When Google says "Not Where We Want to Be" , what they are saying is that it is time to start discriminating against white males
I will never understand how some peoples brains hear "Must discriminate against white people!" whenever someone says "Must not discriminate against black people".
Seriously, this white separatist thinking eally needs to die.
I don't understand why Congress doesn't run afoul of the conflict of interest laws when they are allowed to write legislation that favors the ones funding their campaigns. It is a clear conflict of interest when you are writing laws that puts money in your own pocket. They should have to recuse themselves just like judges have to when they have a conflict of interest in a case. Can someone explain why this isn't a worse case than judges with a conflict considering how it is the law that judges are supposed to be interpreting?
In most european/aust/nz countries, most of asia and good chunks of south america and africa, it would be called "Corruption". Belesconi went down for stuff far *less* brazen than what some congress too.These people belong in prison, not seats of power.
er, not "in the countries name", I mean "in the opposition parties name". Pretty sure "USA" doesnt stand for "Democracy". (Freud would be amused I guess)
I understand what you are trying to explain about fatwas, but that is still very creepy for me, that someone would go for written approval from a religious figure for any important decision in their own lives. If you told me that your friends went to a Catholic priest, a Hindu Holy man, the Dalai Lama or Oprah Winfrey for recommendations, I would make me feel just as creepy.
Guess what you have to do to get a divorce in Catholicism.
Written advice from the bishop. A fatwa, so to speak.
Our founders VERY EXPLICITLY did NOT create a Democracy (some of the most-famous like Adams and Franklin cautioned strongly against it). They created a "Constitutional Republic" with "Democratic elections"
You do realize this is a talking point created by politically illiterate republican party activists who didn't like the fact that americas political system was in the countries name.
If you have elections, by definition, your a democracy. Thats all the word means.
If you dont have a monarch you are a republic.
Examples of Republics: United States , North Korea. Not Republics: Australia, Saudia Arabi.
Examples of Democracys: United States, Australia. Not Democracies: North Korea, Saudi Arabia.
I meant, like iTunes, Safari began as a focused and snappy product. Over time it lost focus and became bloated. Not to the extent that iTunes bloated, but still it lost a lot of what made it good.
Nonsense. Safari used to be a dog of a browser but seems to be getting faster and lighter as time goes by.
I think a lot of people are switching to OpenOffice and LibreOffice on their home machines, but they don't use their Office apps as intensively in the home as they do at work so they don't learn everything they need to do at work.
Ironically one thing I like about Open/Libre office is that it behaves *very* similarly to Office of about 6-7 years ago in terms of UI which I think was a pretty damn optimal UI.
Well other than the lack of outline mode. Which , annoyingly apple's Pages dropped recently too.
And which I have *no idea* how to find on the new fangled ribbon interface thing in modern Office either:(
You're right, it isn't. But that's not all the IPCC or the national curriculum say. They also say that climate change will be huge and have devastating consequences, and that's unproven. It isn't even a question physics can answer.
Actually they don't say that. The IPCC presents a set of weighted possibilities based on statistical analysis of the results of a few thousand research projects. These range from "Things could get a bit hairy for agriculture and fisheries" (Which is already happening) to "Shit goes completely haywire, were screwed.". The IPCC reports tend to lean towards the low end severity however increasingly climate researchers have been critical if the IPCC for under reporting just how serious some of the models predictions are.
Physics actually can answer it to some degree , although perhaps not in the detail we like. The equasions are not hard. You look at solar inputs over time, then look at CO2 (and methane, etc) and you can say "This will trap x amount of infra red energy". This part can be calculated quite accurately since is an entirely deterministic calculation. Then you look at a range of possibilities from "All this heat is converted to kinetic energy (storms/cyclones/etc)" to "All this heat turns into heat (greenhouse effect)". Remember , conservation of energy, the heat has to do *something*.
Of course I'm simplifying it a little bit here and not including run-away effects from permafrost which sadly appear to be starting already according to many arctic field researchers (Ie permafrost areas where methane has started to bubble up) which potentially can turn the whole thing psychotic on us, but thats the basics of it.
