Unless I am confused, "Zones" are virtual machines. If you think there is no equivalent, I guess you are not familiar with Xen or KVM, or the dozens of other VMs out there.
Yes, you are confused, which probably indicates your lack of familiarity with Solaris Zones.
Xen, KVM, VMware, Sun Logical Domains, and Sun Virtualbox, are all examples of hardware virtualisation. They simulate a hardware platform; a virtual machine. Each VM has its own kernel and scheduler and memory space and device drivers and virtualised storage.
Solaris Zones is an example of operating system virtualisation. There is no direct equivalent on Linux. There is a single kernel for all the zones. A single set of device drivers. A single process tree. Potentially a single storage system. It's extremely lightweight compared to virtual machines.
Thinking of Zones as "virtual machines" is simply wrong. They are more like process groups, or process sets, and in fact on Solaris they are implemented in part by using resource groups. There is virtualisation but it's not at the machine layer; that's why they're not virtual machines.
To illustrate the significant differences, on the same hardware that Xen can run 10 VMs, Solaris can run 100s of zones. Xen can lose 10% or more CPU to overheads, Solaris Zones loses less than 1%. Xen can lose as much as 90% of I/O performance, Solaris Zones loses less than 1%. Xen places restrictions on the resources available to each VM, Solaris Zones can gain access to the full resources of the hardware. Xen requires each VM to be patched and maintained separately, Solaris Zones are patched and maintained through the "host" OS.
These benefits are only possible because Solaris Zones are not VMs.
But even then, they're leaving out a ridiculous amount of information that's being filled in by the best judgement of trained musicians who understand the styles they're playing.
Absolutely. You have it 100% correct.
Take the comment I made below about a piece by Mussorgsky I'm learning to play. As written the tempo is largo with 3/4 timing. I've been experimenting by adding a half quaver delay to the end of each fourth bar. It conveys a slightly sadder feeling to the piece; as if the subject is exhausted and is pausing for breath.
On top of that I'm surging the tempo during a rising section near the middle. There are no written indications that the tempo should change, but it makes sense within the character of the piece. The only written indication is the dynamic rise; the change in tempo is my interpretation.
Other musicians (or students, I'm still a student, not a musician yet) will have different interpretations. That's what makes it music, rather than a repetitive action.
I agree. The OP was talking about tempo, which is not "interpreted" by the musician.
It most definitely is. Many modern or romantic pieces have ill-defined tempo; it is up to the interpretation of the musician as to how it should be played.
I'm just a student (a slow dim-witted student; my teacher has infinite patience) and I'm currently studying a piece by Mussorgsky. Throughout the piece the tempo surges and fades. None of this is written down. It's all interpretation based on my knowledge of Mussorgsky's style, my gut telling me how the music should "feel", and the sadness I'm trying to convey through the playing.
At my last playing I chose a fairly unusual interpretation of the tempo, with sustained pauses and dramatic rapid movement during a middle section. My teacher said strictly speaking I wasn't even close to what was written (true) but he liked my interpretation, saying it had a calm and peaceful quality.
I used to have a very naive understanding of music until I tried learning it in depth. I'm still fairly naive about it all - I'm only a student - but my eyes have opened as to how much room there is for interpretation. The music score is at best a guide.
So, do modern radios tune differently, or are you making a false analogy here? Is the antenna length critical for phones but not conventional radios?
It's not that critical. The antenna actually receives a fairly wide band of frequencies. Old radios use a resonant circuit to "vibrate" with the desired frequency. You adjust the resonance with a variable inductor (like you saw) or a variable capacitor (plates of metal that interleaved without touching). The antenna length isn't critical; it just has to be roughly right.
Modern radios use a technique called heterodyning. There's a local oscillator and some tricky electronics that combines the RF and the oscillator and then extracts the desired signal. It's more accurate and stable. The antenna length again is not critical. The maths behind a modern radio is graspable by anybody who can do basic trig.
