I don't know about its bearing on models, but there have been studies that umade claims about data selection that could not have been accomplished due to a distinct and complete lack of the information necessary to make that selection, that have ruled that the heat island effect has no meaningful impact on the temperature record (I'm looking at you Wei-Chyung Wang, bullshit science fraudster.)
Isn't this comment more or less an archetypal example? Veiled and nonspecific allusions to error, uncertainty, and weakness?
When the comment is about the veiled and nonspecific "scientific process" of climate science, then no.. its not an archetypal example.
Science is a process. Are climate scientists following the process all the way through? The answer is that no, they are not, and certainly they cannot be blamed for not doing so because they dont have an atmosphere to perform tests upon.
But the lack of blame in no way elevates the process that they do accomplish to a level above what it actually is. The parts of the scientific process that they cannot do are important, and the lack of doing important things is in itself important too. The claim "its science" doesnt carry as much weight when its not the complete method, and you should be ashamed of yourself for not knowing that.
"Waste heat" is an interesting beast. At low levels of waste its not something to worry about, while at high levels of waste its an opportunity to generate electricity from it.
It only works for big ticket items (not just a few hundred bucks, try a few thousand bucks and larger), and then only when you are dealing with a person that can make that kind of decision.
Its because they want something that is near the best technology possible at this time, and that means dealing with the people that do actually have technology that is near the best possible at this time. H.265 is a very large improvement over H.264 (about 50% of the bit rate for equal quality) and nobody in the "open" world can do that.
This is a huge upgrade for any business pushing digital video through wires and radio waves. Even in the case where encoder and decoder licenses are a large cost, they will still win big with this sort of upgrade. This effectively doubles their capacity with only a software change.
So no, patent-encumbered standards arent stupid. Adopting demonstrably very-far-from-optimal standards is stupid.
So, let's hope that WebM can compete with H.265, because then we have a real chance of largely getting rid of proprietary video standards.
WebM could barely compete with H.264, so how the hell is it going to compete with H.265 which is going to offer the same quality at H.264 but only use about half the bitrate?
If Google could have improved WebM this much, they would have.
From what I understand, the WIN64 address space is 2^42, and a WIN64 page is still 2^12, which means a total of 2^30 possible virtual page addresses.. a binary billion.
With 8 byte page table entries thats 8GB of memory just for the page table.
So I'm thinking its not actually possible to fill up the page table in systems with 8GB or less memory, and systems with 12GB of memory would probably be thrashing extremely hard (writing multiple gigabytes of data is a slow process, even on high performance SSD's) as stuff gets swapped out in order to hold the page table.
Its not possible to hide the absolute address, so nobody uses relative addressing in 32-bit because its less efficient, and in 64-bit while relative addressing no longer has a performance penalty its still impossible to hide the absolute address.
Dont forget the popularity side of it. The 8800 GT made all the cards over $150 or so a bad buy for nearly a year, so it completely dominated the market.
Anyone who was buying video cards back then would not have made this so trivial of a mistake as you just did, because the 8800 GT was a game changer that offered similar performance to the above cards for 50% or less the money and a lot less power draw. ATI didnt have anything even close at any price or power draw. The 8800 GTS in particular died the day the 8800 GT was released, because the GTS didnt perform any better at all and couldn't be manufactured for the price the GT was manufactured for.
I still have a pc with an Athlon X2 4400 and an nvidia 8800GT.
Thats because the 8800 GT was only marginally slower than the fastest card that you could buy when it was released (which was the 8800 Ultra.)
The 8800 GT falls flat at higher resolutions with complex pixel shaders, where a new comparable card like the 650 GT (for $100) would not but is just as weak at actually texture lookups. The upshot is that for older games that heavily abuse multi-texturing, these two cards are almost exactly equal but for newer games that just go ahead and compute stuff every frame the 650 is marginally better (always less than twice as good.)
However, a $100 graphic card of today is most likely going to leave any high end card of 5 years ago well back in the dust.
The high end cards from 5 years ago such as the 8800 GTX/Ultra are pretty much on par with todays 650 GT which is on the market for the $100 you just pulled out of your ass.
You've got to spend closer to $200 to beat the 8800 ultra.
And a GTX 660 is not a $400 card, it's more like $200.
..and its 140W TDP, significantly more than the 8800 GT or 9800 GT NVidia card that was $200 when they pieced together their 5 year old system, so they need a new power supply too.
If it doesn't work for Austin, then that is an Austin problem, not a Californian or progressive one.
The philosophy that is opposed to central planning is not rooted in the belief that central planning always fails, but instead in the moral argument that when it does fail that some of the people that suffer could not opt out of that suffrage (tyranny of the majority), and now continue their suffering with no recourse (the momentum of the resulting bureaucracy.)
Look no further than things like the TSA as prime examples of how the failures of central planning do not get corrected, that the suffrage of society continues in spite of the complete obviousness of the failure. Now consider failures that arent quite so obvious, and you get an idea of why some people hold a very strong philosophy against all central planning, even when sometimes the act of central planning seems like a great success.
