Furthermore, you are ignoring the lag in the warming effect of greenhouse gases (CO2 emitted into the atmosphere does not instantly cause warming pro rata), and possible feedbacks in the system (such as disruption to the methane hydrates) that might drive the temperature considerably higher - currently models put the value between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees, I believe, with a consensus appearing to form around 3 degrees. Obviously, that's got a high degree of uncertainty attached, but given the effects of 1 degree, why on Earth would you gamble?
Eh? You put Pagefile.sys, a file containing memory pages that are not currently needed in live RAM, back into RAM? Unless you are doing a lot of paging, you'll save milliseconds at best. If you're doing that much paging, surely more RAM is a better idea?
I'm curious what the he'll you're using your machine for:)
It's one of the classic logical fallacies, Argument by Personal Incredulity.
People seem to have immense trouble putting two and two together here. Google has put many, many person-years into working out how to do this. How do people think Wave worked, pixies?
Yes, because the buffer is causing false information to propagate through the network. The design of TCP is predicated on peers discovering that there's congestion between them as fast as possible, and negotiating a sensible transfer rate. It's not that all buffering is bad, but that it has diminishing returns, and eventually actually makes the situation worse.
He's not arguing against application-level caching. He's saying that too much caching at the IP layer is confusing TCP's algorithm for deciding how fast the link between two points is. This in turn causes massive variability in how fast the data can be downloaded; or in your terms, how fast the video can be buffered (and, in fact, how much buffer the video player needs).
Without specifying what precise ailments she was suffering from, it's impossible to judge whether or not the NHS failed in that situation. The problem is, we never want to let our loved ones go, even when no medical technology can save them.
Last night, I was talking to a nurse who'd spent some time working in Dubai, and who had regularly encountered a particularly common form of cognitive disfunction: the belief that money can solve every problem. He was regularly confronted with people who thought that the reason that their relatives were dying was that they hadn't offered enough money. That there was an infinite sliding scale of increasingly expensive treatments, and somewhere in there there was a magic pill that would save their loved one.
The truth is, medical science has come a long way, but it still can't fix everything. So there's a possibility that she was sent home because there was nothing they could do but prolong the agony.
If you RTFA, what it seems to be saying is that rates of chronic illness are lower in England, but rates of recovery are higher in the USA. The example given is diabetes. Now, diabetes can either be entirely genetic, or partially brought on by lifestyle. Lifestyle is a lot easier to fix than a genetic disorder. If the majority of the extra cases are lifestyle driven, then the study says nothing about the relative qualities of the countries' health systems. The article seems to skirt very carefully around this issue.
The idea that this particular style of AI will somehow achieve consciousness is what Eliezer Yudkowsky refers to as the Detached Lever Fallacy. In brief, you can have a relationship (apple is-a fruit), but unless the proto-AI has an experiential model of what an apple is and what is possible with an apple, and some kind of decision-making process, then it's just a lever with nothing attached. For instance, would NELL ever know how to make an apple pie?
And it doesn't matter how many relationships you build, without the "programs" for using the apple, it's just a lot of loose, dangling levers.
That's not to say that an auto-classification system doesn't have its uses, I'm just not preparing for transhumanism just yet.
It's difficult to know "who started it", but one cause might be that the skeptics also tend to refer to the pro-AGW crowd as fools, dupes, hippies, liars and members/supporters of a global conspiracy. Poo gets flung in both directions. There's no point complaining about the behaviour of just one of the parties.
As someone who is firmly in the AGW camp, and as someone who gets occasionally frustrated with the behaviour of the other side, I can give you the things that annoy me, personally, the most:
Endless restating of opposing arguments that already have answers without counter-arguments.
Turning up, dumping said arguments all over a forum, then disappearing rather than sticking around to discuss them.
Throwing around whacky conspiracy theories.
All of these behaviours give them impression that you are dealing with someone who has not read or understood the scientific literature, but still wants to criticise it. When faced with this behaviour, I try and stay polite. Others do not:)
The planets thing is nomenclature. The rest of it is not down to science, it's down to the reporting of science. If journalists didn't dumb it down so much, and reported with less hyperbole, people would leap to fewer erroneous conclusions.
No, the problem with the current panels is the cost per Kilowatt Hour. If the panels can produce more for the same price, then the payback period is shorter.
