The hard part about Agile, if your on your own and not part of a shop, is that it is difficult to get the stakeholders to do their part properly. they (typically) aren't used to it, and resent having to change management style.
If you are a team, it is much easier to sell Agile to a customer. "This is the way it's done," as opposed to "This is the way I do it."
"Higgs was not a given. A particle in the same range without the ability to generate the Higgs field was also a possibility."
Thank you! You have just confirmed what I stated in the Higgs thread, for which I was modded "troll" more than once.
They Rolf Heuer said they are 5-sigma confident that they found a particle, which so far seems consistent with predictions about the Higgs. That is not the same thing as crying to the heavens that the Higgs has been found.
"It boggles my mind that people couldn't believe in 'invisible' mass."
It should not boggle your mind, at all. Because it's not a matter of "belief" at all. It is a matter of evidence. And conclusive evidence is not there.
There are MANY very smart people who "believe" in that invisible mass. But they, themselves, know that belief is not the measure by which their work will be judged.
I'm not really sure about the scales here, but just off the top of my head, you could probably call this bigger than the Higgs by around 30 orders of magnitude.
"Well we finally have the computational power to run the analysis using the currently accepted theory of gravity instead of the much simpler but known-flawed centuries old model, and everything works out pretty close to what we actually see."
Sounds like you are referring to MOND, or something like it?
"So in other words, they didn't find anything other than a mathematical equation suggesting dark matter exists. Congratuations are in order indeed."
Yes, I get a kick out of how that article, as well as the one on space.com linked to above, are both written under the assumption that we know "dark matter" exists... but we know no such thing. It is still a matter of much controversy (no pun intended).
We have various theories to account for the observations. Among them the most popular of the string theories, which support the existence of dark matter. But on the other hand, there have been a number of recent findings that call "string theory" itself into strong question. Perhaps even rendering it invalid.
It bothers me greatly when "science" magazines and "science" websites report questionable theories as though they were demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. In the case of strings and dark matter, nothing of the sort is even remotely true.
"yes you are, and worse then that you are nitpicking out of your expertise."
Bullshit. One of my areas of relative expertise is the English language. I was pointing out what THEY SAID. Stop arguing with me about it. If you have a problem with their announcement, go argue with them.
Yes, we know that it is a boson, and I already mentioned the decay rate.
But don't blame me for putting it that way... THEY did. They did NOT say "We have a 5-sigma confidence that we have discovered a Higgs." What they said was, "We have a 5-sigma confidence that we have discovered A PARTICLE that is consistent with what is expected from a Higgs."
I'm just the messenger man. It's pointless to argue with ME over what THEY said.
They didn't actually announce that they found the Higgs boson. Rolf Heuer said "... we have a discovery... [that is] consistent with a Higgs boson." [emphasis mine]
Now, I'm not trying to nitpick. There is a subtle but very real difference. They did not announce 5+ sigma evidence that they found the Higgs. What they announced that they have 5-sigma evidence that they found a particle. Which, so far, seems to be consistent with the Higgs.
While they are pretty sure it looks like a Higgs, what they announced was the discovery of a particle. It remains to be seen whether it is the Higgs boson or not. It looks probable, because the mass and longevity are consistent with predicted values for the Higgs.
BUT... they haven't seen any of the other properties yet. Until they do, they won't know whether it's the Higgs.
But just keep in mind: that's NOT what they said. What they found was "a particle" We'll have to know more before we decide for sure whether it's the Higgs. It appears very probable, but we must make the distinction.
"So, they where chastised? bottom line, there data and interpretation was fine. It was a media created circus, nothing more."
Not so, at all.
The comment about the statistics was not made by politicians, it was made by a professional statistician, who was investigating the statistical methods they used. His paper was peer-reviewed by six other professional and well-respected statisticians, who found no flaw in it.
The ONE investigative report, that was conducted by "politicians" (British House of Commmons) was not DONE BY politicians. They hired investigators to do the job. They reported the investigators' findings. It's pretty hard to say politics was involved, since in fact it would have been in the House of Commons' best interest to play down anything negative.
