Finally, climate models find a world where their accuracy doesn't constitute a risk; a world where their results aren't partial lies or won't be used for political or financial gain.
Really... will you believe any imagery coming from a supposed Chinese moon rover? Remember the Olympics? And they were faking something that was totally easy to do.
Interesting as your assumption is that richness of experience is only determined by _your_ sensory level of sensory input. But you use the word "likely" a lot. You simply don't know what is going on at the clam's sensory level; you don't know what it feels, and you certainly don't know for certain that it is a purely reactive system operating on an involuntary level. That is simply and completely what you assume from the observations of people ('scientists') who began their investigations with that very assumption i.e. 'biologists' - pseudo scientists who believe all other life-forms are simply automatons, wonderful organic machines.
What you can say is: the organism survived for hundreds of years in its environment until someone killed it to see how long it had been doing so. The value of the observation is dubious. The act illustrates the limited intellectual capacity of the 'scientists' in the field who clearly could not concieve of an alternative methodology.
... just clever guys hacking around, having fun exploring. The sciences are those based on rigorous mathematics applied by those who deeply understand those mathematics (yes, that excludes climatologists).
A lot of the pseudo-sciences also have a weak grasp of technology; do you really have to kill everything you study? Yes, say biologists, medical researchers, etc.
... that if anyone presents you a model of anything, it is likely wrong to a degree they can only guess at.
Economic, social, biological, climate (to mention just a few) are to be taken with a huge grain of salt. It is nice people study these things and increase our knowledge. That sort of pursuit is to be encouraged and applauded. But the minute anyone says they have it all understood... stop listening. They don't.
Think: when was the last time you heard about a model and were told its accuracy _and_ assumptions (and the accuracy of those). And, importantly, what were you told about the robustness of the model ie. how sensitive it was to changes in variables (black swans, incorrect assumptions, etc)? That's right. Never.
One of the most senior people in my agency once said to me:
"I expect everybody to do a good job. I promote those who do more."
He explained that basically everybody is pretty much equally talented and met the job requirements. There is variability but half the time that has less to do with talent and more to do with circumstances, either personal or corporate. The real stars were people who did 'extra'. The persons who stepped up to corporate or personal challenges: organized the corporate safety program, family days, were scout leaders or involved in their community. When promotion time came, or cuts were required, the rewards went to people who simply did more than was asked or required. Not surprisingly, those who rose were loyal to the agency, some left but never because they felt underappreciated.
Bottom line: if all you do is the job, then your loyalty is to your work (and self) not your company. Big difference. And in a group of self-interested people, the company will be basically picking the best it can from a bunch of bad apples. So really, who cares about the mechanism?
... thanks to GCHQ/NSA blanket culling of personal information/emails?
Yeah. Still a rampant drug, pedo, and terrorist trade out there. Still reacting to surprise attacks. Despite the massive breach of privacy, the return has been minimal. Seriously, ask yourself: if 'they' have their finger so thoroughly on the pulse, why aren't they regularly trumpeting their latest triumph over criminals and terrorists. In fact, a thought occurs: could you convict a paedophile based on the information that GCHQ culled? Is there not some equivalent of a requirement for a warrant? Anyways...
Why not just go out and randomly jail people, interrogate them thoroughly, and see what you come up with. Likely just as effective.
If the obscene invasion of privacy were effective, one might be inclined to think it worth the huge sums invested. But it simply isn't.
They are all about 'respect'... being directed towards themselves that is. Giving respect just isn't on the radar. Phone/text in a meeting is dis-respect of all others at the meeting, esp. the person(s) being tuned out during the call/text.
Mind you, it isn't just the 20-somethings. Note that the stats show the mind set is present in all age groups.
Blame the Boomers. They taught the world that nothing deserves respect; tear down the establishment, sod religion, nothing but the 'self' matters. And that attitude prevails in everything, it permeates advertising, sports, entertainment... except, you might think, Disney with its heavy 'family is number one' message. But that message is simply treating the family as a bigger 'self', so it's all the same.
Javascript is the language of the UI of the future: the browser. Javascript is fast enough: 2x C/C++ (on par or faster for some tasks). Javascript is... lacking libraries BUT it can call C/C++ routines or the latter can be converted to JS/NodeJS using Emscripten/LLVM.