So, what you're saying is, rather than make money from those apps (or at least offset the cost), developers would prefer to give them away? That argument doesn't convince me. Don't misunderstand me, I'm sure plenty of developers would make free apps in Flash, the same sort of developers who make apps available for free in the App Store right now. They were never going charge for the app in the first place, so Apple loses nothing (by your argument). In fact they gain, because they don't have to host it.
What Apple wants control over is far more subtle than that. They're selling a brand. In fact, some (including Joel Spolsky and Seth Godin) have argued they are selling nothing less than a philosophy, and they want total control over it. I'm not assigning value to that philosophy here. I'm just saying I agree. So, I think the big problem with Flash (and other frameworks) is that it makes it too easy to step outside of that philosophy, to tell a different story.
Of course, there have been other reasons proposed for Apple's opposition to Flash, and I think they play a part. Supposedly, Apple detests Flash's crash rate; again, if they let Flash onto the iPhone and it crashes all the time, that contradicts the user experience they're trying to create. And that applies to poor support for touchscreens, too. Everyone who says "Huh, my other phone lets me do this by " are just proving the article's point.
But if the Bible is incapable of contradiction, then it also says nothing definite, in which case it's surely inappropriate to use it as any kind of moral compass? Or to put it another way, and to paraphrase Stephen Fry, if the Bible says nothing definite, what is it good for?
Who's the "they", though? I find the AGW case convincing, but I have come to the conclusion that nuclear is (unfortunately) our best option, and that cap-and-trade is going to be nowhere near as effective as a carbon tax. So am I part of "they"?
For a perspective on the challenges involved in replacing fossil fuels, I can heartily recommend Sustainable energy - without the hot air. Evidence-based reasoning, and he's quite pro-nuke, although he thinks it needs to be part of a wider strategy, and we're still going to face some lifestyle reduction until we make some technological improvements.
The problem is that gullible idiots like you make unwarranted assumptions about the quality of the scientific evidence based on no more than faith. And every piece of evidence to the contrary is summarily ignored.
No-one is ignoring the problems with this piece of evidence. The problem with this piece of evidence is that it can't be called that; it doesn't meet the necessary standards of scientific evidence. It wasn't peer-reviewed, and it wasn't from a primary source. It shouldn't have been in there. No similar problems have been found in the peer-reviewed portions of the IPCC report, so we're not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
And, yes, I know you're going to mention articles that challenge the conclusions in those areas, but challenge is not the same as succeed. Unless you're going to mention an article that has been peer-reviewed, or one that has not been rebutted, or has a counter-rebuttal that has not been answered, then I'd ask you not to bother, please.
The problem isn't with the "deniers" who are pointing all of these problems out. The "deniers" don't deny climate change or even global warming.
You must talk to different opponents of AGW than myself. I meet lots of people online who even go so far as to dispute a warming trend.
They just deny the right of censorious assholes like you to claim that climate change is a) unprecedented and b) caused by man-made fossil fuels without actual engineering-quality reports showing either of these things to be true or even likely. They aren't the ones in denial - it's you.
I'm assuming don't know this person, so I feel your insults are hasty and based on scant evidence. What were you saying about evidence again?
Sorry, you appear to have posted a link to Climate Audit's front page. Seeing as they've made lots of claims in the past for which rebuttals exist, it's a little hard to know where to start answering this.
No. Data is not being deleted by NOAA or NASA. It is not being supplied to them. The suggested reading is Peterson and Vose 1997 which explains where the data comes from. As for the interpolation claim, if coastal temperatures were being used to estimate mountain temperature anomalies, the anomalies would be larger than reported. You don't believe it? Get the data and work it out for yourself.
as has the temperature records from the Climate Research Unit relied upon for the calibration of climate models - and is the subject of several independent investigations for possible scientific fraud in the US and the UK.
There is no evidence in the emails from CRU for data fraud. If there were data fraud, this could be determined by cross-checking it against the GISS dataset. Unless you believe that everyone's "in on the conspiracy", and are collaborating to fake data. I find such a conspiracy (which, of necessity, would include not only CRU and NASA, but everyone who supplies them with data) highly unlikely.
But you'll ignore it all because it comes from "deniers" and you'll invoke preposterous conspiracy theories involving fossil fuel companies while ignoring the cosying up of nearly entire fossil fuel industry with the alarmists.
