Just suppose for a moment that AGW was completely true - it's real, it's happening, and it's largely due to our actions. If so, one would expect that the observational data would support this.
So how could a study based on this data arrive at a contrary conclusion? Logically, either it is based on an insufficiently representative portion of the data, or the data is misinterpreted - either way, I call that poor methodology, and in most cases, peer review will catch it before it gets published. This is quite normal, and not at all odd.
The alternative hypothesis is that AGW is not real, and that 49 out of 50 climatologists are either wilfully engaging in a global conspiracy to deny the facts (presumably in return for lots of money), or are not only incapable of recognising poor methodology in their own studies or in others but are actively rejecting the only studies with good methodology.
If you are tending to the latter hypothesis, it's no wonder you find it all very odd. I would too.
I put it to you that most of those contrary reports are not being published in peer-reviewed journals because they're not passing peer review. Poor methodology seems a lot more likely a reason than climatology, alone among the sciences and against all science stands for, trying to stifle dissent. Also, since climatologists have the same access to the net as you & I, it's likely that many have read those "suppressed" dissenting opinions regardless. And yet this apparently hasn't changed their conclusions....
Anyhoo, you are of course entitled to your personal opinions. I do feel that politicians and policy-makers should be held to higher advisory standards, however.
When it's not "allowed" to point out issues with a theory, any theory, it has become religion, not science.
A fair point, but I've seen more cases of pressure to suppress pro-climate-change evidence, rather than the other way around. It's ironic that TFA is also about the release of relevant data that was withheld apparently for political reasons.
you're just ruining your credibility as a scientist when stating you don't understand it, then in the same sentence claim to be an authority able to state the cause
Just because a scientist doesn't fully understand something doesn't mean he/she can't draw useful conclusions. We don't know why gravity works the way it does, but we can predict its effects pretty well. In this case, the climatologists seem quite convinced, despite what they don't know. Are you more knowledgeable about the data and its uncertainties than they are?
...us all switching to electric cars. That's moving pollution, not reducing it.
Oh, true enough. But it does largely centralise that pollution, which makes it a lot more manageable (through carbon capture, or alternative energy sources like nuclear, wind, solar etc).
So... the vast majority (if not all) climatologists are actually lying about their conclusions because they want to get certain candidates elected, thus helping to perpetuate a political climate which is favourable to them being given grants to pursue further studies in the field that they've been lying about.
Or, they're just telling the truth. Which one was the simplest explanation again?
My point was that looking at some of the facts is insufficient to have an informed opinion. I'm not qualified to judge (since I know only a small fraction of the raw data or what it all means), and from the sound of it neither are you.
If what you're saying is, "They might be right, but I think they're wrong", then my question is (again), how is it that your few hours of study of a couple of specifics somehow enables you to disbelieve the considered conclusions of the vast majority of the experts in the field?
That's exactly the issue. I'm not either - but I give a lot more weight to the people who are.
Facts are indeed facts, and I would bet a lot of money that you haven't looked at nearly as many of them as a climatologist. What is it about being partially-informed that makes people so willing to declare fully-informed people flat-out wrong?
See, this is why I try not to get into the specifics. Climate change is a complex, interdependant subject and you can cherry-pick any result you like, but that doesn't mean you understand what's actually happening.
Either you choose to believe that nearly all climatologists are incompetent and that non-scientist bloggers know way more about the field of climatology than people who've studied it for years, or you pull your head out of the sand and start listening to the people who've seen all the data and are actually qualified to have an opinion.
Glaciers have retreated before, many times, and the Earth survives.
The problem this time round (according to 97% of climatologists) is that it's happening much faster than ever before thanks to human behaviour, and that much of the ecology won't be able to adapt quickly enough.
Us humans doubtless will be able to adapt, but in the short term the impact in terms of our economies and human suffering, will be considerable.
