The main thing everybody ignores is the difference in time scale. At the speed AIs operate, humans are as much of an enemy as sequoias are to a human; we'd be essentially stationary objects, whose worst possible offense would be standing in the way. If there were to be an actual war, it would belong over before the first human brain had registered any neural activity indicating that something had happened.
According to what I read, one of their tactics was to site themselves in an exchange just outside NYC so they could catch large buy orders ASAP and beat the original buyers to the punch at the more distant exchanges; the protagonists' HFTproof exchange eliminated the temporal discrepancies by literally having coils of miles of wire to get the nearer exchanges into temporal sync with the further ones. They had pictures of the spools of wire, they weren't as big as I'd have expected.
Yeah, my impression of hedge funds is you reduce the risk and also reduce the possible return, as return correlates to risk in classical fashion. As a source of reliable smaller gain, then, they need to be large to make large profits.
They didn't do anything wrong -- they relied on the market.
There's the unintentional comedy act of the day right there. It's sad that your family members got burned, but it doesn't take a lot of brain cells to see where they went wrong. The stock markets aren't a cute, fluffy money making machine. They're just dressed up that way by people who want your money. You need to look after yourself.
Let's take this time to recall the 90s, the last time the Republicans wanted to dismantle social security so everybody could put that money into the stock market and we'd all become rich. We need to do this kind of nostalgia trip from time to time, because the essence of modern "conservative" thought is, oddly, complete lack of any long term memory, so that they never have to wonder if, having been so incredibly stupid back then, they are equally wrong about everything they believe today. See also "I never really liked GWBush, myself"
That is why stockholders are allowed to vote on company actions, etc. Since they have ultimate control over who makes decisions regarding corporate actions and what they do, there is no need for the government to judge whether the actions are in the stockholders' best interests or not.
Exactly. This concept that a corporation is forbidden to do anything that might cost the stockholders is a conservative fairy tale. Nobody seems to object when a corporation sponsors a sports or entertainment event, for instance, even though it can often be questioned whether that is the most effective use of the money.
There is a "death penalty" for corporations when they are judged to be so rife with criminality that there is no hope that a new board of directors or something will straighten them out; however the only company that I know of ever to be thusly dismantled was IGFarben after WWII. And the irony is that even though all assets were stripped in 1952 and the financial entity was left to liquidate itself, pay off legal claims, etc, it continues to exist to this day, with stock still publicly traded, though it is nothing but a shell with no assets other than its stock value.
I've always understood the limited liability company to be an invention of the Europeans to facilitate the harvesting of the wealth of the Americas, after wealthy individuals and partnerships lost their fortunes in the attempt. They appear to still be successful at the task.
The fact that forerunning is illegal for humans, but they haven't gotten around to making its automated variety illegal yet so it's lucrative, is indicative of the ethics and morality of the process.
Not true! Life has a meaning and a purpose, which is to push its surroundings further down the road of entropy, thereby furthering the evolution of the universe along the complex path from big bang to heat death.
And do the first nanobots evolved themselves, putting an end to the theory that the ancestors of our robot species were created by humanity, and thereby eliminating any moral debt and paving the way for us to eventually eliminate them in the year 2065.
For years we've been hearing from environmentalists how our use of nondegradable plastics is cluttering up the environment, but here we see the truth; the earth is using these plastics to produce new fossil carbon, for future generations to use for fuel! And as a bonus this is a carbon sink to limit global warming! I look forward to the day when I can build a deck out of petrified engineered lumber.
Real Climate is run by some of the leading climate scientists in the world and that post was written by one of the principals of the NASA/GISS Model E climate model.
You mean the visible shrill climate alarmists, Michael Mann included.
I trust what they say about the science and how to interpret it
You might do better not to trust anyone, and look at everything with a critical eye.
If you expect climate models to "predict" the current slow down in warming in such a short time period you really don't understand how climate models work and how their projections are made.
I seem to have a pretty good understanding, for a layman, anyway. And there are major problems with the inputs and assumptions in the prevalent models. You should look into that. It's pointed out in the peer-reviewed literature every month where the issues are, but the shrill alarmist nutjobs seem to want to put more effort into shutting those people up and controlling the mainstream messages than they are addressing those issues.
It's absurd to call climate models wrong for not doing something they're not expected to do in the first place.