Mobile phone radios are far more complicated. The maths is well beyond most people (some of it is still beyond me, and I have multiple university degrees, one of them in actual engineering). That's why I'm suspicious of anybody who claims to "know" the "fault" behind the iPhone 4 antenna. I'm especially suspicious of anybody who tries to explain that fault using high-school radio theory (e.g. they start talking about capacitance, inductance, or "shorting" an antenna). It's not that simple. Mobile phone radios have to cope with a lot of crap in the RF, and they do some very incredible things, so any explanation centred around a person's experience with AM or FM radio is borderline irrelevant.
So you've gone from some guy who doesn't know how an analogue radio works
Who said I don't know how an analogue radio works? I've an amateur radio enthusiast. I build the damn things. That's why I know he's speaking rubbish. And if he's speaking rubbish about analogue radio - the simple kind of radios - I know he doesn't know the first thing about mobile phone radios, because (as I've said) I can appreciate how complex they are.
Your reading comprehension skills are terrible. Looking through your comment history, completely missing the point seems to be a consistent theme. That and being a dick. Go away.
Actually the guy doesn't know shit. You know how when you got to junior high you discovered they'd taught you simplified BS versions of science and history when you were younger? Then when you get to senior high you discover the stuff you got taught in junior high was also simplified BS? Then when you get to university you discover even senior high was teaching you simplified BS? I stopped there, but I bet if I'd kept studying I would discover I was taught simplified BS in university as well.
Well this guy is spouting the junior high BS version of how radios work. It's wrong. He's wrong. But he's an arrogant prick, which often passes for authority on the Internet. Take this nonsense:
" When you move the dial on a radio, you're altering the electrical length of its antenna. By changing the electrical length of the antenna, the antenna then receives signals on a different frequency."
Total rubbish. Not even close to reality. On old-school radios the dial changed the reactance of a resonant circuit which is then fed to a detector. The antenna continues to "receive" all the same RF frequencies. Modern radios don't even have dials (or more to the point, any dial that does exist is not a direct reactance control). None of this has any relevance to mobile phone radios and antennas.
This is the problem with the iPhone 4 "antenna gate" story. A bunch of dolts start spouting off crackpot theories, with no real knowledge or understanding of how radios work, or a simplified understanding based on AM and VHF radios, and a huge echo chamber then repeats the nonsense.
I'm quite content to say "I don't fucking know" if the iPhone 4 antenna design is good or bad. I know just enough to know that I know next to nothing at all about mobile phone radios. But given the choice between Apple's engineers, who have actual doctorates in mobile phone radio theory, and some ignorant Slashdot schmuck's BS explanation of radios... well you figure it out.
This is why you're not an RF engineer. You need to in a marginal signal strength area before the Death Grip works on any phone. Obviously you're in a strong signal area. This is also why the majority of iPhone 4 owners can't replicate the problem. This is also why Apple created a special RF testing chamber specifically to test their phones at different signal levels.
Basically Apple performed science. You are performing Mythbusters.
I want all politicians to be publicly executed if they show even the slightest malfeasance or corruption.
How about the Italians implement what I want, then we can talk about implementing what they want.
Re:Government Effects--Trolling for Votes
on
A Requiem For Saab
·
· Score: 1
The U.S. did NOT get to be a great country by having Presidents & Congress, inexperienced in business, telling companies what they have to do
Correct. It became a great country because the land resources had not been tapped by the indigenous natives. When the industrialised countries arrived, they killed 90% of the indigenous population, pillaged the existing land for its resources (wood, coal, oil, gas, ore, crops), stole additional land from neighbouring countries (see Mexican Cession), and rode mighty on the sudden influx of wealth from those resources.
It's a mistake to think that your business models, or your government models, or your religious choices, or your cultural values, had anything to do with USA's success. The success is primarily driven by natural wealth. The reason you have wealth is because the USA was an untapped gold mine.
It's exactly the same situation down here in Australia. We have a tiny population (less than 20 million) and the world's largest supplies of coal, uranium, and decent supplies of natural gas. The original settlers killed 90% of the indigenous population, pillaged the existing land for its resources, and as a result we have unimaginable wealth concentrated in the hands of the lucky few. That's why we all have cars and houses and relatively comfortable lifestyles.