Speed only makes sense in real-time apps, say day-trading or control systems. If you are crunching numbers, what difference does an hour or a day or a week make? Seriously, if you are sitting around idle while your numbers a crunching, you are a waste of space. You should be: planning the next experiment, reviewing/refactoring your code for correctness and efficiency, writing the paper in which your results will be published (esp. intro, background, experimental set-up/procedure), setting up the website on which you will publish the pre-print so others can review your work and maybe prevent you from publishing foolishness, fleshing out your next steps to follow your results, thinking of your next great hypothesis.
Screw speed, it will come with faster processors. Code, make your code correct, and make it accessible and shareable. Javascript/Nodejs will do that in spades.
If they're writing up non-reproduceable experiments, perhaps not. Mind you, there's hope at least in say physics or computer science where results are rather easily verifiable. Pseudo-sciences like anthropology or paleontology, where a handful of skulls is used to declare the details of millenial long processes or species-wide traits, well, not so much.
... thanks Aereo. The broadcasters are correct, Aereo is stealing by reselling content that is not theirs to resell. If they streamed it for free, that would be different. In any case, the broadcasters have likely been looking for a reason to forego OTA and this is as good a reason as any.
Alternative business idea: take OTA FM radio broadcasts and stream that to subscribers... oh, that's illegal too.
Planting the seed in a person's mind that it is fine to 'control' lesser beings.
Child/insect seems fine if it doesn't subsequently scale to boy/girl, girl/boy, adult/youth, manager/worker, country/country, race/race... right?
Slippery slope.
In any case, an experiment on a living thing without purpose (say, cure for cancer) is simply animal cruelty. There is no need for this experiment, the lesson can be better taught in so many other ways.
They only back events with the smallest possible probability of occurence.
They stand to profit from sowing fear.
On those criteria alone, you might simply conclude that the insurance industry has found: the climate is not changing nor is the incidence of extreme weather, and that humans are not the cause of any changes.
Honesty from the insurance industry? Now that's a low probability event.
Is it a story if streetlights, hockey pucks, or whatever get converted to "wifi hotspots" so someone can make a buck? This just in: public statues converted to wifi hotspots (if you can afford them), public urinals converted to wifi hotspots (if you can afford them), your genitalia converted to... really?
A cooler story: NZ government converts phone booths to free public wifi hotspots in effort ensure broader access to internet.
Roger Peng's comment shows a typical, superficial understanding of programming. Ironically, he would be the first to condemn a computer scientist/coder who ventured in to biostatistics with a superficial knowledge of biology. I believe he would feel that anyone can program, but not anyone can do biostatistics. And I deeply disagree. Tools have been provided so that _any_ scientist can code. That does not mean that they understand coding or computer science.
I have personally experienced that especially in the softer sciences like biology, economy, meteorology, etc., the scientists have absolutely no desire to learn any computer science: coding methodology, testing, complexity, algorithms, etc. The result is kludgy, inefficient code heavily dependent on pre-packaged modules, that produces results that are often a guess; the code produces results but with a lack of any understanding of what the various packaged routines are doing or whether they are appropriate for the task. For example, someone using default settings on a principal component analysis package not understanding that the package expects the user to have pre-processed the data; the output looks fine but it is wrong. It is the same as someone approaching engineering without some understanding of thermodynamics and as a result wasting their time trying to construct a perpetual motion machine.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally, climate models find a world where their accuracy doesn't constitute a risk; a world where their results aren't partial lies or won't be used for political or financial gain.
Just keep them out of reality, thanks.
If _nothing_ changes, yes this will all come to pass.
BUT
Want to bet that in a lab somewhere, there is something that will let Moore's continue?
Think: how many times has this prediction been made and then proven wrong? Wonder if these statements are just ploys to jack up prices?
Sit back, relax, and be prepared to be amazed.
Really ... will you believe any imagery coming from a supposed Chinese moon rover? Remember the Olympics? And they were faking something that was totally easy to do.
We are not alone, just saying.
Because massive farming of uni-crops is environmentally friendly, or are all Norway's veggies taken from small, diverse, strictly organic farms?
And meanwhile, military vehicles are hardly known for the fuel and combustion efficiency.
Whatever. Wonder what the real reason is?