Oh, well, you've convinced me completely. Perhaps you should post the above statements to the world's climatologists, and doubtless they too will all immediately admit they've been wrong all along. How can years of study and experience by thousands of scientists possibly compete with a couple of unsubstantiated blanket allegations like that?
Please tell me you don't make policy decisions for the rest of us.
It's entirely possible that the literature I've been reading is skewed to the optimistic side, but from a strictly hardware point of view, brain-equivalence in 10-15 years fits with a lot of the projections I've read from other people. Maybe just the right combination of neural net simulations will be enough to get useful results, if we can simulate the types of neurons in each brain region effectively. We'd have to "teach" it with appropriate input, of course.
Or maybe, since functional models of the various brain regions are slowly but surely progressing too, we won't necessarily need to use neural simulations for all of it, but instead combine some neural models with some more functional (& more efficient) software, for a hybrid approach.
In any case, I don't think this guy is necessarily arguing that we'll have strong AI or artificial consciousness in 10 years, regardless of how the press spin it, more just that we'll have the hardware to simulate the brain by then. When we actually get strong AI depends more on how "emergent" consciousness turns out to be, or at worst when we can figure out functional models for enough of the brain to be sufficient -which could take a lot longer, or not (see: genome project).
In either case, since you claim a closer association to the field than I, I would welcome some informed links to enlighten me further.
Any computer that is powerful enough to simulate a human-level brain would be powerful enough to create a pretty kick-arse 3D game to put it in, for sensory input. I don't think that's really a problem.
And for human interaction, what's wrong with real humans controlling other actors in this environment? Hell, you could just connect it up to Xbox Live, though the newly-conscious entity would probably just immediately declare war on the human species as a result.
Depends on what you mean by "functionally equivalent". A neural net is a simple self-modifying learning machine, and any detailed simulation of a network of actual neurons like the one TFA describes would certainly qualify.
Here's the thing: I'm not the director of an institute that has spent 15 years studying the brain, and I'm willing to bet you aren't either. In these situations, it's generally wise to accept the majority opinion of those considerably more educated in that field than oneself (see: climatology), so forgive us if we take his word over yours.
Wow, what set that rant off? I don't think the OP said anything about a ripoff. It sounded more like surprise that so many people seem to focus exclusively on the $99 upfront cost and (apparently) ignore the monthly, as if that was irrelevant. Another example of this attitude is the fuss a lot of people made over the extra fee required to pay off the rest of their iPhone 3G contract when upgrading.
By way of comparison, in AU there is a fairly wide range of upfront vs monthly options. I pay full price for an unlocked phone and pay only $10/month (not unlimited, but sufficient for me), so 2 years of $60+/month extra payments would nearly double my overall cost, despite subsidies.
They can get energy from the downward motion of the plate on the speedbump as the car drives over the top of it. The car is now a little lower, so that's energy it can't reclaim. This energy would be offset a little by the springs required to push the plate back up again.
They might also be able to gain energy by absorbing some of the forward motion of the car when it hits the speedbump. That would be more in keeping with the usual purpose of speedbumps. Now all we'd need is a speedbump that could smoothly absorb & convert most of the excess forward velocity of the car (in excess of the speed limit, that is), then we could install them in residential suburbs everywhere and power all the streetlights with them.
This is the point I think many people are overlooking. We've seen this before with mice/keyboards vs dual-analogue sticks. Most existing games (and game genres) are designed to use traditional controllers, because that's what's available, so why would you want to replace them to use a completely different control method? Just keep using traditional controllers, they work well.
However, there are entirely new game genres out there waiting to be discovered, games that require free-form multi-limbed or full-body control, advanced facial/voice recognition etc, and where twitch control isn't quite so crucial, plus of course hybrid control schemes. These games will play on different strengths, and will suit Natal far more than hand-held controllers alone.
There's obviously a market for such games, as Nintendo proved, and the resulting shovelware is just something we'll have to deal with until development matures. I for one don't doubt that face/voice/gesture control will be a part of the future of games and indeed UIs in general, and Natal is a big step to that end, but dual-analogue controllers aren't going away any more than them replacing mice & keyboards.