I'm surprised you think this. I've watched friends and family (all smart people, before anyone starts implying anything) graduate from novices to regular users, and some to power users. I remember them being initially utterly perplexed by the file and folder metaphor. I couldn't tell you why, but I could suggest why: the metaphor is imperfect. Files and folders do not behave like paper, and the differences in behaviour can be very confusing. For example, if I file something in a physical folder and go to look for it later, there's usually no chance that I'll have look inside a nested folder that is, apart from the name, practically indistinguishable from the one that contains it. The problem seems (to me) to be that users have trouble establishing a sense of place, of where the documents are stored. Where's my letter? What's this "drive" you keep talking about? When I edit this picture, why doesn't it update in both the letters I was writing?
Geeks don't have this problem, because we think like this. We prefer to break our information down its atoms.
Don't get me wrong, the metaphor is better than what came before it, but I don't think it's the best we can do.
Even if it didn't kill the company, it should've done. The combat was interesting in its approach, but under-developed (Arkham Asylum does it better). Everything else was dreadful. Terrible controls, awful camera, boring levels, and incredibly buggy. I gave up on it when I executed a bullet-time roll to the left to dodge incoming gunfire, and rolled through the wall, into clipped space. I spent five minutes running around in a trippy fog until I accidentally bumped into the walls again and managed to to fall back into the game world through another gap in the polygons. If they hadn't rushed it out to meet the film marketing deadlines, it might have been a good game, but it was plainly not finished.
Re:Stealing by any other name still stinks as much
on
Hiding From Google
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I think he's got you on that one. The contract between users and Google, at least as relates to search, is a purely implicit
one. Absent a terms and conditions page, a website is by definition a public facility, its terms of use defined solely by its behaviour. Google don't offer you the option to turn off tracking, so that indicates they'd really like you to allow it, but the site works without it, so Google must be ok with you doing that.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is a summary of the IPCC's expected effects from a 1 to 3 degree rise in global temperature. A 1.4 degree rise is by no means trivial.
Furthermore, you are ignoring the lag in the warming effect of greenhouse gases (CO2 emitted into the atmosphere does not instantly cause warming pro rata), and possible feedbacks in the system (such as disruption to the methane hydrates) that might drive the temperature considerably higher - currently models put the value between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees, I believe, with a consensus appearing to form around 3 degrees. Obviously, that's got a high degree of uncertainty attached, but given the effects of 1 degree, why on Earth would you gamble?
At the moment, the global temperature anomaly is 0.1C BELOW the thirty year running mean (and has been for a couple of months.
Analysing a thirty-year running mean on the timescale of months is statistical nonsense.
Eh? You put Pagefile.sys, a file containing memory pages that are not currently needed in live RAM, back into RAM? Unless you are doing a lot of paging, you'll save milliseconds at best. If you're doing that much paging, surely more RAM is a better idea? I'm curious what the he'll you're using your machine for :)
It's one of the classic logical fallacies, Argument by Personal Incredulity. People seem to have immense trouble putting two and two together here. Google has put many, many person-years into working out how to do this. How do people think Wave worked, pixies?
Yes, because the buffer is causing false information to propagate through the network. The design of TCP is predicated on peers discovering that there's congestion between them as fast as possible, and negotiating a sensible transfer rate. It's not that all buffering is bad, but that it has diminishing returns, and eventually actually makes the situation worse.
He's not arguing against application-level caching. He's saying that too much caching at the IP layer is confusing TCP's algorithm for deciding how fast the link between two points is. This in turn causes massive variability in how fast the data can be downloaded; or in your terms, how fast the video can be buffered (and, in fact, how much buffer the video player needs).
Yes, he could. What about all the non-technical users?
Without specifying what precise ailments she was suffering from, it's impossible to judge whether or not the NHS failed in that situation. The problem is, we never want to let our loved ones go, even when no medical technology can save them.
Last night, I was talking to a nurse who'd spent some time working in Dubai, and who had regularly encountered a particularly common form of cognitive disfunction: the belief that money can solve every problem. He was regularly confronted with people who thought that the reason that their relatives were dying was that they hadn't offered enough money. That there was an infinite sliding scale of increasingly expensive treatments, and somewhere in there there was a magic pill that would save their loved one.
The truth is, medical science has come a long way, but it still can't fix everything. So there's a possibility that she was sent home because there was nothing they could do but prolong the agony.
If you RTFA, what it seems to be saying is that rates of chronic illness are lower in England, but rates of recovery are higher in the USA. The example given is diabetes. Now, diabetes can either be entirely genetic, or partially brought on by lifestyle. Lifestyle is a lot easier to fix than a genetic disorder. If the majority of the extra cases are lifestyle driven, then the study says nothing about the relative qualities of the countries' health systems. The article seems to skirt very carefully around this issue.