Interesting as your assumption is that richness of experience is only determined by _your_ sensory level of sensory input. But you use the word "likely" a lot. You simply don't know what is going on at the clam's sensory level; you don't know what it feels, and you certainly don't know for certain that it is a purely reactive system operating on an involuntary level. That is simply and completely what you assume from the observations of people ('scientists') who began their investigations with that very assumption i.e. 'biologists' - pseudo scientists who believe all other life-forms are simply automatons, wonderful organic machines.
What you can say is: the organism survived for hundreds of years in its environment until someone killed it to see how long it had been doing so. The value of the observation is dubious. The act illustrates the limited intellectual capacity of the 'scientists' in the field who clearly could not concieve of an alternative methodology.
... just clever guys hacking around, having fun exploring. The sciences are those based on rigorous mathematics applied by those who deeply understand those mathematics (yes, that excludes climatologists).
A lot of the pseudo-sciences also have a weak grasp of technology; do you really have to kill everything you study? Yes, say biologists, medical researchers, etc.
... that if anyone presents you a model of anything, it is likely wrong to a degree they can only guess at.
Economic, social, biological, climate (to mention just a few) are to be taken with a huge grain of salt. It is nice people study these things and increase our knowledge. That sort of pursuit is to be encouraged and applauded. But the minute anyone says they have it all understood ... stop listening. They don't.
Think: when was the last time you heard about a model and were told its accuracy _and_ assumptions (and the accuracy of those). And, importantly, what were you told about the robustness of the model ie. how sensitive it was to changes in variables (black swans, incorrect assumptions, etc)? That's right. Never.
... and we collect the urine to power the robots.
Wait that's absurd. You couldn't get the cows to use the urinals.
So we hook up these tubes to the bull penises and ... ummm, you go first.
How the hell is this a problem?
Few people really 'got' what was going on; some people remain unaware; and most really don't care.
Companies will lie, politicians will lie, and the people will pretend to believe them and carry on.
One of the most senior people in my agency once said to me:
"I expect everybody to do a good job. I promote those who do more."
He explained that basically everybody is pretty much equally talented and met the job requirements. There is variability but half the time that has less to do with talent and more to do with circumstances, either personal or corporate. The real stars were people who did 'extra'. The persons who stepped up to corporate or personal challenges: organized the corporate safety program, family days, were scout leaders or involved in their community. When promotion time came, or cuts were required, the rewards went to people who simply did more than was asked or required. Not surprisingly, those who rose were loyal to the agency, some left but never because they felt underappreciated.
Bottom line: if all you do is the job, then your loyalty is to your work (and self) not your company. Big difference. And in a group of self-interested people, the company will be basically picking the best it can from a bunch of bad apples. So really, who cares about the mechanism?
... and solution to all the world's problems. Find a marketable use for jellyfish.
Hmm ... can you make a dangerous recreational drug out of the things? Jelly-meth?
Can they be converted in to a food supplement or fertilizer?
Can we convince someone they are good for the libido (sexual appetite/performance)?
Can they be made in to a soup, something like shark fins?
Can they be incorporated in to a cosmetic?
Achieve any of the above and we will begin to fish them in to extinction, problem solved.
... thanks to GCHQ/NSA blanket culling of personal information/emails?
Yeah. Still a rampant drug, pedo, and terrorist trade out there. Still reacting to surprise attacks. Despite the massive breach of privacy, the return has been minimal. Seriously, ask yourself: if 'they' have their finger so thoroughly on the pulse, why aren't they regularly trumpeting their latest triumph over criminals and terrorists. In fact, a thought occurs: could you convict a paedophile based on the information that GCHQ culled? Is there not some equivalent of a requirement for a warrant? Anyways ...
Why not just go out and randomly jail people, interrogate them thoroughly, and see what you come up with. Likely just as effective.
If the obscene invasion of privacy were effective, one might be inclined to think it worth the huge sums invested. But it simply isn't.
They are all about 'respect' ... being directed towards themselves that is. Giving respect just isn't on the radar. Phone/text in a meeting is dis-respect of all others at the meeting, esp. the person(s) being tuned out during the call/text.
Mind you, it isn't just the 20-somethings. Note that the stats show the mind set is present in all age groups.