Dunno why people keep saying this. The 360 controllers aren't going anywhere - you can still use them to play all the games that benefit from a controller.
In fact, you can use a controller and Natal at the same time, for additional expression and control. How is that not a useful thing?
So long as devs don't force Natal-style controls on people, just for the sake of the gimmick, but I think Lair taught them that lesson.
... a 120Hz LCD screen (which I'd very much like).
Or alternatively (and probably more likely), pixels with opposite polarisation are interleaved (horizontally or vertically), the included glasses are passive-polarised, and the "3D mode" is half the resolution of the 2D mode.
The pre-recorded trailer was indeed totally made-up - as it said in the beginning, that represented only MS' "vision" of what it would be like.
The stage show was real and live. I could see noticeable lag, around 200-500ms, but it was kinda hard to judge from that setup. I'd put more weight on an independent hands-on impression - and those guys certainly liked it. "Ever so slight control delay" sounds more encouraging, as does "Holy shit" and "it worked remarkably, incredibly well". If an experienced Burnout player liked Burnout Natal-style that much, it bodes well. And I do like the face- and voice-recognition too, adds a new dimension.
I liked the Sony demo too - plenty of gaming potential there, no question. Very precise-looking (a standard-sized glowing ball makes tracking with depth nice & easy), though I rather doubt their "sub-millimetre precision" tracking claims from a 720p camera. Gamers get an accurate free-form control method, Sony gets to sell plenty of ball-on-a-stick controllers, everyone's happy.
Slashdot Mirror
Just suppose for a moment that AGW was completely true - it's real, it's happening, and it's largely due to our actions. If so, one would expect that the observational data would support this.
So how could a study based on this data arrive at a contrary conclusion? Logically, either it is based on an insufficiently representative portion of the data, or the data is misinterpreted - either way, I call that poor methodology, and in most cases, peer review will catch it before it gets published. This is quite normal, and not at all odd.
The alternative hypothesis is that AGW is not real, and that 49 out of 50 climatologists are either wilfully engaging in a global conspiracy to deny the facts (presumably in return for lots of money), or are not only incapable of recognising poor methodology in their own studies or in others but are actively rejecting the only studies with good methodology.
If you are tending to the latter hypothesis, it's no wonder you find it all very odd. I would too.
I put it to you that most of those contrary reports are not being published in peer-reviewed journals because they're not passing peer review. Poor methodology seems a lot more likely a reason than climatology, alone among the sciences and against all science stands for, trying to stifle dissent. Also, since climatologists have the same access to the net as you & I, it's likely that many have read those "suppressed" dissenting opinions regardless. And yet this apparently hasn't changed their conclusions....
Anyhoo, you are of course entitled to your personal opinions. I do feel that politicians and policy-makers should be held to higher advisory standards, however.
When it's not "allowed" to point out issues with a theory, any theory, it has become religion, not science.
A fair point, but I've seen more cases of pressure to suppress pro-climate-change evidence, rather than the other way around. It's ironic that TFA is also about the release of relevant data that was withheld apparently for political reasons.
you're just ruining your credibility as a scientist when stating you don't understand it, then in the same sentence claim to be an authority able to state the cause
Just because a scientist doesn't fully understand something doesn't mean he/she can't draw useful conclusions. We don't know why gravity works the way it does, but we can predict its effects pretty well. In this case, the climatologists seem quite convinced, despite what they don't know. Are you more knowledgeable about the data and its uncertainties than they are?
...us all switching to electric cars. That's moving pollution, not reducing it.
Oh, true enough. But it does largely centralise that pollution, which makes it a lot more manageable (through carbon capture, or alternative energy sources like nuclear, wind, solar etc).
So... the vast majority (if not all) climatologists are actually lying about their conclusions because they want to get certain candidates elected, thus helping to perpetuate a political climate which is favourable to them being given grants to pursue further studies in the field that they've been lying about.