Hindcasting is reasonable for speculative theories in the sciences. It is inadequate for scientific result strong enough to support major policy initiatives.
Oh boy, we have a live one here.
Your a creationist right? Normally I'd just assume that (the vast majority of "climate change is a vast left wing conspiracy" people are also creationists or 9/11 truthers), but its slashdot, so thats not a safe assumption.
Models are only a success on their training data, they have failed at predicting the future at every step
Wrong. These aren't Neural networks , and they aren't "trained". They are a simulation of understood physics that thus-far matches the historical data and is so far actually predicting things quite well (Although some of the earlier models where a bit conservative due to not accounting for permafrost).
What you are calling "training" , in science is called "Hind-casting" and its a standard method of testing scientific theories where we can't feasibly do experiments (other than the usual CO2 in lab type stuff from the 1870s when we first started talking about climate change from CO2).
If you disregard it, you have to throw away *so much* science. Why would you want to do that? Its a tried and tested methodology responsible for a huge amount of what we know about the natural sciences.
Regardless, as the IPCC has pointed out. The models have actually been quite accurate in predictions so far. http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Human sources of CO2 are dwarfed by natural sources, please do your homework before making such claims. The additional CO2 humans are adding to the mix is tiny but could have an impact.
Yeah that idea was fundamentally discredited a long time ago dude. Sorry.
But natural causes is...and if you are not teaching children that the warming could very well be simply natural warming than you are not teaching them the scientific method which tells us that the null hypothesis is always assumed to be true until its proven false.
Yes, but as David Hume would point out. The preponderance of evidence of apples falling from trees doesn't *prove* that gravity is real, just that its incredibly unlikely that its not.
We're at that point with man made climate change. We know that if CO2 doesn't trap IR heat, nearly 140 years of physics needs to be turfed, we know that we've put in a certain amount of CO2 that outstrips by a huge margin any natural source, and that x amount of CO2 will introduce Y amount of energy into the climate system. We can do rudimentary models that show a general trend and lately we've been doing more complex models track a more specific trend with astonishing accuracy when applied to historical data.
The odds of human induced climate change being wrong are so low that its simply not up for debate anymore in the sciences, just as evolution or gravity isn't because that would be silly.
The fact that outside of the sciences a lot of people seem to think theres scientific controversy isn't really important here.
Science isn't a democracy, its a dictatorship of evidence. And the evidence is in. AGW is real.
They are a university, and universities have a duty to guide their actions on ethical and scientific principles. Whilst out in the wider world there are infact still hold out flat earthers convinced of the vast left wing conspiracy to make scientists lie, in actual places of research theres little room for such comfortable delusions. Stanford are acting in the interests of the people they serve, by doing their part to make sure they aren't contributing to wrecking the planet.
Stop trivializing the suffering of women that get beaten within a inch of their lives by brutal husbands.
1) Verbal and emotional abuse can be incredibly harmful. When i worked in the courts, we found suicide by abused women was just as often precipitated by verbal threats as it was by physical abuse.
2) Thats not why they are having to cover tracks. Womens shelters are often beset by deranged ex partners hunting their former girlfriends wanting to beat or even kill them in far more cases than people are comfortable discussing. Thats why the its so important not to get hacked or intercepted to avoid men using shady private investigators to break in and steal details of the womens hiding places.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/worl... If the "worst case" comes true, then there will be billions affected, and in a few years. The current word is that the risks of a major "thaw" of Antartica are understated.
My sister worked for a major govt agency about 6-7 years ago as a climate researcher (She's a physicist), and has been howling about the fact a lot of her collegues research was implicitely gagged (Told to "tone it down" by govt administrators with job security threats attached) whenever it warned about certain thawing events. All of which only now are being talked about openly, possibly too late.
