I don't see how that contradicts GP. The difference between assuring accuracy and stemming the tide of obvious crap lies not in what you're measuring, but in how high you place the bar. Think of it as a spam filter; if you set it too paranoid, you're going to have an unacceptable level of false positives.
Whaaat, 4 papers over 5 years??? I sooo don't want to work in the US anymore:-(
And yes, there are few things that piss me off more than people who publish scads of papers that are each 80% the same as the previous paper, with a small incremental improvement that is usually not worth the time spent reading the goddamn thing. No wonder these people don't get any innovative research done; it must cost an immense amount of time getting all that washy stuff through peer review.
People who don't know what they're talking about notwithstanding, I think we can agree that climate science is neither soft nor obscure (nor poorly scrutinized).
As for Dr. Ioannidis paper: I like the content of the paper very much, but the title is a misleading generalization that plays right into the hands of quacks and charlatans, who like nothing better than to cite any expert who seems to be saying that science is so flawed — that “science is wrong” — that it can’t be used to debunk their nonsense.
There are climate scientist, and most of them work on climate models. The physicists in TFA are working the same problem from a different angle: statistics (and coming to the same conclusions). They won't profit from more money being invested in climate models, though, falsifying the assumption on which the post I originally replied to was based. Not that such an obvious troll really needs falsifying.
Oh this is rich. The AC calling the scientists ignorant about how the peer review process works. Nice try AC, but GP is right, peer reviewers systematically try to tear pretty much anything that comes their way to shreds. I'm a scientists, and not only do I see this happening to my papers, I do the same to the papers I get to review. Extremely critical reviewers are an essential part of the scientific process.
Contrary to GP, I feel it's normal that it's so difficult to get a paper published. What is not normal is that scientists are under such high pressure to get so many papers published per year; the process could benefit from some "slowing down". But that's an entirely different discussion.
I agree that 'the idea that "two sides" are equal is bullshit' (and yes, the real science has been done decade ago, it's overwhelmingly in the favor of climate change, and copious amounts of fossil fuel FUD have failed make a dent in that). That said, you might want to take a few deep breaths and read through this thread again. With so much misunderstanding, it's almost as if the two of you are speaking a different language.
You do realize aggregating many data points makes it possible to derive a quantity with a much smaller error than any single data point, don't you? Oh who am I kidding, you obviously don't. Here's some recommended reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
That's just scratching the surface, but I didn't want to confuse you with difficult, difficult math, like what they used in TFA.
Oh I'm sure there are people out there for whom the time wasted on the preparation and payment of the tickets is worth that much money. It's ballpark 1/100 of the price of a basic yacht and the more you speed, the more you get out of it. Also this is just one officer they interviewed; there might be others who won't stop you at all, which means even more time saved.
destined to become one of the most ridiculed films of our time
FTF them. Seriously, the only people who are going to take this seriously are the ones who have already drifted away from reality a long time ago. I for one welcome this movie as a very blatant showcase of how people in a certain political corner are willing to deny science and engage in misinformation for religious regions. (Yeah, broke the "I for one" meme and all that.) Keep that ammo coming!
That would have been an appropriate boilerplate response to your typical Theo De Raadt comment, but... did you actually read that "analysis of openssl freelist reuse" link? It's hard for me to imagine that having been done by mistake; it's more of an instance of a coder cleverly cutting a corner. And some might argue "don't we all?", but if one is writing such security-critical software, one should at least have some notion that clever corner-cutting is a gigantic no-no.
Now, the freelist reuse is not the cause of the heartbleed bug; it merely frustrates what would otherwise have been a relatively straightforward mitigation strategy. But it's a symptom of an attitude that is, well, irresponsible.
If the volume of an ultrasonic sound wave is high enough, it is quite conceivable to cause thermal or mechanical effects that can be sensed through other means than hearing. However, no sane person is going to bring a device that outputs that kind of power into their living room for enjoyment. It's probably even illegal; it'd be torture for every pet in the neighborhood (in addition to being a health hazard for the listener).
Not all of these will manifest the flaw in an easily (or remotely) exploitable way. Taking a very lazy glance at the list, samba, the apache module and hydra could of course be a problem, and the ones in mail/ too. Still a serious issue.
Here's another one - what favors was this GTORangeBuilder person willing to pay timothy to post such a trivial(*) and uninspired(+) problem to the/. front page in a transparent attempt to herd traffic to his equity calculator?
(*) Trivial: don't take my word for it, just look at all the correct answers posted by slashdotters.
(+) Uninspired: I wake up with a more original brain teaser in my head every other day on averge. Yes, literally. Yeah, I know not everyone has a mind with a somewhat unpredictable tendency to slips into the world of mathemathics & physics, but I'm not an exceptional genius either, just an average person who has a day job that involves thinking about physics, and still isn't bored of it in his free time. I'm sure if you find one of the Randall Munroes or Nate Silvers of this world quietly sipping coffee and offer them a penny for their thoughts, you'll walk away with an infinitely better brain teaser.
Slashdot Mirror
And for the lazy readers, here's the webcomic version. ;-)
I don't see how that contradicts GP. The difference between assuring accuracy and stemming the tide of obvious crap lies not in what you're measuring, but in how high you place the bar. Think of it as a spam filter; if you set it too paranoid, you're going to have an unacceptable level of false positives.
Whaaat, 4 papers over 5 years??? I sooo don't want to work in the US anymore :-(
And yes, there are few things that piss me off more than people who publish scads of papers that are each 80% the same as the previous paper, with a small incremental improvement that is usually not worth the time spent reading the goddamn thing. No wonder these people don't get any innovative research done; it must cost an immense amount of time getting all that washy stuff through peer review.