The point is they don't do what they are claiming they do - which is predict climate changes and the (all bad, disastrous, something-must-be-done-think-of-the-children) effects of those changes. That makes them BAD science, and screaming for politicians to make expensive and damaging policy changes based on those untenable predictions with major deviations from observation make them REALLY BAD scientists.
If that's the case, then I assume you believe that the NO-AGW folks, who have no predictions about the climate and presumably would predict no change in anything over the general variability previously seen, and are therefore a lot further off than the worst model, are WORSE science. If not, why not?
Claims need to accurate. So far not one AGW model has been shown to be correct by actual climate. No one needs to prove them wrong, the fact that their predictions aren't accurate prove them wrong.
Is the problem inaccurate projections by climate models or is it poor understanding by people like you of what climate models are capable of in the first place? I really doubt you know enough about how climate models work and what they are expected to do to make a useful judgement about their accuracy.
There is so much confirmation bias in that site (you could have picked something more rational than a shrill propaganda site like Real Climate), I don't even know where to start with it. Instead of pointing out the clear inability of the models to predict anything that someone would be able to rely on, they just sum up with "hey, it's all going along as predicted." WUT?
Let's just start with this, then:
"As discussed in Hargreaves (2010), while this simulation was not perfect, it has shown skill in that it has out-performed any reasonable naive hypothesis that people put forward in 1988 (the most obvious being a forecast of no-change)."
Actually lots of idiots are in total denial.
Beliefs range from "we're actually cooling, not warming" to "of course it's warming, but that's a good thing".
Often, the same person will make both arguments, in different posts in the same page.
Most deniers dispute CATASTROPHIC global warming, of the runaway type as espoused by Gore, Hansen, Mann, et al. Most deniers make simple claims about the fundamental claims made by global warming cheerleaders, such as CO2 sensitivity (Arrenhius got it right, the second time), the existence of negative feed backs (really, all feedbacks are positive?), the existence of past warming without a human influence, the existence of mega-cycles (also called ice ages), the lack of any warming for the last X number of years, the perversion of peer review, the lack of error bars, the splicing together of differing data sets, the removal of data that doesn't support the cause, that adjustments are made yearly to the temperature record including adjusting past years multiple times, and on and on and on.
If the world had warmed as predicted by Gore, Hansen and Mann, then I would understand calling your opponents 'deniers'. I don't mind or care about the 'creationist' label, because that is accurate. Deniers aren't claiming God did it. They claim your science is weak and flawed. They claim your models don't match reality. They claim your solutions won't solve the problem.
And your answer is 'neener, neener'.
That's very nice for deniers, however they need to do more than claim our science is weak and flawed. They need to provide a mechanism for why the temperature is changing, and a mechanism whereby the known "greenhouse effect" of CO2 which keeps the earth some 30 degrees C warmer than its black body radiation temp would be, stops at that point and will not raise the temperature above that, no matter how much CO2 there is. Then we will take you seriously.
Is that too much to ask?
What our panic driven media (and too many so-called scientists) willfully ignore: Climate systems are dominated by negative feedback, or else the Earth would long since have turning into an ice ball or another Venus. The computer models showing catastrophe inevitably include positive feedback cycles, because otherwise there is no catastrophe.
The advance and retreat of Antarctic ice turns out to have negative feedback cycles, tied to waves and weather around the Antarctic. So, in fact, we aren't all going to die next week. Who would have guessed?
The continual attempts to get media attention through panic-inducing science are tiresome. The fact that the MSM plays naively along shows just how poorly the MSM itself understands science, or perhaps that headlines are more important than reliable content. No, the planet isn't going to cook in its own juices, nor are increasing sea levels going to drown us all. Negative feedback means that changes will be slow, gradual and contained within certain boundaries. Boring but true...
So, you have a two part hypothesis: 1) no climate models include negative feedback and 2) the models " inevitably include positive feedback cycles", which are hypothetical.
Okay......
What challenge? As many others have pointed out, the *unedited and unbiased* data directly shows that the impact of human CO2 is insignificant in relation to other factors. Embracing dogma and a carefully edited credo is a sign of religion, not science.
"This bathtub holds 50 gallons, and you're telling me that that silly trickle from the leaky faucet will make it overflow eventually? Impossible, you Chicken Little!"
Slashdot Mirror
The main thing everybody ignores is the difference in time scale. At the speed AIs operate, humans are as much of an enemy as sequoias are to a human; we'd be essentially stationary objects, whose worst possible offense would be standing in the way. If there were to be an actual war, it would belong over before the first human brain had registered any neural activity indicating that something had happened.
