it has been getting hotter these last 18 years is contradicted by a great deal of... wait for it... scientific evidence and data. If you have actual evidence that it has caused any of these things, then by all means show us, because despite what you seem to be claiming, nobody else has.
Another big assumption is that certain primitive cultures chose to overfish or deforest... when a far more likely reason is that they just didn't know better.
His example of Easter Island is a flat-out guess, and nothing more. People have theorized about it, but we have no solid evidence that any of those theories is better than any other.
A third big assumption is that a survey performed by The Guardian somehow resembles science.
Do you have any contrary evidence? Do you honestly claim that The Guardian is an unbiased source?
And then we get to quotes of Al Gore and the thoroughy-and-frequently-debunked "97%" claim, which plainly marks the author as someone who has no idea what he's talking about.
I'll just leave Al Gore aside for now, and discuss the "97%". Yes, I can show how that has been thoroughly debunked. In the peer-reviewed scientific literature, too, not some "denialist" blog post.
So I am left to ask: exactly what part of my comment do you have a problem with, and why? We can have an intellectual non-laziness contest, eh? It should be amusing and informative.
What bingoUV said. I was going to retort but then I saw that. No need to add to it.
Oh... except that I wasn't "complaining". I was explaining why TFA caused me so much amusement.
Please continue to be this stupid, it's hilarious.
I didn't say it contradicted AGW theory, asshole, I said it was a "hole"... and it is!
If you can come up with a GCM that adequately models precipitation, then show us all... and probably win a Nobel Prize.
No, you said they were first to "operate on the principle that it was practical," which allows both of you to be right on this point.
Well, then, allow me to amend my comment: they were the first to demonstrate that it was practical. Which they have. They haven't quite got it yet but they did show pretty clearly that it could be done. And with only a couple of trial runs. Pretty impressive, actually.
After I quoted Honisch et al. making this point, Jane said he knows "what the chemistry of ocean acidification is" and doesn't "need a lecture from you about it."
You're talking to yourself. That is correct: I don't need a lecture about it from you.
I know you were talking about rapid changes. I wrote it myself above. I repeat: you seem to have serious reading comprehension issues.
Also, again as I stated before, the Hydro dams in the inland NW neither emitted a large "pulse" of CO2 when they were built, because there wasn't much vegetation to begin with. But more to the point, I will repeat what I wrote above: by your statements we must criticize ALL large bodies of water because of the CO2 they emit. I am really surprised that you aren't advocating draining all the lakes.
And I repeat, too: beavers probably back up more water than hydroelectric dams do.
It used to be that the alarmists called skeptics stupid. Now they're resorted to "unevolved" and even insinuating defective brains. It's all very ridiculous.
I am highly amused by the assumptions in TFA. It starts out presuming that climate change is an existential threat, and that if you don't believe so, something must be wrong with you.
Another big assumption is that certain primitive cultures chose to overfish or deforest... when a far more likely reason is that they just didn't know better.
A third big assumption is that a survey performed by The Guardian somehow resembles science.
And then we get to quotes of Al Gore and the thoroughy-and-frequently-debunked "97%" claim, which plainly marks the author as someone who has no idea what he's talking about.
It's pure climate propaganda, nothing more.
One of the things that the General Circulation Models (GCMs) do not model well is precipitation. This is one of the big holes in the whole AGW theory, because precipitation is a gigantic energy transfer.
And on a 15.5 km grid pattern, good luck. It's not useless, probably, but it's not very useful.
I guess you're not up on the latest news.
After 9/11, FBI announced that it would (without any Constitutional or Congressional authorization) demand records from local libraries. Records about who checked out which books, when.
The head of our local library board (who I don't mind saying is a bit of a heroine of mine) said: "We have no choice? FINE. We'll stop keeping records!"
And they did.
The only records they keep now are currently-checked-out books, which realistically they have to do. In addition to that, they keep records of overdue books. ONLY until the overdue is paid, then EVERYTHING is deleted and you're back to zero.
It was my local library's "Fuck You" to the Federal government. And they made it stick.
The only time you will find a Statist (usually these days the political Left) recommend encryption is when they can suggest using their "special approved brand" which they can back-door. You know: government-approved encryption algorithms.
If you trust Government to regulate your encryption, you are a fool. I really don't know a better, more polite, or more subtle way to say it and still be honest. For decades now the U.S. government has consistently PROVED in is untrustworthy in this regard.
Find a good, non-gov encryption tool and stick with it. (TrueCrypt has proven to be good. No significant faults found by independent body, anyway.)
As I see the issue is still "if you have something to hide, you encrypt", making you "half-criminal". It is still not on by default and there is no working and easy-to-use authorative chains of use, usually it's just peer-to-peer "one layer" data encryption. I would go as far as to say "encryption never works".
No, you skipped right over the real problem.
If "encrypting" makes you a "half-criminal", then we are living in Orwell's "1984". You seem to think that is a small thing but in fact that comes very close to the dividing line between slavery and freedom.
Proper encryption DOES work, and that's why the Statists loathe it so much. Secrets mean they cannot control your life to the extent they would wish.
If encryption did not work, government would have no reason to fear it. In fact, if it SEEMED to work, but government could get around it, then government would encourage it, not try to suppress it.