Our success also has nothing to do with our government, or our religions, or our business models. We could have been a communist country, or a feudal system, or even a monarchy (I think we almost are a monarchy), and we would still be rich as all buggery.
Let's assume that C++ is twice as hard to code and maintain as PHP. Let's also assume 200 man years of work went in Facebook. Let's further assume there are 50 maintenance workers and each worker commutes 50km per day, 220 days per year.
Cars average 200 grams of CO2 emissions per km, so writing Facebook in C++ would have produced 440,000 more tonnes of CO2 than the PHP workers. Each year that goes by, the C++ maintenance workers would have produced 110,000 more tonnes of CO2 than the PHP workers.
Sounds like a good argument to dump C++. As if you needed any argument other than "it's C++"!
The problem is when they promise 90%, they deliver 50%, then the "upgrade" brings it up to 55%, and all the fanboys go "we got features for free with the latest upgrade".
The cynic in me says "where's the 90% I was originally promised".
Any undergraduate student taking a statistics course can tell you when you're biased or hinted at what a dataset OUGHT to look like (expectations, or beliefs)
Oh, I completely disagree. Most undergrad students are morons. The only reason they pass at all is because they copy off their smarter friends for their assignments. They typically fail all the mid-term exams then squeeze a passing grade in the final exam because the lecturers are lazy and recycle exam questions, so the students just memorise all the previous years exams.
I've had an undergrad in third year (final year) who still didn't know what a pointer was. Didn't have a clue. Couldn't explain it to me even with helpful prompting. He graduated! He's probably working for EDS or IBM these days at $2000/day, coding a monolithic piece of unworkable software for Defence while still not knowing what a pointer means.
A postgrad friend in biology gets paid to mark undergrad's assignments. She brings their scribblings to the pub and we all have a laugh at some of the stupidity they write. Another friend was a lab supervisor for comp science; he quit after only two months because he couldn't handle the sheer idiocy on display from some of the students.
I think people put too much faith in that "university degree". It's so easy to get even idiots are getting them these days. I wouldn't trust an undergrad with anything important. I certainly wouldn't listen to their opinion on AGW statistics!
There's a severe misunderstanding of science being displayed by some of the comments. It's this "publish the raw data" meme that has recently taken hold in the collective mindset. That's not how science works.
Here's a recent example. My friend works in the physics department (PhD) and was recently asked to reproduce a scramjet simulation. It's basically a shock tube aimed at a combustion chamber. The original paper contained the method, and the conclusion, but did not contain the raw data.
There's a reason for that. If the measurements are incorrect then there's simply no point in reusing the flawed data. What matters is the result; basically can a person, who is skilled in the field, reproduce the experiment to obtain the same result. My friend did reproduce the result, but in the process he said he's found a mistake in the methodology, so he's now writing a paper about it. At no stage did he need the raw data. He never even requested it. The idea never even crossed his mind.
The skeptics should be collecting their own data, not sitting on their lazy butts and demanding copies of the raw data. The skeptics who find mistakes in the methodology are doing the right thing. But they are the exception rather than the rule. The majority seem to think they'll find a "smoking gun" in the raw data. That's just nonsense.
I think it shows a general laziness. It's the idea that you can sit on a PC with google, a browser pointed to wikipedia, and somehow topple 1000s of man-years of research "if only I had copies of that original data". No, that's not how it works. Go collect more data that shows a contrary result. That's hard work, but that's science.
The code, written primarily in FORTAN and IDL, is a mess--not professional.
I'm sorry, but "mess" and "professional" are not incompatible. In fact, they're usually the same thing.
I'm utterly amazed that Slashdot of all places, with perhaps the highest concentration of IT geeks on the Internet, doesn't seem to know that professional code is often messy crap, which barely compiles, and is riddled with bugs, and is totally undocumented. That's par for the course.
I was always taught that this was how science worked. If your "results" can't be duplicated, then it's not proving anything.
Correct.