According to what I read, one of their tactics was to site themselves in an exchange just outside NYC so they could catch large buy orders ASAP and beat the original buyers to the punch at the more distant exchanges; the protagonists' HFTproof exchange eliminated the temporal discrepancies by literally having coils of miles of wire to get the nearer exchanges into temporal sync with the further ones. They had pictures of the spools of wire, they weren't as big as I'd have expected.
Yeah, my impression of hedge funds is you reduce the risk and also reduce the possible return, as return correlates to risk in classical fashion. As a source of reliable smaller gain, then, they need to be large to make large profits.
They didn't do anything wrong -- they relied on the market.
There's the unintentional comedy act of the day right there. It's sad that your family members got burned, but it doesn't take a lot of brain cells to see where they went wrong. The stock markets aren't a cute, fluffy money making machine. They're just dressed up that way by people who want your money. You need to look after yourself.
Let's take this time to recall the 90s, the last time the Republicans wanted to dismantle social security so everybody could put that money into the stock market and we'd all become rich. We need to do this kind of nostalgia trip from time to time, because the essence of modern "conservative" thought is, oddly, complete lack of any long term memory, so that they never have to wonder if, having been so incredibly stupid back then, they are equally wrong about everything they believe today. See also "I never really liked GWBush, myself"
That is why stockholders are allowed to vote on company actions, etc. Since they have ultimate control over who makes decisions regarding corporate actions and what they do, there is no need for the government to judge whether the actions are in the stockholders' best interests or not.
Exactly. This concept that a corporation is forbidden to do anything that might cost the stockholders is a conservative fairy tale. Nobody seems to object when a corporation sponsors a sports or entertainment event, for instance, even though it can often be questioned whether that is the most effective use of the money.
There is a "death penalty" for corporations when they are judged to be so rife with criminality that there is no hope that a new board of directors or something will straighten them out; however the only company that I know of ever to be thusly dismantled was IGFarben after WWII. And the irony is that even though all assets were stripped in 1952 and the financial entity was left to liquidate itself, pay off legal claims, etc, it continues to exist to this day, with stock still publicly traded, though it is nothing but a shell with no assets other than its stock value.
I've always understood the limited liability company to be an invention of the Europeans to facilitate the harvesting of the wealth of the Americas, after wealthy individuals and partnerships lost their fortunes in the attempt. They appear to still be successful at the task.
The fact that forerunning is illegal for humans, but they haven't gotten around to making its automated variety illegal yet so it's lucrative, is indicative of the ethics and morality of the process.
Not true! Life has a meaning and a purpose, which is to push its surroundings further down the road of entropy, thereby furthering the evolution of the universe along the complex path from big bang to heat death.
The best rock was produced in the 60s and 70s.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k...
And do the first nanobots evolved themselves, putting an end to the theory that the ancestors of our robot species were created by humanity, and thereby eliminating any moral debt and paving the way for us to eventually eliminate them in the year 2065.
And then there's AA, which is another thing entirely.
For years we've been hearing from environmentalists how our use of nondegradable plastics is cluttering up the environment, but here we see the truth; the earth is using these plastics to produce new fossil carbon, for future generations to use for fuel! And as a bonus this is a carbon sink to limit global warming! I look forward to the day when I can build a deck out of petrified engineered lumber.
You didn't actually read that politifact link, did you? You missed the big blaring "false" thingy on the meter.
rightwing thought-like behavior.
Apparently, Phillipean barrios are full of people with substantial engineering expertise.
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/04/08/backyard-gun-shops-in-the-philippines/
Thank God metal tubing is so hard to procure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Wait until I 3D print my clone army. Bwa etc.
"anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves." If so, then they are serving a useful function.
Real Climate is run by some of the leading climate scientists in the world and that post was written by one of the principals of the NASA/GISS Model E climate model.
You mean the visible shrill climate alarmists, Michael Mann included.
I trust what they say about the science and how to interpret it
You might do better not to trust anyone, and look at everything with a critical eye.
If you expect climate models to "predict" the current slow down in warming in such a short time period you really don't understand how climate models work and how their projections are made.
I seem to have a pretty good understanding, for a layman, anyway. And there are major problems with the inputs and assumptions in the prevalent models. You should look into that. It's pointed out in the peer-reviewed literature every month where the issues are, but the shrill alarmist nutjobs seem to want to put more effort into shutting those people up and controlling the mainstream messages than they are addressing those issues.