Anyone who tells you scientists have been exagurating the warnings for some sort of gain has no god damn idea of what actually hapens. Being a climate scientist can be harmful to your career. As she put it , she could make a lot of money becoming a phony contrarian and working for right wing thinktanks, but alas for her , she didnt spend a decade getting slaughtered for a PhD to turn around and become a pseudoscientist climate denier and instead has to just put up with a crappy university researcher wage.
Yeah, or just use the name scientists have used for it since the 1870s when Fourier et al started warning about CO2 and atmospheric infra-red trapping.
They are completely different types of software. Mailchimp/etc can't do what mailman does, and for that matter mailman would be a poor choice for what mailchimp does.
Mailman is a mail discussion list manager, not a spam platform.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. The Kinect mostly is about image processing and highly parallel vector processing is just what that sort of application requires.
It would have been stranger if it DIDNT rely on the GPU.
I wish you americans would stop confusing the term republican for democratic.
You live in a republic AND a democracy.
Like North Korea you are a republic.
Like Australia you are a democracy.
Unlike Australia, you are a republic.
Unlike North korea, you are a democracy.
See? Its not that hard to understand. (Republic just means "No king". It doesn't specify what the king is replaced with).
I will never understand how some peoples brains hear "Must discriminate against white people!" whenever someone says "Must not discriminate against black people".
Seriously, this white separatist thinking eally needs to die.
In most european/aust/nz countries, most of asia and good chunks of south america and africa, it would be called "Corruption". Belesconi went down for stuff far *less* brazen than what some congress too.These people belong in prison, not seats of power.
er, not "in the countries name", I mean "in the opposition parties name".
Pretty sure "USA" doesnt stand for "Democracy". (Freud would be amused I guess)
Sorry!
Guess what you have to do to get a divorce in Catholicism.
Written advice from the bishop. A fatwa, so to speak.
And not being in prison helps stop that how?
In the hacker world being a snitch gets you hated, and maybe shitflooded on IRC.
In prison, being a snitch gets you a sharpened toothbrush rammed between your ribs.
Thats the difference.
You do realize this is a talking point created by politically illiterate republican party activists who didn't like the fact that americas political system was in the countries name.
If you have elections, by definition, your a democracy. Thats all the word means.
If you dont have a monarch you are a republic.
Examples of Republics: United States , North Korea.
Not Republics: Australia, Saudia Arabi.
Examples of Democracys: United States, Australia.
Not Democracies: North Korea, Saudi Arabia.
I'd call American democracy a pretty good prototype of the real thing.
But its just a prototype, and beta ended loooong ago.
"All computers reformat NOW"
Is the server itself not a computer?
Its nightmare fuel for IT guys.
Bah, you kids and your confounded "logic". :)
Nonsense. Safari used to be a dog of a browser but seems to be getting faster and lighter as time goes by.
Ironically one thing I like about Open/Libre office is that it behaves *very* similarly to Office of about 6-7 years ago in terms of UI which I think was a pretty damn optimal UI.
Well other than the lack of outline mode. Which , annoyingly apple's Pages dropped recently too.
And which I have *no idea* how to find on the new fangled ribbon interface thing in modern Office either :(
The thing with bragging rights however is "We went really high up!" isnt as impressive as "We went to space!"
Actually they don't say that. The IPCC presents a set of weighted possibilities based on statistical analysis of the results of a few thousand research projects. These range from "Things could get a bit hairy for agriculture and fisheries" (Which is already happening) to "Shit goes completely haywire, were screwed.". The IPCC reports tend to lean towards the low end severity however increasingly climate researchers have been critical if the IPCC for under reporting just how serious some of the models predictions are.
Physics actually can answer it to some degree , although perhaps not in the detail we like. The equasions are not hard. You look at solar inputs over time, then look at CO2 (and methane, etc) and you can say "This will trap x amount of infra red energy". This part can be calculated quite accurately since is an entirely deterministic calculation.
Then you look at a range of possibilities from "All this heat is converted to kinetic energy (storms/cyclones/etc)" to "All this heat turns into heat (greenhouse effect)". Remember , conservation of energy, the heat has to do *something*.