By the same token, if you hide the data so it can't be duplicated, then the "results" should be thrown out and the work redone
Incorrect. The methods are published. The data frequently is not. This is true in all of the sciences. I've seen the withholding of data in biology, engineering and physics papers, just to name a few.
Proper validation of an experiment involves reproducing the data. Not simply verifying that following the same method with the same data produces the same results.
With climatology the proxy data (the bulk of data) was collected using published methods. They even published the methods of "manipulation" to align the data from various sources. But what if the raw data contains errors? How would you know? It's just numbers; it's not like there are red flags saying "this number is in error". That's why it's up to the naysayers to go collect additional data. You cannot rely on the original data if you are a skeptic.
And you can't "verify" the original data because it's raw. The only reason to want the raw data is if you think the raw data wasn't used with the published methods, but rather some other data was substituted. Now that's a serious allegation, but given the number of scientists who would have to be in on the conspiracy, it's utterly unlikely.
So in fact you don't want the original data. You want to collect your own data as verification.
You really love that "screeching harpy" phrase, don't you? Project much?
If the shoe fits...
One key issue from the leaked e-mail is that the Hockey Team discusses how to marginalize those who disagreedwith them, thus corrupting the peer review process.
Proves nothing of the sort. You're the one projecting.
Didn't even fucking read it, did you? It's a smoking gun, and it's not the only one. There is e-mail where Jones states his intention to commit a crime and delete the temperature data rather than turn it over pursuant to a FOIA request as required by British law. Show me the "context" that justifies that, you pathetic asshole.
It's only a "smoking gun" to the people who had already made up their mind before the emails were even leaked. You're a pathetic excuse for a human being. Go back to your wingnut circle jerk on Red State, and leave the science to the scientists, dipshit.
Go check ESR's notes [ibiblio.org] on what he's found in the code.
So many points here...
ESR is not a climatologist
ESR is an attention whore
ESR is a libertarian
ESR is an idiot (but I repeat myself)
Comments mean nothing
Context means everything
What does that code even do?
Were those results even used?
Did the results affect the reports?
Did the code affect the results?
Was this code a prototype?
Are the results consistent with "non-artificial" analysis?
Are you starting to see the problem with jumping from seeing the single word "ARTIFICIAL" to claiming the "results are cooked"? The world is not that simple. A single throwaway word found in a single e-mail, buried amongst over ten years of e-mails, proves absolutely nothing.
Funny, what really galls me is people like you claiming that "the science is settled" and pretending that those of us who disagree are equivalent to holocaust deniers.
Because you won't look at the science. You insist on harping on the words "ARTIFICIAL" and saying "SEE, IT'S A CONSPIRACY BY THE DEMOCRUDS TO TAWK 'UR JAWBS".
And it's not just Holocaust Deniers. You guys are just like Creationists; you take quotes out of context, harp on the 1% of mistakes to the exclusion of the 99% of rock-solid evidence, attack the messenger rather than the science, and when you're losing that battle you start claiming conspiracies.
Maybe it's time to go back and see who is actually talking about science and who is issuing personal insults.
You just accused an entire body of professional scientists of corruption, collusion and conspiracy, and you have the nerve to act indignant because of "personal insults".
Had you read the emails you would know they "fixed" the peer review process so there would be no peer review
All I read in that e-mail is a snarky comment, a facetious remark that is humorous in context, and NO PROOF that actual peer review was fixed.
and also admitted they know "F**k all" about climate change.
I saw people admitting the limits of their knowledge, not an admission that they know nothing at all.
You have no proof. You have ambiguous e-mails, only partially reproduced, presented selectively and without context, and edited with an obvious agenda of damning the CRU.
But the most important thing is that even if everything in those e-mails is true, and even if the CRU is corrupt to the core, those e-mails still don't prove what you claim they prove. You need evidence of "fixed" peer review, and evidence of "ignorance". You don't have evidence. You just have ambiguous e-mails and conspiracy theories.
The problem at hand is that those on one side of the issue have been caught cooking the books.
No, they have not. That's certainly what the screeching harpies are claiming, but it's not true.