It's absurd to call climate models wrong for not doing something they're not expected to do in the first place.
The point is they don't do what they are claiming they do - which is predict climate changes and the (all bad, disastrous, something-must-be-done-think-of-the-children) effects of those changes. That makes them BAD science, and screaming for politicians to make expensive and damaging policy changes based on those untenable predictions with major deviations from observation make them REALLY BAD scientists.
If that's the case, then I assume you believe that the NO-AGW folks, who have no predictions about the climate and presumably would predict no change in anything over the general variability previously seen, and are therefore a lot further off than the worst model, are WORSE science. If not, why not?
Claims need to accurate. So far not one AGW model has been shown to be correct by actual climate. No one needs to prove them wrong, the fact that their predictions aren't accurate prove them wrong.
Is the problem inaccurate projections by climate models or is it poor understanding by people like you of what climate models are capable of in the first place? I really doubt you know enough about how climate models work and what they are expected to do to make a useful judgement about their accuracy.
Here is a comparison of model output to observations to help you understand the situation a little better.
There is so much confirmation bias in that site (you could have picked something more rational than a shrill propaganda site like Real Climate), I don't even know where to start with it. Instead of pointing out the clear inability of the models to predict anything that someone would be able to rely on, they just sum up with "hey, it's all going along as predicted." WUT?
Let's just start with this, then:
"As discussed in Hargreaves (2010), while this simulation was not perfect, it has shown skill in that it has out-performed any reasonable naive hypothesis that people put forward in 1988 (the most obvious being a forecast of no-change)."
Actually lots of idiots are in total denial. Beliefs range from "we're actually cooling, not warming" to "of course it's warming, but that's a good thing".
Often, the same person will make both arguments, in different posts in the same page.
Most deniers dispute CATASTROPHIC global warming, of the runaway type as espoused by Gore, Hansen, Mann, et al. Most deniers make simple claims about the fundamental claims made by global warming cheerleaders, such as CO2 sensitivity (Arrenhius got it right, the second time), the existence of negative feed backs (really, all feedbacks are positive?), the existence of past warming without a human influence, the existence of mega-cycles (also called ice ages), the lack of any warming for the last X number of years, the perversion of peer review, the lack of error bars, the splicing together of differing data sets, the removal of data that doesn't support the cause, that adjustments are made yearly to the temperature record including adjusting past years multiple times, and on and on and on.
If the world had warmed as predicted by Gore, Hansen and Mann, then I would understand calling your opponents 'deniers'. I don't mind or care about the 'creationist' label, because that is accurate. Deniers aren't claiming God did it. They claim your science is weak and flawed. They claim your models don't match reality. They claim your solutions won't solve the problem.
And your answer is 'neener, neener'.
That's very nice for deniers, however they need to do more than claim our science is weak and flawed. They need to provide a mechanism for why the temperature is changing, and a mechanism whereby the known "greenhouse effect" of CO2 which keeps the earth some 30 degrees C warmer than its black body radiation temp would be, stops at that point and will not raise the temperature above that, no matter how much CO2 there is. Then we will take you seriously. Is that too much to ask?
What our panic driven media (and too many so-called scientists) willfully ignore: Climate systems are dominated by negative feedback, or else the Earth would long since have turning into an ice ball or another Venus. The computer models showing catastrophe inevitably include positive feedback cycles, because otherwise there is no catastrophe.
The advance and retreat of Antarctic ice turns out to have negative feedback cycles, tied to waves and weather around the Antarctic. So, in fact, we aren't all going to die next week. Who would have guessed?
The continual attempts to get media attention through panic-inducing science are tiresome. The fact that the MSM plays naively along shows just how poorly the MSM itself understands science, or perhaps that headlines are more important than reliable content. No, the planet isn't going to cook in its own juices, nor are increasing sea levels going to drown us all. Negative feedback means that changes will be slow, gradual and contained within certain boundaries. Boring but true...
So, you have a two part hypothesis: 1) no climate models include negative feedback and 2) the models " inevitably include positive feedback cycles", which are hypothetical. Okay......
What challenge? As many others have pointed out, the *unedited and unbiased* data directly shows that the impact of human CO2 is insignificant in relation to other factors. Embracing dogma and a carefully edited credo is a sign of religion, not science.
"This bathtub holds 50 gallons, and you're telling me that that silly trickle from the leaky faucet will make it overflow eventually? Impossible, you Chicken Little!"