Or, they're just telling the truth. Which one was the simplest explanation again?
Unless you're a statistician, I'm not sure that your opinion counts ;-)
My point was that looking at some of the facts is insufficient to have an informed opinion. I'm not qualified to judge (since I know only a small fraction of the raw data or what it all means), and from the sound of it neither are you.
If what you're saying is, "They might be right, but I think they're wrong", then my question is (again), how is it that your few hours of study of a couple of specifics somehow enables you to disbelieve the considered conclusions of the vast majority of the experts in the field?
although I'm no expert on the matter
That's exactly the issue. I'm not either - but I give a lot more weight to the people who are.
Facts are indeed facts, and I would bet a lot of money that you haven't looked at nearly as many of them as a climatologist. What is it about being partially-informed that makes people so willing to declare fully-informed people flat-out wrong?
See, this is why I try not to get into the specifics. Climate change is a complex, interdependant subject and you can cherry-pick any result you like, but that doesn't mean you understand what's actually happening.
Either you choose to believe that nearly all climatologists are incompetent and that non-scientist bloggers know way more about the field of climatology than people who've studied it for years, or you pull your head out of the sand and start listening to the people who've seen all the data and are actually qualified to have an opinion.
Glaciers have retreated before, many times, and the Earth survives.
The problem this time round (according to 97% of climatologists) is that it's happening much faster than ever before thanks to human behaviour, and that much of the ecology won't be able to adapt quickly enough.
Us humans doubtless will be able to adapt, but in the short term the impact in terms of our economies and human suffering, will be considerable.
Oh, well, you've convinced me completely. Perhaps you should post the above statements to the world's climatologists, and doubtless they too will all immediately admit they've been wrong all along. How can years of study and experience by thousands of scientists possibly compete with a couple of unsubstantiated blanket allegations like that?
Please tell me you don't make policy decisions for the rest of us.
It's entirely possible that the literature I've been reading is skewed to the optimistic side, but from a strictly hardware point of view, brain-equivalence in 10-15 years fits with a lot of the projections I've read from other people. Maybe just the right combination of neural net simulations will be enough to get useful results, if we can simulate the types of neurons in each brain region effectively. We'd have to "teach" it with appropriate input, of course.
Or maybe, since functional models of the various brain regions are slowly but surely progressing too, we won't necessarily need to use neural simulations for all of it, but instead combine some neural models with some more functional (& more efficient) software, for a hybrid approach.
In any case, I don't think this guy is necessarily arguing that we'll have strong AI or artificial consciousness in 10 years, regardless of how the press spin it, more just that we'll have the hardware to simulate the brain by then. When we actually get strong AI depends more on how "emergent" consciousness turns out to be, or at worst when we can figure out functional models for enough of the brain to be sufficient -which could take a lot longer, or not (see: genome project).
In either case, since you claim a closer association to the field than I, I would welcome some informed links to enlighten me further.
So, you're claiming that 97.4% of climatologists are fabricating their data and their conclusions? That's a bold claim.
Any computer that is powerful enough to simulate a human-level brain would be powerful enough to create a pretty kick-arse 3D game to put it in, for sensory input. I don't think that's really a problem.
And for human interaction, what's wrong with real humans controlling other actors in this environment? Hell, you could just connect it up to Xbox Live, though the newly-conscious entity would probably just immediately declare war on the human species as a result.
on one proviso: the conscious entity, silicon or otherwise, must be given a free choice as to whether to participate.
Everything else is secondary, or just irrelevant.
...you're absolutely correct. In 10 years however, the situation may have changed.
Biggest mistake people can make is to assume that tomorrow will simply be a faster version of today.
Well, besides getting involved in a land war in Asia, of course.
We don't need to know anything about the physics or psychology of orchestras in order to get a decent facsimile onto a plastic disc.
Depends on what you mean by "functionally equivalent". A neural net is a simple self-modifying learning machine, and any detailed simulation of a network of actual neurons like the one TFA describes would certainly qualify.