All the screeching harpies can produce are some ambiguous e-mails, which don't say anything about "cooking the books". At worst they demonstrate the scientists' contempt for their uneducated critics.
If there is evidence of the books being cooked, then present that evidence. Invalidate the science. Disprove the peer-review. But those e-mails don't prove anything in either direction. The science isn't affected by personal correspondence in e-mails.
What really galls me is that the screeching harpies declare themselves to be "skeptics". James Randi would have something witty to say about the confirmation bias, the selective memories, and the logical fallacies used by the so-called "skeptics".
This is not the act of a scientist; in fact, this would make you fail in the Elementary School Science Fair of your choice.
You are wrong. I work with scientists who recently had to destroy (actually, let go) several 100 terabytes of raw data stored on ageing tape. They decided to store the summarised data instead (only 10s of terabytes on disk). Apparently this is common practise.
while Science concerns itself with discovering truth
Science is concerned with discovering facts. If you want Truth, the philosophy department is two buildings over.
I'm constantly amazed by how many non-scientists are suddenly experts on science. Why don't you ask actual scientists?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you are confused, which probably indicates your lack of familiarity with Solaris Zones.
Xen, KVM, VMware, Sun Logical Domains, and Sun Virtualbox, are all examples of hardware virtualisation. They simulate a hardware platform; a virtual machine. Each VM has its own kernel and scheduler and memory space and device drivers and virtualised storage.
Solaris Zones is an example of operating system virtualisation. There is no direct equivalent on Linux. There is a single kernel for all the zones. A single set of device drivers. A single process tree. Potentially a single storage system. It's extremely lightweight compared to virtual machines.
Thinking of Zones as "virtual machines" is simply wrong. They are more like process groups, or process sets, and in fact on Solaris they are implemented in part by using resource groups. There is virtualisation but it's not at the machine layer; that's why they're not virtual machines.
To illustrate the significant differences, on the same hardware that Xen can run 10 VMs, Solaris can run 100s of zones. Xen can lose 10% or more CPU to overheads, Solaris Zones loses less than 1%. Xen can lose as much as 90% of I/O performance, Solaris Zones loses less than 1%. Xen places restrictions on the resources available to each VM, Solaris Zones can gain access to the full resources of the hardware. Xen requires each VM to be patched and maintained separately, Solaris Zones are patched and maintained through the "host" OS.
These benefits are only possible because Solaris Zones are not VMs.
But even then, they're leaving out a ridiculous amount of information that's being filled in by the best judgement of trained musicians who understand the styles they're playing.
Absolutely. You have it 100% correct.
Take the comment I made below about a piece by Mussorgsky I'm learning to play. As written the tempo is largo with 3/4 timing. I've been experimenting by adding a half quaver delay to the end of each fourth bar. It conveys a slightly sadder feeling to the piece; as if the subject is exhausted and is pausing for breath.
On top of that I'm surging the tempo during a rising section near the middle. There are no written indications that the tempo should change, but it makes sense within the character of the piece. The only written indication is the dynamic rise; the change in tempo is my interpretation.
Other musicians (or students, I'm still a student, not a musician yet) will have different interpretations. That's what makes it music, rather than a repetitive action.
I agree. The OP was talking about tempo, which is not "interpreted" by the musician.
It most definitely is. Many modern or romantic pieces have ill-defined tempo; it is up to the interpretation of the musician as to how it should be played.
I'm just a student (a slow dim-witted student; my teacher has infinite patience) and I'm currently studying a piece by Mussorgsky. Throughout the piece the tempo surges and fades. None of this is written down. It's all interpretation based on my knowledge of Mussorgsky's style, my gut telling me how the music should "feel", and the sadness I'm trying to convey through the playing.
At my last playing I chose a fairly unusual interpretation of the tempo, with sustained pauses and dramatic rapid movement during a middle section. My teacher said strictly speaking I wasn't even close to what was written (true) but he liked my interpretation, saying it had a calm and peaceful quality.
I used to have a very naive understanding of music until I tried learning it in depth. I'm still fairly naive about it all - I'm only a student - but my eyes have opened as to how much room there is for interpretation. The music score is at best a guide.