One of the most popular game franchises in the history of the country is based precisely on crime and murder in the United States...
...proving the point that Americans will consume anything, so long as its a simulation curiously similar to real life.
We just don't give a shit what others think that we should think. The main character in War Games, David L. Lightman, chose to play the Russians and nuke the fuck out of America. Nobody protested the movie, and none of you thought about this fact until just now.
Don't blame the manufacturers for what the politicians are selling. It is the perpetuation of beliefs like yours that prevent us from kicking out the corrupt government and reducing the power and influence of its actors.
That $3.8 trillion dollar federal budget amounts to a spending of $33043 per household, and thats just the federal budget. States spend another $13043 per household, and local governments spend another $13913 per household. Thats a total of $59999 per household being spent right now this year, while the median income is $52762. It is this fact that puts lobbyist at the doorstep of politicians, because the government is a bigger consumer than the people.
. In many cases people who do manual jobs do so because they enjoy them and/or have an affinity for them which they would not have if they were doing some sort of indoor office role, plenty of people seem to feel the same way about the non assembly line areas of food service.
Plenty of people work jobs that they hate at every level in every industry, so if people that love to be short order cooks eventually have to find work that they don't like, then should we really get worked up over it?
Anyways, my guess is that most short order cooks don't like it to begin with, and are only doing it because they believe that their other options are worse (a belief that is probably also rarely true.)
Society benefits from a supply of increasingly efficient services and technology, and in general it is the ordinary man that has benefited the most from these increases in efficiency. A rich man didn't have to wash their own clothes by hand several hundred years ago, and now nobody has to. A rich man didn't have to go down to the local river or well to fetch some water for their bath several hundred years ago, and now nobody has to.
Nearly every aspect of our lives is greatly enhanced by the increases in efficiency that have come before us. The cycle may very well end some day, but another increase in efficiency will not be the signal of it happening. Another increase in efficiency is a signal that its still not happening.
Slashdot Mirror
We'll start giving a shit about using a sensible unit when the rest of the world starts using a sensible unit.
Celsius is just as contrived as Fahrenheit. Let me know when you start using Planck temperature.
I don't know about its bearing on models, but there have been studies that umade claims about data selection that could not have been accomplished due to a distinct and complete lack of the information necessary to make that selection, that have ruled that the heat island effect has no meaningful impact on the temperature record (I'm looking at you Wei-Chyung Wang, bullshit science fraudster.)
Isn't this comment more or less an archetypal example? Veiled and nonspecific allusions to error, uncertainty, and weakness?
When the comment is about the veiled and nonspecific "scientific process" of climate science, then no.. its not an archetypal example.
Science is a process. Are climate scientists following the process all the way through? The answer is that no, they are not, and certainly they cannot be blamed for not doing so because they dont have an atmosphere to perform tests upon.
But the lack of blame in no way elevates the process that they do accomplish to a level above what it actually is. The parts of the scientific process that they cannot do are important, and the lack of doing important things is in itself important too. The claim "its science" doesnt carry as much weight when its not the complete method, and you should be ashamed of yourself for not knowing that.
"Waste heat" is an interesting beast. At low levels of waste its not something to worry about, while at high levels of waste its an opportunity to generate electricity from it.
Funny how this story has nothing to do with the US, nor government, nor are these employees being given hand-out jobs, or labor stimulus.
Funny how economic principles don't depend on which country it is that you are talking about.
How much tax would you pay on $16,500 a year?
he would probably be at negative taxes (ie, the government would send him money every year) and he would certainly qualify for things like food stamps
Thats a solution to the side-effects, not the problem.
Dealing with cash is less than 0.005% for most retailers.
It only works for big ticket items (not just a few hundred bucks, try a few thousand bucks and larger), and then only when you are dealing with a person that can make that kind of decision.
Did you just theorize that it was trivial to improve H.264 to use half the number of bits for a given video quality?
I'm simply amazed at the depths of the dream world that some people live in.
Its because they want something that is near the best technology possible at this time, and that means dealing with the people that do actually have technology that is near the best possible at this time. H.265 is a very large improvement over H.264 (about 50% of the bit rate for equal quality) and nobody in the "open" world can do that.
This is a huge upgrade for any business pushing digital video through wires and radio waves. Even in the case where encoder and decoder licenses are a large cost, they will still win big with this sort of upgrade. This effectively doubles their capacity with only a software change.
So no, patent-encumbered standards arent stupid. Adopting demonstrably very-far-from-optimal standards is stupid.
So, let's hope that WebM can compete with H.265, because then we have a real chance of largely getting rid of proprietary video standards.
WebM could barely compete with H.264, so how the hell is it going to compete with H.265 which is going to offer the same quality at H.264 but only use about half the bitrate?
If Google could have improved WebM this much, they would have.
From what I understand, the WIN64 address space is 2^42, and a WIN64 page is still 2^12, which means a total of 2^30 possible virtual page addresses.. a binary billion.
With 8 byte page table entries thats 8GB of memory just for the page table.