Of course I'm simplifying it a little bit here and not including run-away effects from permafrost which sadly appear to be starting already according to many arctic field researchers (Ie permafrost areas where methane has started to bubble up) which potentially can turn the whole thing psychotic on us, but thats the basics of it.
Freeman dyson is not a climate scientist, his opinion on the matter carries no more weight than the postman.
Oh boy, we have a live one here.
Your a creationist right? Normally I'd just assume that (the vast majority of "climate change is a vast left wing conspiracy" people are also creationists or 9/11 truthers), but its slashdot, so thats not a safe assumption.
Wrong. These aren't Neural networks , and they aren't "trained". They are a simulation of understood physics that thus-far matches the historical data and is so far actually predicting things quite well (Although some of the earlier models where a bit conservative due to not accounting for permafrost).
What you are calling "training" , in science is called "Hind-casting" and its a standard method of testing scientific theories where we can't feasibly do experiments (other than the usual CO2 in lab type stuff from the 1870s when we first started talking about climate change from CO2).
If you disregard it, you have to throw away *so much* science. Why would you want to do that? Its a tried and tested methodology responsible for a huge amount of what we know about the natural sciences.
Regardless, as the IPCC has pointed out. The models have actually been quite accurate in predictions so far.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Yeah that idea was fundamentally discredited a long time ago dude. Sorry.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Yes, but as David Hume would point out. The preponderance of evidence of apples falling from trees doesn't *prove* that gravity is real, just that its incredibly unlikely that its not.
We're at that point with man made climate change. We know that if CO2 doesn't trap IR heat, nearly 140 years of physics needs to be turfed, we know that we've put in a certain amount of CO2 that outstrips by a huge margin any natural source, and that x amount of CO2 will introduce Y amount of energy into the climate system. We can do rudimentary models that show a general trend and lately we've been doing more complex models track a more specific trend with astonishing accuracy when applied to historical data.
The odds of human induced climate change being wrong are so low that its simply not up for debate anymore in the sciences, just as evolution or gravity isn't because that would be silly.
The fact that outside of the sciences a lot of people seem to think theres scientific controversy isn't really important here.
Science isn't a democracy, its a dictatorship of evidence. And the evidence is in. AGW is real.
They are a university, and universities have a duty to guide their actions on ethical and scientific principles. Whilst out in the wider world there are infact still hold out flat earthers convinced of the vast left wing conspiracy to make scientists lie, in actual places of research theres little room for such comfortable delusions. Stanford are acting in the interests of the people they serve, by doing their part to make sure they aren't contributing to wrecking the planet.
1) Verbal and emotional abuse can be incredibly harmful. When i worked in the courts, we found suicide by abused women was just as often precipitated by verbal threats as it was by physical abuse.
2) Thats not why they are having to cover tracks. Womens shelters are often beset by deranged ex partners hunting their former girlfriends wanting to beat or even kill them in far more cases than people are comfortable discussing. Thats why the its so important not to get hacked or intercepted to avoid men using shady private investigators to break in and steal details of the womens hiding places.
My sister worked for a major govt agency about 6-7 years ago as a climate researcher (She's a physicist), and has been howling about the fact a lot of her collegues research was implicitely gagged (Told to "tone it down" by govt administrators with job security threats attached) whenever it warned about certain thawing events. All of which only now are being talked about openly, possibly too late.
Anyone who tells you scientists have been exagurating the warnings for some sort of gain has no god damn idea of what actually hapens. Being a climate scientist can be harmful to your career. As she put it , she could make a lot of money becoming a phony contrarian and working for right wing thinktanks, but alas for her , she didnt spend a decade getting slaughtered for a PhD to turn around and become a pseudoscientist climate denier and instead has to just put up with a crappy university researcher wage.
Yeah, or just use the name scientists have used for it since the 1870s when Fourier et al started warning about CO2 and atmospheric infra-red trapping.
"The greenhouse effect"
They are completely different types of software. Mailchimp/etc can't do what mailman does, and for that matter mailman would be a poor choice for what mailchimp does.
Mailman is a mail discussion list manager, not a spam platform.