It's not that critical. The antenna actually receives a fairly wide band of frequencies. Old radios use a resonant circuit to "vibrate" with the desired frequency. You adjust the resonance with a variable inductor (like you saw) or a variable capacitor (plates of metal that interleaved without touching). The antenna length isn't critical; it just has to be roughly right.
Modern radios use a technique called heterodyning. There's a local oscillator and some tricky electronics that combines the RF and the oscillator and then extracts the desired signal. It's more accurate and stable. The antenna length again is not critical. The maths behind a modern radio is graspable by anybody who can do basic trig.
Mobile phone radios are far more complicated. The maths is well beyond most people (some of it is still beyond me, and I have multiple university degrees, one of them in actual engineering). That's why I'm suspicious of anybody who claims to "know" the "fault" behind the iPhone 4 antenna. I'm especially suspicious of anybody who tries to explain that fault using high-school radio theory (e.g. they start talking about capacitance, inductance, or "shorting" an antenna). It's not that simple. Mobile phone radios have to cope with a lot of crap in the RF, and they do some very incredible things, so any explanation centred around a person's experience with AM or FM radio is borderline irrelevant.
tl;dr He is making a false analogy.
Who said I don't know how an analogue radio works? I've an amateur radio enthusiast. I build the damn things. That's why I know he's speaking rubbish. And if he's speaking rubbish about analogue radio - the simple kind of radios - I know he doesn't know the first thing about mobile phone radios, because (as I've said) I can appreciate how complex they are.
Your reading comprehension skills are terrible. Looking through your comment history, completely missing the point seems to be a consistent theme. That and being a dick. Go away.
No, I picked apart his claim that the tuning knob means "the antenna then receives signals on a different frequency".
He doesn't know radio. You can't read English. My point about ignorant dolts has been proven in spades.
Actually the guy doesn't know shit. You know how when you got to junior high you discovered they'd taught you simplified BS versions of science and history when you were younger? Then when you get to senior high you discover the stuff you got taught in junior high was also simplified BS? Then when you get to university you discover even senior high was teaching you simplified BS? I stopped there, but I bet if I'd kept studying I would discover I was taught simplified BS in university as well.
Well this guy is spouting the junior high BS version of how radios work. It's wrong. He's wrong. But he's an arrogant prick, which often passes for authority on the Internet. Take this nonsense:
Total rubbish. Not even close to reality. On old-school radios the dial changed the reactance of a resonant circuit which is then fed to a detector. The antenna continues to "receive" all the same RF frequencies. Modern radios don't even have dials (or more to the point, any dial that does exist is not a direct reactance control). None of this has any relevance to mobile phone radios and antennas.
This is the problem with the iPhone 4 "antenna gate" story. A bunch of dolts start spouting off crackpot theories, with no real knowledge or understanding of how radios work, or a simplified understanding based on AM and VHF radios, and a huge echo chamber then repeats the nonsense.
I'm quite content to say "I don't fucking know" if the iPhone 4 antenna design is good or bad. I know just enough to know that I know next to nothing at all about mobile phone radios. But given the choice between Apple's engineers, who have actual doctorates in mobile phone radio theory, and some ignorant Slashdot schmuck's BS explanation of radios... well you figure it out.
This is why you're not an RF engineer. You need to in a marginal signal strength area before the Death Grip works on any phone. Obviously you're in a strong signal area. This is also why the majority of iPhone 4 owners can't replicate the problem. This is also why Apple created a special RF testing chamber specifically to test their phones at different signal levels. Basically Apple performed science. You are performing Mythbusters.
Slashdot is an interesting place. It's a gathering of some of the most brilliant and free-thinking minds in the world and all of their groupies.
Pfft. Bullshit.
I want all politicians to be publicly executed if they show even the slightest malfeasance or corruption.
How about the Italians implement what I want, then we can talk about implementing what they want.
Correct. It became a great country because the land resources had not been tapped by the indigenous natives. When the industrialised countries arrived, they killed 90% of the indigenous population, pillaged the existing land for its resources (wood, coal, oil, gas, ore, crops), stole additional land from neighbouring countries (see Mexican Cession), and rode mighty on the sudden influx of wealth from those resources.