"Since idiots question the methods, the methods are by definition questionable. However, those questions did not invalidate the results.
You, my dear girl, are an ignoramus of the first order."
PROFESSIONALS have questioned them... including, as I pointed out elsewhere, the investigators who investigated the science. If you want to call them idiots, then you can't very well celebrate the investigators' conclusions of "no criminality", can you? You can't have it both ways.
And you call ME an "idiot". Haha.
They have been accused of using more-than-questionable statistical methods by professional, well-respected statisticians.
They have been accused of getting the physics of their models wrong by professional, well-respected physicists.
"You, my dear girl, are an ignoramus of the first order."
And you, sir, are apparently a sufferer of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. I've done my homework on this subject. You have not.
"But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much."
Just to clarify:
First, it was the statisticians (and the investigators who later examined the science) saying that the statistical analyses the climate scientists used were shaky at best. ("The statistical methods used do not support their conclusions." was the summary of one report), and now it's physicists saying that they've got the physics wrong.
"It has turned out to be true. IN the field of study, it is NOT controversial. In fact, it's so solid the heartland institute has turned to intentional attacking the classroom."
Nonsense on both counts.
It has NOT been shown to be true. In fact the evidence has been increasingly been building against it. For one thing, almost all versions of the CO2-warming model rely on the concept of "back radiation", which physicists (not climate scientists) have proved to be impossible.
I'm happy to leave actual climate science to climate scientists. But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much.
As for the Heartland thing, there is very solid evidence that the document was forged. We have no evidence that it was actually among the papers the journalist received, we only have his word -- and nobody else's, or any other evidence -- that the source of the document was actually the Heartland Institute. To summarize: there *IS* strong evidence that it was a forgery. There is *NO* evidence that it is not. Only one man's word.
Al Gore isn't a climatologist, he isn't an expert, and if it was smart enough to put himself in position to make money from scientific facts, then so what?
My problem with it -- as I have already stated -- was that his movie purported to be representing "science" but he used misleading, unlabeled graphs and similar persuasive devices in order to alarm people. That's not "science reporting", that's propaganda.
Yes, I did in fact watch the movie, very closely. I saw it when it first came out and I was very displeased with it.
For example: A giant chart comparing temperature proxies against CO2 concentrations from ice cores, showing a high correlation. But no labels or indices, or even a casual mention that one of the two lines had been shifted somewhere between 300 to 800 years to the left! Even assuming the correlation is correct, if you don't tell people you have massaged the data in some way, you are "lying with statistics".
Hell yes, I saw the movie. And I walked out of the theater when it ended, disgusted.
It was at a movie mini-marathon, along with a couple of other environoment-themed movies like "Who Killed The Electric Car?"An Inconvenient Truth was the last one.
"Arguing that climate science is wrong because of weather is like arguing that the theory of gravity is wrong because your helium balloon goes up. Stupid."
And I'll say the same thing to you that I did to that other person: I stated this myself. Or else what do you think "that's beside the point" means?
"Go watch the movie again. It is unusually hot where I live. You say it's unusually cold where you live. That is not contradictory to what he was saying in the movie. "
Do you have reading comprehension issues? What do you think "that's beside the point" means?
Slashdot Mirror
The hard part about Agile, if your on your own and not part of a shop, is that it is difficult to get the stakeholders to do their part properly. they (typically) aren't used to it, and resent having to change management style.
If you are a team, it is much easier to sell Agile to a customer. "This is the way it's done," as opposed to "This is the way I do it."
"For example, wouldn't a nebula-sized cloud of free electrons still collapse under their gravitational influence?"
Hell, no. Gravity is orders of magnitude weaker than electrical repulsion. A cloud of electrons would disperse, not coalesce.
Gravity is even weaker than the so-called "weak" force in quantum physics. It is the weakest of all.
Yep. And as it turns out, they seem to be a billion or so light years away.
You don't own a ferret, by any chance?
I don't think I know you, but we seem to think much alike.
"Higgs was not a given. A particle in the same range without the ability to generate the Higgs field was also a possibility."