Strength in numbers.
That, and picking journals and disciplines with a somewhat less effective peer review process; see here and my reply here.
People who don't know what they're talking about notwithstanding, I think we can agree that climate science is neither soft nor obscure (nor poorly scrutinized).
As for Dr. Ioannidis paper: I like the content of the paper very much, but the title is a misleading generalization that plays right into the hands of quacks and charlatans, who like nothing better than to cite any expert who seems to be saying that science is so flawed — that “science is wrong” — that it can’t be used to debunk their nonsense.
source.
vast layers of layers of wrappers for layers of abstractions for wrappers for 3rd party libraries.
The correct term for that is "software" these days. Like it or not, that's how it is.
There are climate scientist, and most of them work on climate models. The physicists in TFA are working the same problem from a different angle: statistics (and coming to the same conclusions). They won't profit from more money being invested in climate models, though, falsifying the assumption on which the post I originally replied to was based. Not that such an obvious troll really needs falsifying.
RTFA. They're physicists, not climate scientists. Wah wah wah...
Oh this is rich. The AC calling the scientists ignorant about how the peer review process works. Nice try AC, but GP is right, peer reviewers systematically try to tear pretty much anything that comes their way to shreds. I'm a scientists, and not only do I see this happening to my papers, I do the same to the papers I get to review. Extremely critical reviewers are an essential part of the scientific process.
Contrary to GP, I feel it's normal that it's so difficult to get a paper published. What is not normal is that scientists are under such high pressure to get so many papers published per year; the process could benefit from some "slowing down". But that's an entirely different discussion.
I agree that 'the idea that "two sides" are equal is bullshit' (and yes, the real science has been done decade ago, it's overwhelmingly in the favor of climate change, and copious amounts of fossil fuel FUD have failed make a dent in that). That said, you might want to take a few deep breaths and read through this thread again. With so much misunderstanding, it's almost as if the two of you are speaking a different language.
Huh? Hit "reply" to the wrong post there? Surely you meant this as a reply to the AC, not to kruach aum?
You do realize aggregating many data points makes it possible to derive a quantity with a much smaller error than any single data point, don't you? Oh who am I kidding, you obviously don't. Here's some recommended reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
That's just scratching the surface, but I didn't want to confuse you with difficult, difficult math, like what they used in TFA.
The poster you are referring to made a legitimate argument.
That would be a legitimate argument for someone who knows nothing about statistics and hasn't RTFA. In which case they had the insult coming.
I can also take a sample size of 1 year and "prove" the same thing.
RTFA.
This brought to you by the stereotype-and-kneejerk department.
Oh I'm sure there are people out there for whom the time wasted on the preparation and payment of the tickets is worth that much money. It's ballpark 1/100 of the price of a basic yacht and the more you speed, the more you get out of it. Also this is just one officer they interviewed; there might be others who won't stop you at all, which means even more time saved.
Am I missing a joke here or are you confusing Bolivia and Belize?
destined to become one of the most ridiculed films of our time
FTF them. Seriously, the only people who are going to take this seriously are the ones who have already drifted away from reality a long time ago. I for one welcome this movie as a very blatant showcase of how people in a certain political corner are willing to deny science and engage in misinformation for religious regions. (Yeah, broke the "I for one" meme and all that.) Keep that ammo coming!
That would have been an appropriate boilerplate response to your typical Theo De Raadt comment, but... did you actually read that "analysis of openssl freelist reuse" link? It's hard for me to imagine that having been done by mistake; it's more of an instance of a coder cleverly cutting a corner. And some might argue "don't we all?", but if one is writing such security-critical software, one should at least have some notion that clever corner-cutting is a gigantic no-no.
Now, the freelist reuse is not the cause of the heartbleed bug; it merely frustrates what would otherwise have been a relatively straightforward mitigation strategy. But it's a symptom of an attitude that is, well, irresponsible.
If the volume of an ultrasonic sound wave is high enough, it is quite conceivable to cause thermal or mechanical effects that can be sensed through other means than hearing. However, no sane person is going to bring a device that outputs that kind of power into their living room for enjoyment. It's probably even illegal; it'd be torture for every pet in the neighborhood (in addition to being a health hazard for the listener).
Not all of these will manifest the flaw in an easily (or remotely) exploitable way. Taking a very lazy glance at the list, samba, the apache module and hydra could of course be a problem, and the ones in mail/ too. Still a serious issue.
Sorry that was meant to be a reply directly to TFA.
would you be willing to pay to play against them?
Here's another one - what favors was this GTORangeBuilder person willing to pay timothy to post such a trivial(*) and uninspired(+) problem to the /. front page in a transparent attempt to herd traffic to his equity calculator?
(*) Trivial: don't take my word for it, just look at all the correct answers posted by slashdotters.
(+) Uninspired: I wake up with a more original brain teaser in my head every other day on averge. Yes, literally. Yeah, I know not everyone has a mind with a somewhat unpredictable tendency to slips into the world of mathemathics & physics, but I'm not an exceptional genius either, just an average person who has a day job that involves thinking about physics, and still isn't bored of it in his free time. I'm sure if you find one of the Randall Munroes or Nate Silvers of this world quietly sipping coffee and offer them a penny for their thoughts, you'll walk away with an infinitely better brain teaser.
Get. A. Life.
Or better (since this is /.), the kind where you lob exploding bananas at your opponent.
OK, I promise I stop after this one.