Blame the Boomers. They taught the world that nothing deserves respect; tear down the establishment, sod religion, nothing but the 'self' matters. And that attitude prevails in everything, it permeates advertising, sports, entertainment ... except, you might think, Disney with its heavy 'family is number one' message. But that message is simply treating the family as a bigger 'self', so it's all the same.
Javascript is the language of the UI of the future: the browser. ... lacking libraries BUT it can call C/C++ routines or the latter can be converted to JS/NodeJS using Emscripten/LLVM.
Javascript is fast enough: 2x C/C++ (on par or faster for some tasks).
Javascript is
Speed only makes sense in real-time apps, say day-trading or control systems. If you are crunching numbers, what difference does an hour or a day or a week make? Seriously, if you are sitting around idle while your numbers a crunching, you are a waste of space. You should be:
planning the next experiment,
reviewing/refactoring your code for correctness and efficiency,
writing the paper in which your results will be published (esp. intro, background, experimental set-up/procedure),
setting up the website on which you will publish the pre-print so others can review your work and maybe prevent you from publishing foolishness,
fleshing out your next steps to follow your results,
thinking of your next great hypothesis.
Screw speed, it will come with faster processors. Code, make your code correct, and make it accessible and shareable. Javascript/Nodejs will do that in spades.
If they're writing up non-reproduceable experiments, perhaps not. Mind you, there's hope at least in say physics or computer science where results are rather easily verifiable. Pseudo-sciences like anthropology or paleontology, where a handful of skulls is used to declare the details of millenial long processes or species-wide traits, well, not so much.
5 skulls leading to pronouncements on the species and its evolution?!
5 of several tens or hundreds of thousands is not statistically significant.
This is why creationism can survive, because it at times makes as much sense as the extraordinary extrapolations tossed out by scientists.
Make it right. Demand that the scientists also share possible margins of error (in this case HUGE).
... thanks Aereo. The broadcasters are correct, Aereo is stealing by reselling content that is not theirs to resell. If they streamed it for free, that would be different. In any case, the broadcasters have likely been looking for a reason to forego OTA and this is as good a reason as any.
Alternative business idea: take OTA FM radio broadcasts and stream that to subscribers ... oh, that's illegal too.
Planting the seed in a person's mind that it is fine to 'control' lesser beings.
Child/insect seems fine if it doesn't subsequently scale to boy/girl, girl/boy, adult/youth, manager/worker, country/country, race/race ... right?
Slippery slope.
In any case, an experiment on a living thing without purpose (say, cure for cancer) is simply animal cruelty. There is no need for this experiment, the lesson can be better taught in so many other ways.
... dumb-asses. Dr. Marcy's observation is typical in not getting it; it isn't about the conference content, it's about the location.
They only back events with the smallest possible probability of occurence.
They stand to profit from sowing fear.
On those criteria alone, you might simply conclude that the insurance industry has found: the climate is not changing nor is the incidence of extreme weather, and that humans are not the cause of any changes.
Honesty from the insurance industry? Now that's a low probability event.
Is it a story if streetlights, hockey pucks, or whatever get converted to "wifi hotspots" so someone can make a buck? This just in: public statues converted to wifi hotspots (if you can afford them), public urinals converted to wifi hotspots (if you can afford them), your genitalia converted to ... really?
A cooler story: NZ government converts phone booths to free public wifi hotspots in effort ensure broader access to internet.
Roger Peng's comment shows a typical, superficial understanding of programming. Ironically, he would be the first to condemn a computer scientist/coder who ventured in to biostatistics with a superficial knowledge of biology. I believe he would feel that anyone can program, but not anyone can do biostatistics. And I deeply disagree. Tools have been provided so that _any_ scientist can code. That does not mean that they understand coding or computer science.
I have personally experienced that especially in the softer sciences like biology, economy, meteorology, etc., the scientists have absolutely no desire to learn any computer science: coding methodology, testing, complexity, algorithms, etc. The result is kludgy, inefficient code heavily dependent on pre-packaged modules, that produces results that are often a guess; the code produces results but with a lack of any understanding of what the various packaged routines are doing or whether they are appropriate for the task. For example, someone using default settings on a principal component analysis package not understanding that the package expects the user to have pre-processed the data; the output looks fine but it is wrong. It is the same as someone approaching engineering without some understanding of thermodynamics and as a result wasting their time trying to construct a perpetual motion machine.