Thank you! You have just confirmed what I stated in the Higgs thread, for which I was modded "troll" more than once.
They Rolf Heuer said they are 5-sigma confident that they found a particle, which so far seems consistent with predictions about the Higgs. That is not the same thing as crying to the heavens that the Higgs has been found.
"It boggles my mind that people couldn't believe in 'invisible' mass."
It should not boggle your mind, at all. Because it's not a matter of "belief" at all. It is a matter of evidence. And conclusive evidence is not there.
There are MANY very smart people who "believe" in that invisible mass. But they, themselves, know that belief is not the measure by which their work will be judged.
"I'd call this bigger than the Higgs."
I'm not really sure about the scales here, but just off the top of my head, you could probably call this bigger than the Higgs by around 30 orders of magnitude.
"I don't know about you, but I've already set my DVR to record that moment just in case I'm not home when it happens."
Be sure to go into the "advanced" menu and override the default exponent.
"Well we finally have the computational power to run the analysis using the currently accepted theory of gravity instead of the much simpler but known-flawed centuries old model, and everything works out pretty close to what we actually see."
Sounds like you are referring to MOND, or something like it?
"So in other words, they didn't find anything other than a mathematical equation suggesting dark matter exists. Congratuations are in order indeed."
Yes, I get a kick out of how that article, as well as the one on space.com linked to above, are both written under the assumption that we know "dark matter" exists... but we know no such thing. It is still a matter of much controversy (no pun intended).
We have various theories to account for the observations. Among them the most popular of the string theories, which support the existence of dark matter. But on the other hand, there have been a number of recent findings that call "string theory" itself into strong question. Perhaps even rendering it invalid.
It bothers me greatly when "science" magazines and "science" websites report questionable theories as though they were demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. In the case of strings and dark matter, nothing of the sort is even remotely true.
"African American."
Umm... I'm not so sure such "dark" humor is quite appropriate.
"yes you are, and worse then that you are nitpicking out of your expertise."
Bullshit. One of my areas of relative expertise is the English language. I was pointing out what THEY SAID. Stop arguing with me about it. If you have a problem with their announcement, go argue with them.
Yes, we know that it is a boson, and I already mentioned the decay rate.
But don't blame me for putting it that way... THEY did. They did NOT say "We have a 5-sigma confidence that we have discovered a Higgs." What they said was, "We have a 5-sigma confidence that we have discovered A PARTICLE that is consistent with what is expected from a Higgs."
I'm just the messenger man. It's pointless to argue with ME over what THEY said.
They didn't actually announce that they found the Higgs boson. Rolf Heuer said "... we have a discovery... [that is] consistent with a Higgs boson." [emphasis mine]
Now, I'm not trying to nitpick. There is a subtle but very real difference. They did not announce 5+ sigma evidence that they found the Higgs. What they announced that they have 5-sigma evidence that they found a particle. Which, so far, seems to be consistent with the Higgs.
While they are pretty sure it looks like a Higgs, what they announced was the discovery of a particle. It remains to be seen whether it is the Higgs boson or not. It looks probable, because the mass and longevity are consistent with predicted values for the Higgs.
BUT... they haven't seen any of the other properties yet. Until they do, they won't know whether it's the Higgs.
But just keep in mind: that's NOT what they said. What they found was "a particle" We'll have to know more before we decide for sure whether it's the Higgs. It appears very probable, but we must make the distinction.
No, being the invariant, mass is the "primary" determinant. Gravity is the variable, mass is not (ideally, that is).
Again, modding somebody as "troll" when they're simply reporting easily verifiable facts reflects pretty badly on the modder.
The conclusions of these reports are easily and publicly available, to anybody who bothers to go find them.
So how do you justify a "troll" mod?
You know, modding somebody as "troll" when they're simply reporting easily verifiable facts reflects pretty badly on the modder.
"So, they where chastised? bottom line, there data and interpretation was fine. It was a media created circus, nothing more."
Not so, at all.
The comment about the statistics was not made by politicians, it was made by a professional statistician, who was investigating the statistical methods they used. His paper was peer-reviewed by six other professional and well-respected statisticians, who found no flaw in it.