Don't feel bad. The picture of the super-duper wonder machine shows the tip of the drill bit wobbling very badly.
Who said anything about something being FIRST? I wrote that it was the first PRACTICAL return stage. Different thing, man.
Who said anything about first private space vehicles? (Oops... I guess YOU did.)
But... um, no. You're the only one who did. Not me. Nothing to discuss.
And this is so insane I wouldn't be surprised you're collecting your urine in jars and getting the help to order cases of peanut butter.
http://www.spacex.com/news/201...
Uh... okay, pal. But you're the only one talking about this stuff here. Not us.
Making these things does require skill. Many people may not have the skills but some do.
The point was that it doesn't require special or unusual skill. It's something just about anyone can pick up in a few days in someone's garage.
The main point, however, is the same as before:
You keep trying to force simple comments I make into full-blown debates about "global warming", and I have told you many times I'm not buying.
You can make all the points you like. You can "prove" me wrong all you like. I'm not participating. You're talking to yourself.
Good grief, Jane. I said limited extent, which is also basically what I say about solar, wind, and nuclear power,
Let's review the actual CONTEXT again. Because as much as you pretend you don't get it, you use it to make misleading statements. Quote:
Hydro dams (which don't and can't contribute most of the power in the USA or in the world) cause ocean acidification only to the limited extent that they rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere.
"Limited extent" is overridden by the statement that they "rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere."
Weasel words. They increase CO2 in a "pulse" during their initial loading (which varies according to the ecology behind the dam), which in any event is comparable to a "pulse" from a forest fire of similar extent. Which is why I mentioned that. You do NOT get to weasel your way out of that.
As far as hydro dams contribute to "ocean acidification", there is zero evidence that they contribute any at all, COMPARED TO natural lakes of the same size. Another point I made which you are trying to weasel out of.
Despite Jane's hand-drawn schematic, higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations still don't cause ocean acidification unless the concentration increases rapidly. So it was misleading for Jane to compare values from the Cambrian period to learn about ocean acidification.
I specifically stated that I wasn't "comparing" any sort of rate of change to the Cambrian period. Did you not see that? I made that statement in so many words. Is there something wrong with you?
In fact, I see you quoted my comment about that. Reading comprehension much?
So during the PETM, CO2 multiplied by 3-4, causing ~5C surface warming. If we choose the RCP 8.5 pathway, by 2100 we'd multiply CO2 by ~3 and cause ~5C surface warming. So we actually are looking at something like that in the near future.
But it gets worse. Currano et al. 2007 says "global mean surface temperatures rose at least 5C over 10 ky". On the other hand, RCP 8.5 would warm about that much in just 200 years.
That's ~50 times faster than the PETM.
Sure. If we buy your assumptions. You say a lot about "causes", but you don't actually show any causes. We all know the saying about correlations and causations. But there were A LOT of things going on here, and you don't have shit for showing causes.
You can ASSUME all you like, but that doesn't make evidence.
The idea that SpaceX "did not even come close" is ridiculous. It was the FIRST to operate on the principle that it was practical, and has twice now come very close to getting it done. In only... what... 4 tries? On a target far smaller than the continents aimed at by Russia and EU?
I find this whole announcement to be saying: "Yeah, us too! Maybe a few years from now."
Well, it seems that according to TFA, not much of this is any real news, including this news.
Java was designed with the intention of every implementation to be 100% compatible.....the same APIs, the same runtime, etc.
Who are you trying to fool?
Of course that's the way Java was designed! But the very moment Oracle gained rights to it, Oracle started adjusting the code and the license to give Oracle unique compatibility and unique licensing. Anyone who thinks otherwise just hasn't watched it happen. Java is the single biggest RECENT reason people have accused Oracle of trying to kill open source. For a while MySQL took the headlines but that's done.
MySQL... same story in a nutshell. That's why nobody uses Oracle MySQL anymore. Everybody who is anybody is now running MariaDB as a drop-in replacement. (If you didn't read that correctly, I will intercept your snide remark: I stated "as a replacement for MySQL".)
The Javapocalypse hasn't happened yet under Oracle, but it's far past the time it was first expected. Yet, the situation hasn't really gotten better. Like MySQL, it's time someone else forked it HARD and took it away from Oracle. Otherwise it (intentionally) won't go anywhere.
While those of us who remember must agree that Ashton Tate was a big deal at the time, I also agree that a case which was not heard is also not a precedent. If it were, every ridiculous suit brought by anybody would constitute legal precedent, and our legal system would grind to a halt. About 180 years ago.
Absence of NAT is a feature! If not THE feature of IPv6!
PFFFFFT! Absence of NAT was INTENDED as a feature, but that has a huge list of unwanted side-effects. Not everybody wants (and for some extremely good damned reasons) all the machines in their internal network being resolved by, say, Google. Just for one of the MINOR examples.
NAPT is a welcome addition, and IPV6 probably won't be very popular until that makes it into commonly-used router firmware.
Because that's a blatant disregard of what H1-B is about.
And also, unfortunately, what it has largely become used for.
I consider companies which do that to be traitors to the USA. Because treason is betraying the people and principles of your country... it has nothing to do with what government thinks or does.