...in 10 years.
Here's the thing: I'm not the director of an institute that has spent 15 years studying the brain, and I'm willing to bet you aren't either. In these situations, it's generally wise to accept the majority opinion of those considerably more educated in that field than oneself (see: climatology), so forgive us if we take his word over yours.
Wow, what set that rant off? I don't think the OP said anything about a ripoff. It sounded more like surprise that so many people seem to focus exclusively on the $99 upfront cost and (apparently) ignore the monthly, as if that was irrelevant. Another example of this attitude is the fuss a lot of people made over the extra fee required to pay off the rest of their iPhone 3G contract when upgrading.
By way of comparison, in AU there is a fairly wide range of upfront vs monthly options. I pay full price for an unlocked phone and pay only $10/month (not unlimited, but sufficient for me), so 2 years of $60+/month extra payments would nearly double my overall cost, despite subsidies.
How many of those same geeks are running off to buy a nice, locked-down iPhone?
I suppose Apple are let off the hook, just because their security is poor enough to jailbreak?
They can get energy from the downward motion of the plate on the speedbump as the car drives over the top of it. The car is now a little lower, so that's energy it can't reclaim. This energy would be offset a little by the springs required to push the plate back up again.
They might also be able to gain energy by absorbing some of the forward motion of the car when it hits the speedbump. That would be more in keeping with the usual purpose of speedbumps. Now all we'd need is a speedbump that could smoothly absorb & convert most of the excess forward velocity of the car (in excess of the speed limit, that is), then we could install them in residential suburbs everywhere and power all the streetlights with them.
This is the point I think many people are overlooking. We've seen this before with mice/keyboards vs dual-analogue sticks. Most existing games (and game genres) are designed to use traditional controllers, because that's what's available, so why would you want to replace them to use a completely different control method? Just keep using traditional controllers, they work well.
However, there are entirely new game genres out there waiting to be discovered, games that require free-form multi-limbed or full-body control, advanced facial/voice recognition etc, and where twitch control isn't quite so crucial, plus of course hybrid control schemes. These games will play on different strengths, and will suit Natal far more than hand-held controllers alone.
There's obviously a market for such games, as Nintendo proved, and the resulting shovelware is just something we'll have to deal with until development matures. I for one don't doubt that face/voice/gesture control will be a part of the future of games and indeed UIs in general, and Natal is a big step to that end, but dual-analogue controllers aren't going away any more than them replacing mice & keyboards.
Dunno why people keep saying this. The 360 controllers aren't going anywhere - you can still use them to play all the games that benefit from a controller.
In fact, you can use a controller and Natal at the same time, for additional expression and control. How is that not a useful thing?
So long as devs don't force Natal-style controls on people, just for the sake of the gimmick, but I think Lair taught them that lesson.
... a 120Hz LCD screen (which I'd very much like).
Or alternatively (and probably more likely), pixels with opposite polarisation are interleaved (horizontally or vertically), the included glasses are passive-polarised, and the "3D mode" is half the resolution of the 2D mode.
The pre-recorded trailer was indeed totally made-up - as it said in the beginning, that represented only MS' "vision" of what it would be like.
The stage show was real and live. I could see noticeable lag, around 200-500ms, but it was kinda hard to judge from that setup. I'd put more weight on an independent hands-on impression - and those guys certainly liked it. "Ever so slight control delay" sounds more encouraging, as does "Holy shit" and "it worked remarkably, incredibly well". If an experienced Burnout player liked Burnout Natal-style that much, it bodes well. And I do like the face- and voice-recognition too, adds a new dimension.
I liked the Sony demo too - plenty of gaming potential there, no question. Very precise-looking (a standard-sized glowing ball makes tracking with depth nice & easy), though I rather doubt their "sub-millimetre precision" tracking claims from a 720p camera. Gamers get an accurate free-form control method, Sony gets to sell plenty of ball-on-a-stick controllers, everyone's happy.