The idea that this particular style of AI will somehow achieve consciousness is what Eliezer Yudkowsky refers to as the Detached Lever Fallacy. In brief, you can have a relationship (apple is-a fruit), but unless the proto-AI has an experiential model of what an apple is and what is possible with an apple, and some kind of decision-making process, then it's just a lever with nothing attached. For instance, would NELL ever know how to make an apple pie?
And it doesn't matter how many relationships you build, without the "programs" for using the apple, it's just a lot of loose, dangling levers.
That's not to say that an auto-classification system doesn't have its uses, I'm just not preparing for transhumanism just yet.
Everyone's scared of the Singularity. Fantasy is easier.
It's difficult to know "who started it", but one cause might be that the skeptics also tend to refer to the pro-AGW crowd as fools, dupes, hippies, liars and members/supporters of a global conspiracy. Poo gets flung in both directions. There's no point complaining about the behaviour of just one of the parties.
As someone who is firmly in the AGW camp, and as someone who gets occasionally frustrated with the behaviour of the other side, I can give you the things that annoy me, personally, the most:
All of these behaviours give them impression that you are dealing with someone who has not read or understood the scientific literature, but still wants to criticise it. When faced with this behaviour, I try and stay polite. Others do not :)
It would mean that Asperger's is social, and Autism is biological.
Well, no. It'd just mean they aren't the same disorder. Which is what people have suggesting for some time now.
The planets thing is nomenclature. The rest of it is not down to science, it's down to the reporting of science. If journalists didn't dumb it down so much, and reported with less hyperbole, people would leap to fewer erroneous conclusions.
No, the problem with the current panels is the cost per Kilowatt Hour. If the panels can produce more for the same price, then the payback period is shorter.
Because youtube doesn't offer movies and television shows. Youtube tried but it never really caught on.
Well, not officially, no. And not if the copyright holders find out about it ;)
You think that hulu wouldn't love to make an iphone app?
Rumour has it that that's exactly what they're doing
.
*sigh*... Slashdot zapped part of my comment there... should've read:
Everyone who says "Huh, my other phone lets me do this by some arcane invocation" are just proving the article's point.
So, what you're saying is, rather than make money from those apps (or at least offset the cost), developers would prefer to give them away? That argument doesn't convince me. Don't misunderstand me, I'm sure plenty of developers would make free apps in Flash, the same sort of developers who make apps available for free in the App Store right now. They were never going charge for the app in the first place, so Apple loses nothing (by your argument). In fact they gain, because they don't have to host it.
What Apple wants control over is far more subtle than that. They're selling a brand. In fact, some (including Joel Spolsky and Seth Godin) have argued they are selling nothing less than a philosophy, and they want total control over it. I'm not assigning value to that philosophy here. I'm just saying I agree. So, I think the big problem with Flash (and other frameworks) is that it makes it too easy to step outside of that philosophy, to tell a different story.
Of course, there have been other reasons proposed for Apple's opposition to Flash, and I think they play a part. Supposedly, Apple detests Flash's crash rate; again, if they let Flash onto the iPhone and it crashes all the time, that contradicts the user experience they're trying to create. And that applies to poor support for touchscreens, too. Everyone who says "Huh, my other phone lets me do this by " are just proving the article's point.
So, um, why does it have a Youtube app? Hell, if that's their only motivation, why do they allow streaming music services like Spotify?
But if the Bible is incapable of contradiction, then it also says nothing definite, in which case it's surely inappropriate to use it as any kind of moral compass? Or to put it another way, and to paraphrase Stephen Fry, if the Bible says nothing definite, what is it good for?
Who's the "they", though? I find the AGW case convincing, but I have come to the conclusion that nuclear is (unfortunately) our best option, and that cap-and-trade is going to be nowhere near as effective as a carbon tax. So am I part of "they"?
For a perspective on the challenges involved in replacing fossil fuels, I can heartily recommend Sustainable energy - without the hot air. Evidence-based reasoning, and he's quite pro-nuke, although he thinks it needs to be part of a wider strategy, and we're still going to face some lifestyle reduction until we make some technological improvements.
The problem is that gullible idiots like you make unwarranted assumptions about the quality of the scientific evidence based on no more than faith. And every piece of evidence to the contrary is summarily ignored.
