You can't. But nobody's claiming to predict the state of an arbitrary iteration. What you can do is predict an average trend. Like Moore's law predicts that transistor density approximately doubles every two years. If you look at the actual data, the numbers plotted are a bit erratic, but over time, it averages really well to that trend. Now, part of that is due to self-fulfilling prophesy, but the same idea holds. Or, the economy (in terms of GDP). You can predict a rate of growth over a couple decades, but you can't say what its state will be in any specific year. I think the US is somewhere in the ballpark of 3% growth per year in terms of decades, but I haven't checked. But of course, I can't say if 2024 will have a recession or not.
So in terms of GW, nobody can tell you what the temperature will be August 4, 2024. But what some people are saying is that the trend right now, and according to models, is saying that the temperature will approximately rise x degrees per century for some indefinite time period.
(ignoring strawman and other fallacies) You had me up to here:
unless you follow the Scientific Method and can PROVE your theories to be correct,
You don't prove theories, you just test them repeatedly without them being disproved (if they are disproved, then back to the drawing board for a modified/new theory. if they can't be tested practically, they're not a good theory). And if it's evident you are beating a dead horse testing it and it still hasn't failed (in informal terms) the theory itself may be regarded as fact. ie the theory of evolution is a theory, yet it is regarded as fact, since the sun is as likely to turn into swiss cheese as the ToE is to be disproved.
BTW and OT, String theory is not a good theory. I'm not saying the idea itself isn't bad - imo it's pretty neat - but it doesn't make a good theory for certain reasons. Like being very hard to test the theory itself, it doesn't predict a whole lot, and that there's five damn versions of it.
Shouldn't you have made this your sig by now? Just sayin'. I mean, none of your stuff is original, but might as well shave the common denominator of the bandwidth between you and/. .
You're making the false conclusion that our existence is exclusively either the product of an extremely unlikely set of events, or something with intent made us. I'll let you ponder what rather large gap you're missing, if you so dare. And I'll also let you ponder the dangers of using Occam's razor to make your specific point as a bonus question. Hint: Is your argument really as simple as it seems? What is the reason for the intent on creating our visible universe, as well as everything else?
Dude, so, is a vacuum like, evil or good? Like, it either has a patron god or doesn't, so it totally has to have something, so it isn't really a vacuum. Which is like, a contradiction, man. Kinda far out there. That's fricken quod erat demonstrandum, duuuuuude.
Unless it's like, all quantum mechanics and both has a god and doesn't which means its totally, evil, good, and neither. Which means it, like, kills people, saves people, and just is chill at the same fricken time. Awesome.
Which is it? Come on, I need to know this stuff like pronto for my lead role in Dude, Where's my Fermion?
No. By population I meant the number of relevant people, not actual world population. In this case population A would be males playing chess and population B would be females playing chess, and it's safe to say there are many more males playing chess [competitively] than females.
All I'm trying to show is that correlation (men taking the top ranks) doesn't imply causation (men being better at chess because they're aggressive or something).
The answer may be simpler. Let's say you have population A that has a normal distribution of skill and many members, and you have population B with the same normal distribution of skill but few members, members of A *will* dominate the top places in rank, even though any person from A has has no advantage over a player in B. If you pick any range of skill, A will dominate with the number of players, including the back end (which you don't hear about). So near the very top, B will drop off before A.
In my experience, I saw the same effect with cross country. Some schools have huge (like 60 runners) running teams, some have just enough (7) runners to qualify. And what I saw was that large schools tended to take the top spots and small schools usually got slaughtered even though the average runners performed about the same regardless of school. For those not familiar with how high school cross country is "scored," only the top (~5) runners from each team are compared plus a few tie breakers, which means only the top arrangement counts, so the bulk of the other runners don't matter. ie slow runners don't penalize a team. Hence the much larger teams having an advantage, even they also have the most slow runners too. Although this was only the case when one team was much larger or smaller.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a half dolphin, you insensitive clod.
Nah, I've heard rumors that there's somebody who likes them.
That's because it's so far up, silly. :P
Actually, Russia is way above Antarctica. Like "3/4 of the planet diameter" kind of higher.
Or it was September for a long damn time.
Working in a barn or working with Windows? *bing badda bang*
Geohot while he does help out with certain things, likes to take credit when it was really a group effort.
I don't like people that steel credit.
What lead you to that conclusion? :P
Actually, it would be cool to have an 80x24 LED screen. And I mean the 14 segment display LEDs. Much easier and cheaper to fix dead pixels.
Well, in this case, he'd say "woooooooooooo."