It's a mistake to think that your business models, or your government models, or your religious choices, or your cultural values, had anything to do with USA's success. The success is primarily driven by natural wealth. The reason you have wealth is because the USA was an untapped gold mine.
It's exactly the same situation down here in Australia. We have a tiny population (less than 20 million) and the world's largest supplies of coal, uranium, and decent supplies of natural gas. The original settlers killed 90% of the indigenous population, pillaged the existing land for its resources, and as a result we have unimaginable wealth concentrated in the hands of the lucky few. That's why we all have cars and houses and relatively comfortable lifestyles.
Our success also has nothing to do with our government, or our religions, or our business models. We could have been a communist country, or a feudal system, or even a monarchy (I think we almost are a monarchy), and we would still be rich as all buggery.
Let's assume that C++ is twice as hard to code and maintain as PHP. Let's also assume 200 man years of work went in Facebook. Let's further assume there are 50 maintenance workers and each worker commutes 50km per day, 220 days per year.
Cars average 200 grams of CO2 emissions per km, so writing Facebook in C++ would have produced 440,000 more tonnes of CO2 than the PHP workers. Each year that goes by, the C++ maintenance workers would have produced 110,000 more tonnes of CO2 than the PHP workers.
Sounds like a good argument to dump C++. As if you needed any argument other than "it's C++"!
The problem is when they promise 90%, they deliver 50%, then the "upgrade" brings it up to 55%, and all the fanboys go "we got features for free with the latest upgrade". The cynic in me says "where's the 90% I was originally promised".
No, no, no. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. If you want truth you should look at philosophy.
Oh, I completely disagree. Most undergrad students are morons. The only reason they pass at all is because they copy off their smarter friends for their assignments. They typically fail all the mid-term exams then squeeze a passing grade in the final exam because the lecturers are lazy and recycle exam questions, so the students just memorise all the previous years exams.
I've had an undergrad in third year (final year) who still didn't know what a pointer was. Didn't have a clue. Couldn't explain it to me even with helpful prompting. He graduated! He's probably working for EDS or IBM these days at $2000/day, coding a monolithic piece of unworkable software for Defence while still not knowing what a pointer means.
A postgrad friend in biology gets paid to mark undergrad's assignments. She brings their scribblings to the pub and we all have a laugh at some of the stupidity they write. Another friend was a lab supervisor for comp science; he quit after only two months because he couldn't handle the sheer idiocy on display from some of the students.
I think people put too much faith in that "university degree". It's so easy to get even idiots are getting them these days. I wouldn't trust an undergrad with anything important. I certainly wouldn't listen to their opinion on AGW statistics!
There's a severe misunderstanding of science being displayed by some of the comments. It's this "publish the raw data" meme that has recently taken hold in the collective mindset. That's not how science works.
Here's a recent example. My friend works in the physics department (PhD) and was recently asked to reproduce a scramjet simulation. It's basically a shock tube aimed at a combustion chamber. The original paper contained the method, and the conclusion, but did not contain the raw data .
There's a reason for that. If the measurements are incorrect then there's simply no point in reusing the flawed data. What matters is the result; basically can a person, who is skilled in the field, reproduce the experiment to obtain the same result. My friend did reproduce the result, but in the process he said he's found a mistake in the methodology, so he's now writing a paper about it. At no stage did he need the raw data. He never even requested it. The idea never even crossed his mind.
The skeptics should be collecting their own data, not sitting on their lazy butts and demanding copies of the raw data. The skeptics who find mistakes in the methodology are doing the right thing. But they are the exception rather than the rule. The majority seem to think they'll find a "smoking gun" in the raw data. That's just nonsense.
I think it shows a general laziness. It's the idea that you can sit on a PC with google, a browser pointed to wikipedia, and somehow topple 1000s of man-years of research "if only I had copies of that original data". No, that's not how it works. Go collect more data that shows a contrary result. That's hard work, but that's science.