No-one is ignoring the problems with this piece of evidence. The problem with this piece of evidence is that it can't be called that; it doesn't meet the necessary standards of scientific evidence. It wasn't peer-reviewed, and it wasn't from a primary source. It shouldn't have been in there. No similar problems have been found in the peer-reviewed portions of the IPCC report, so we're not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
And, yes, I know you're going to mention articles that challenge the conclusions in those areas, but challenge is not the same as succeed. Unless you're going to mention an article that has been peer-reviewed, or one that has not been rebutted, or has a counter-rebuttal that has not been answered, then I'd ask you not to bother, please.
The problem isn't with the "deniers" who are pointing all of these problems out. The "deniers" don't deny climate change or even global warming.
You must talk to different opponents of AGW than myself. I meet lots of people online who even go so far as to dispute a warming trend.
They just deny the right of censorious assholes like you to claim that climate change is a) unprecedented and b) caused by man-made fossil fuels without actual engineering-quality reports showing either of these things to be true or even likely. They aren't the ones in denial - it's you.
I'm assuming don't know this person, so I feel your insults are hasty and based on scant evidence. What were you saying about evidence again?
The smell from underneath the IPCC bandages is pretty bad. The proxy reconstructions of past climate have been shown to be heavily cherry-picked and badly done statistics
Sorry, you appear to have posted a link to Climate Audit's front page. Seeing as they've made lots of claims in the past for which rebuttals exist, it's a little hard to know where to start answering this.
the measurement of surface temperatures by NOAA and NASA appears been heavily manipulated to show warming
No. Data is not being deleted by NOAA or NASA. It is not being supplied to them. The suggested reading is Peterson and Vose 1997 which explains where the data comes from. As for the interpolation claim, if coastal temperatures were being used to estimate mountain temperature anomalies, the anomalies would be larger than reported. You don't believe it? Get the data and work it out for yourself.
as has the temperature records from the Climate Research Unit relied upon for the calibration of climate models - and is the subject of several independent investigations for possible scientific fraud in the US and the UK.
There is no evidence in the emails from CRU for data fraud. If there were data fraud, this could be determined by cross-checking it against the GISS dataset. Unless you believe that everyone's "in on the conspiracy", and are collaborating to fake data. I find such a conspiracy (which, of necessity, would include not only CRU and NASA, but everyone who supplies them with data) highly unlikely.
But you'll ignore it all because it comes from "deniers" and you'll invoke preposterous conspiracy theories involving fossil fuel companies while ignoring the cosying up of nearly entire fossil fuel industry with the alarmists.
I'm hoping
I'm surprised you think this. I've watched friends and family (all smart people, before anyone starts implying anything) graduate from novices to regular users, and some to power users. I remember them being initially utterly perplexed by the file and folder metaphor. I couldn't tell you why, but I could suggest why: the metaphor is imperfect. Files and folders do not behave like paper, and the differences in behaviour can be very confusing. For example, if I file something in a physical folder and go to look for it later, there's usually no chance that I'll have look inside a nested folder that is, apart from the name, practically indistinguishable from the one that contains it. The problem seems (to me) to be that users have trouble establishing a sense of place, of where the documents are stored. Where's my letter? What's this "drive" you keep talking about? When I edit this picture, why doesn't it update in both the letters I was writing?
Geeks don't have this problem, because we think like this. We prefer to break our information down its atoms.
Don't get me wrong, the metaphor is better than what came before it, but I don't think it's the best we can do.
Even if it didn't kill the company, it should've done. The combat was interesting in its approach, but under-developed (Arkham Asylum does it better). Everything else was dreadful. Terrible controls, awful camera, boring levels, and incredibly buggy. I gave up on it when I executed a bullet-time roll to the left to dodge incoming gunfire, and rolled through the wall, into clipped space. I spent five minutes running around in a trippy fog until I accidentally bumped into the walls again and managed to to fall back into the game world through another gap in the polygons. If they hadn't rushed it out to meet the film marketing deadlines, it might have been a good game, but it was plainly not finished.
Actually, I think he's got you on that one. The contract between users and Google, at least as relates to search, is a purely implicit one. Absent a terms and conditions page, a website is by definition a public facility, its terms of use defined solely by its behaviour. Google don't offer you the option to turn off tracking, so that indicates they'd really like you to allow it, but the site works without it, so Google must be ok with you doing that.