The ONE investigative report, that was conducted by "politicians" (British House of Commmons) was not DONE BY politicians. They hired investigators to do the job. They reported the investigators' findings. It's pretty hard to say politics was involved, since in fact it would have been in the House of Commons' best interest to play down anything negative.
"I did not use "Stupid" as a noun to address you, I used the word as an adjective to describe the line of reasoning. Clearly."
It wasn't clear at all. And you didn't even follow the actual line of reasoning, so that's a silly argument.
"That's beside the point" means "it is not relevant to the argument I'm making", which is not the same as "That is irrelevant to global warming".
Let's take it in context, shall we?
We've just gone through one of the coldest Springs on record. The other was last year.
But that's beside the point.
I fail to see any ambiguity there.
"Since idiots question the methods, the methods are by definition questionable. However, those questions did not invalidate the results.
You, my dear girl, are an ignoramus of the first order."
PROFESSIONALS have questioned them... including, as I pointed out elsewhere, the investigators who investigated the science. If you want to call them idiots, then you can't very well celebrate the investigators' conclusions of "no criminality", can you? You can't have it both ways.
And you call ME an "idiot". Haha.
They have been accused of using more-than-questionable statistical methods by professional, well-respected statisticians.
They have been accused of getting the physics of their models wrong by professional, well-respected physicists.
"You, my dear girl, are an ignoramus of the first order."
And you, sir, are apparently a sufferer of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. I've done my homework on this subject. You have not.
"But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much."
Just to clarify:
First, it was the statisticians (and the investigators who later examined the science) saying that the statistical analyses the climate scientists used were shaky at best. ("The statistical methods used do not support their conclusions." was the summary of one report), and now it's physicists saying that they've got the physics wrong.
That's a very far cry from "NOT controversial".
"It has turned out to be true. IN the field of study, it is NOT controversial. In fact, it's so solid the heartland institute has turned to intentional attacking the classroom."
Nonsense on both counts.
It has NOT been shown to be true. In fact the evidence has been increasingly been building against it. For one thing, almost all versions of the CO2-warming model rely on the concept of "back radiation", which physicists (not climate scientists) have proved to be impossible.
I'm happy to leave actual climate science to climate scientists. But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much.
As for the Heartland thing, there is very solid evidence that the document was forged. We have no evidence that it was actually among the papers the journalist received, we only have his word -- and nobody else's, or any other evidence -- that the source of the document was actually the Heartland Institute. To summarize: there *IS* strong evidence that it was a forgery. There is *NO* evidence that it is not. Only one man's word.
Al Gore isn't a climatologist, he isn't an expert, and if it was smart enough to put himself in position to make money from scientific facts, then so what?
My problem with it -- as I have already stated -- was that his movie purported to be representing "science" but he used misleading, unlabeled graphs and similar persuasive devices in order to alarm people. That's not "science reporting", that's propaganda.
Yes, I did in fact watch the movie, very closely. I saw it when it first came out and I was very displeased with it.
For example: A giant chart comparing temperature proxies against CO2 concentrations from ice cores, showing a high correlation. But no labels or indices, or even a casual mention that one of the two lines had been shifted somewhere between 300 to 800 years to the left! Even assuming the correlation is correct, if you don't tell people you have massaged the data in some way, you are "lying with statistics".
Hell yes, I saw the movie. And I walked out of the theater when it ended, disgusted.
It was at a movie mini-marathon, along with a couple of other environoment-themed movies like "Who Killed The Electric Car?" An Inconvenient Truth was the last one.
"Arguing that climate science is wrong because of weather is like arguing that the theory of gravity is wrong because your helium balloon goes up. Stupid."
And I'll say the same thing to you that I did to that other person: I stated this myself. Or else what do you think "that's beside the point" means?
Dumbass.
"Go watch the movie again. It is unusually hot where I live. You say it's unusually cold where you live. That is not contradictory to what he was saying in the movie. "
Do you have reading comprehension issues? What do you think "that's beside the point" means?