I'm sorry, but "mess" and "professional" are not incompatible. In fact, they're usually the same thing.
I'm utterly amazed that Slashdot of all places, with perhaps the highest concentration of IT geeks on the Internet, doesn't seem to know that professional code is often messy crap, which barely compiles, and is riddled with bugs, and is totally undocumented. That's par for the course.
Correct.
Incorrect. The methods are published. The data frequently is not. This is true in all of the sciences. I've seen the withholding of data in biology, engineering and physics papers, just to name a few.
Proper validation of an experiment involves reproducing the data. Not simply verifying that following the same method with the same data produces the same results.
With climatology the proxy data (the bulk of data) was collected using published methods. They even published the methods of "manipulation" to align the data from various sources. But what if the raw data contains errors? How would you know? It's just numbers; it's not like there are red flags saying "this number is in error". That's why it's up to the naysayers to go collect additional data. You cannot rely on the original data if you are a skeptic.
And you can't "verify" the original data because it's raw. The only reason to want the raw data is if you think the raw data wasn't used with the published methods, but rather some other data was substituted. Now that's a serious allegation, but given the number of scientists who would have to be in on the conspiracy, it's utterly unlikely.
So in fact you don't want the original data. You want to collect your own data as verification.
If the shoe fits...
Proves nothing of the sort. You're the one projecting.
It's only a "smoking gun" to the people who had already made up their mind before the emails were even leaked. You're a pathetic excuse for a human being. Go back to your wingnut circle jerk on Red State, and leave the science to the scientists, dipshit.
So many points here...
Are you starting to see the problem with jumping from seeing the single word "ARTIFICIAL" to claiming the "results are cooked"? The world is not that simple. A single throwaway word found in a single e-mail, buried amongst over ten years of e-mails, proves absolutely nothing.
Because you won't look at the science. You insist on harping on the words "ARTIFICIAL" and saying "SEE, IT'S A CONSPIRACY BY THE DEMOCRUDS TO TAWK 'UR JAWBS".
And it's not just Holocaust Deniers. You guys are just like Creationists; you take quotes out of context, harp on the 1% of mistakes to the exclusion of the 99% of rock-solid evidence, attack the messenger rather than the science, and when you're losing that battle you start claiming conspiracies.
It's a joke. You're a joke.
You just accused an entire body of professional scientists of corruption, collusion and conspiracy, and you have the nerve to act indignant because of "personal insults".
You need to grow a pair.
All I read in that e-mail is a snarky comment, a facetious remark that is humorous in context, and NO PROOF that actual peer review was fixed.
I saw people admitting the limits of their knowledge, not an admission that they know nothing at all.
You have no proof. You have ambiguous e-mails, only partially reproduced, presented selectively and without context, and edited with an obvious agenda of damning the CRU.
But the most important thing is that even if everything in those e-mails is true, and even if the CRU is corrupt to the core, those e-mails still don't prove what you claim they prove. You need evidence of "fixed" peer review, and evidence of "ignorance". You don't have evidence. You just have ambiguous e-mails and conspiracy theories.
No, they have not. That's certainly what the screeching harpies are claiming, but it's not true.
All the screeching harpies can produce are some ambiguous e-mails, which don't say anything about "cooking the books". At worst they demonstrate the scientists' contempt for their uneducated critics.
If there is evidence of the books being cooked, then present that evidence. Invalidate the science. Disprove the peer-review. But those e-mails don't prove anything in either direction. The science isn't affected by personal correspondence in e-mails.
What really galls me is that the screeching harpies declare themselves to be "skeptics". James Randi would have something witty to say about the confirmation bias, the selective memories, and the logical fallacies used by the so-called "skeptics".
You are wrong. I work with scientists who recently had to destroy (actually, let go) several 100 terabytes of raw data stored on ageing tape. They decided to store the summarised data instead (only 10s of terabytes on disk). Apparently this is common practise.
Science is concerned with discovering facts. If you want Truth, the philosophy department is two buildings over.
I'm constantly amazed by how many non-scientists are suddenly experts on science. Why don't you ask actual scientists?