So I'm thinking its not actually possible to fill up the page table in systems with 8GB or less memory, and systems with 12GB of memory would probably be thrashing extremely hard (writing multiple gigabytes of data is a slow process, even on high performance SSD's) as stuff gets swapped out in order to hold the page table.
Its not possible to hide the absolute address, so nobody uses relative addressing in 32-bit because its less efficient, and in 64-bit while relative addressing no longer has a performance penalty its still impossible to hide the absolute address.
Dont forget the popularity side of it. The 8800 GT made all the cards over $150 or so a bad buy for nearly a year, so it completely dominated the market.
8800 GTS was 135
8800 GTX was 155
Neither of these was $200, but nice try.
Anyone who was buying video cards back then would not have made this so trivial of a mistake as you just did, because the 8800 GT was a game changer that offered similar performance to the above cards for 50% or less the money and a lot less power draw. ATI didnt have anything even close at any price or power draw. The 8800 GTS in particular died the day the 8800 GT was released, because the GTS didnt perform any better at all and couldn't be manufactured for the price the GT was manufactured for.
I still have a pc with an Athlon X2 4400 and an nvidia 8800GT.
Thats because the 8800 GT was only marginally slower than the fastest card that you could buy when it was released (which was the 8800 Ultra.)
The 8800 GT falls flat at higher resolutions with complex pixel shaders, where a new comparable card like the 650 GT (for $100) would not but is just as weak at actually texture lookups. The upshot is that for older games that heavily abuse multi-texturing, these two cards are almost exactly equal but for newer games that just go ahead and compute stuff every frame the 650 is marginally better (always less than twice as good.)
However, a $100 graphic card of today is most likely going to leave any high end card of 5 years ago well back in the dust.
The high end cards from 5 years ago such as the 8800 GTX/Ultra are pretty much on par with todays 650 GT which is on the market for the $100 you just pulled out of your ass.
You've got to spend closer to $200 to beat the 8800 ultra.
And a GTX 660 is not a $400 card, it's more like $200.
If it doesn't work for Austin, then that is an Austin problem, not a Californian or progressive one.
The philosophy that is opposed to central planning is not rooted in the belief that central planning always fails, but instead in the moral argument that when it does fail that some of the people that suffer could not opt out of that suffrage (tyranny of the majority), and now continue their suffering with no recourse (the momentum of the resulting bureaucracy.)
Look no further than things like the TSA as prime examples of how the failures of central planning do not get corrected, that the suffrage of society continues in spite of the complete obviousness of the failure. Now consider failures that arent quite so obvious, and you get an idea of why some people hold a very strong philosophy against all central planning, even when sometimes the act of central planning seems like a great success.
Except for drug crime, gun murders, yes.
One of the most popular game franchises in the history of the country is based precisely on crime and murder in the United States...
...proving the point that Americans will consume anything, so long as its a simulation curiously similar to real life.
We just don't give a shit what others think that we should think. The main character in War Games, David L. Lightman, chose to play the Russians and nuke the fuck out of America. Nobody protested the movie, and none of you thought about this fact until just now.
Unless that manufacture bribes the government...
Don't blame the manufacturers for what the politicians are selling. It is the perpetuation of beliefs like yours that prevent us from kicking out the corrupt government and reducing the power and influence of its actors.
That $3.8 trillion dollar federal budget amounts to a spending of $33043 per household, and thats just the federal budget. States spend another $13043 per household, and local governments spend another $13913 per household. Thats a total of $59999 per household being spent right now this year, while the median income is $52762. It is this fact that puts lobbyist at the doorstep of politicians, because the government is a bigger consumer than the people.
. In many cases people who do manual jobs do so because they enjoy them and/or have an affinity for them which they would not have if they were doing some sort of indoor office role, plenty of people seem to feel the same way about the non assembly line areas of food service.
Plenty of people work jobs that they hate at every level in every industry, so if people that love to be short order cooks eventually have to find work that they don't like, then should we really get worked up over it?
Anyways, my guess is that most short order cooks don't like it to begin with, and are only doing it because they believe that their other options are worse (a belief that is probably also rarely true.)
Society benefits from a supply of increasingly efficient services and technology, and in general it is the ordinary man that has benefited the most from these increases in efficiency. A rich man didn't have to wash their own clothes by hand several hundred years ago, and now nobody has to. A rich man didn't have to go down to the local river or well to fetch some water for their bath several hundred years ago, and now nobody has to.
Nearly every aspect of our lives is greatly enhanced by the increases in efficiency that have come before us. The cycle may very well end some day, but another increase in efficiency will not be the signal of it happening. Another increase in efficiency is a signal that its still not happening.
Wont this legitimize any and all collections of personal information as long as the tax gets paid?
"But they collected data on what time of the day I poop.. dont I have any privacy?"
"There is nothing we can do sir. They paid the tax. Quite frankly, we wish more corporations would collect this data so that we could get more taxes"
Looks like you are the stupid one, thinboy.
Do you not understand that any time you alter parameters until a model fits the data, thats this activity is called 'fitting' and not 'prediction' ?