Screw Luke and Anakin. R2 was the real main character.
You can't. But nobody's claiming to predict the state of an arbitrary iteration. What you can do is predict an average trend. Like Moore's law predicts that transistor density approximately doubles every two years. If you look at the actual data, the numbers plotted are a bit erratic, but over time, it averages really well to that trend. Now, part of that is due to self-fulfilling prophesy, but the same idea holds. Or, the economy (in terms of GDP). You can predict a rate of growth over a couple decades, but you can't say what its state will be in any specific year. I think the US is somewhere in the ballpark of 3% growth per year in terms of decades, but I haven't checked. But of course, I can't say if 2024 will have a recession or not.
So in terms of GW, nobody can tell you what the temperature will be August 4, 2024. But what some people are saying is that the trend right now, and according to models, is saying that the temperature will approximately rise x degrees per century for some indefinite time period.
unless you follow the Scientific Method and can PROVE your theories to be correct,
You don't prove theories, you just test them repeatedly without them being disproved (if they are disproved, then back to the drawing board for a modified/new theory. if they can't be tested practically, they're not a good theory). And if it's evident you are beating a dead horse testing it and it still hasn't failed (in informal terms) the theory itself may be regarded as fact. ie the theory of evolution is a theory, yet it is regarded as fact, since the sun is as likely to turn into swiss cheese as the ToE is to be disproved.
BTW and OT, String theory is not a good theory. I'm not saying the idea itself isn't bad - imo it's pretty neat - but it doesn't make a good theory for certain reasons. Like being very hard to test the theory itself, it doesn't predict a whole lot, and that there's five damn versions of it.
Well, I cannot see how you can't be pro DNC. Who in the hell likes telemarketers?
Failure to do so will be fined on a level that makes stealing Humvees look cheap*.
* which costs $243.85 btw.
Sad thing is, it's more like "Dear Gema, please teach us your ways. Eternally Grateful, the World"
> the days of the architecture wars
One man's architecture war is another man's platform diversity and healthy competition.
And every programer's porting nightmare.
Hit count. The value of the Internet has been reduced to hit count.
Mod this guy up! We need more people to see this.
you're completely pathetic.
Shouldn't you have made this your sig by now? Just sayin'. I mean, none of your stuff is original, but might as well shave the common denominator of the bandwidth between you and /. .
A bloke that believes in the deity known as Ae?
You're making the false conclusion that our existence is exclusively either the product of an extremely unlikely set of events, or something with intent made us. I'll let you ponder what rather large gap you're missing, if you so dare. And I'll also let you ponder the dangers of using Occam's razor to make your specific point as a bonus question. Hint: Is your argument really as simple as it seems? What is the reason for the intent on creating our visible universe, as well as everything else?
Dude, so, is a vacuum like, evil or good? Like, it either has a patron god or doesn't, so it totally has to have something, so it isn't really a vacuum. Which is like, a contradiction, man. Kinda far out there. That's fricken quod erat demonstrandum, duuuuuude.
Unless it's like, all quantum mechanics and both has a god and doesn't which means its totally, evil, good, and neither. Which means it, like, kills people, saves people, and just is chill at the same fricken time. Awesome.
Which is it? Come on, I need to know this stuff like pronto for my lead role in Dude, Where's my Fermion?
We call them creepers.
No. By population I meant the number of relevant people, not actual world population. In this case population A would be males playing chess and population B would be females playing chess, and it's safe to say there are many more males playing chess [competitively] than females.
All I'm trying to show is that correlation (men taking the top ranks) doesn't imply causation (men being better at chess because they're aggressive or something).
The answer may be simpler. Let's say you have population A that has a normal distribution of skill and many members, and you have population B with the same normal distribution of skill but few members, members of A *will* dominate the top places in rank, even though any person from A has has no advantage over a player in B. If you pick any range of skill, A will dominate with the number of players, including the back end (which you don't hear about). So near the very top, B will drop off before A.
In my experience, I saw the same effect with cross country. Some schools have huge (like 60 runners) running teams, some have just enough (7) runners to qualify. And what I saw was that large schools tended to take the top spots and small schools usually got slaughtered even though the average runners performed about the same regardless of school. For those not familiar with how high school cross country is "scored," only the top (~5) runners from each team are compared plus a few tie breakers, which means only the top arrangement counts, so the bulk of the other runners don't matter. ie slow runners don't penalize a team. Hence the much larger teams having an advantage, even they also have the most slow runners too. Although this was only the case when one team was much larger or smaller.
It's pretty easy, actually. Just keep one finger over the shift key, and another finger over the angle bracket keys.