There was a time when they said that birds of prey nesting areas were being wiped out by city expansion. The birds adapted. The lesson was repeated over and over. Coyotes adapted. All manner of other creatures adapted.
Life is about change. Change will happen whether we want it or not. Always.
There will always be those for whom it will happen too quickly. And there will always be those who will adapt quickly enough. Enjoy the ride, don't fret about it.
Yes. You're right. And if it's so hard to do, and admittedly inaccurate, doesn't it seem foolish to base global government policies and spending on them? Just saying.
I do feel entitled to download everything I've already paid for. I will not pay for the e-version of a book I own or that is out of print. I will not pay again for a record/tape/CD I already own. And I will not pay full hardcover price for an ebook, full price for a CD with only one or two desired songs, nor hesitate to view/obtain a movie for free to avoid escalating cinema costs.
He's Wrong about the Internet:
The Internet galvanized the public, academia, and industry into pushing the bounds of technology. It has precipitated a technological growth from which the entertainment industry has benefited handsomely. Production quality has increased while its costs have decreased. Dissemination of entertainment has, thanks to the internet (and peripheral technologies), been able to greatly expand markets, enhance product marketing, tune the delivery of content, and all for a lower cost. And I still buy DVD's and CD's and go to cinemas when I think they are worth the price.
He Doesn't get that:
The audience aren't inherently criminals, they simply want a fair price for a product. And until the entertainment industry accepts that, then the audience will seek fairness by any means possible.
Seems the debate about feeling pain is just to address some need to for humans to feel it's "morally okay".
Who cares? You're killing something that, given the choice, doesn't want to be killed. Once you've decided to kill it, the means only matter to you. Whatever is getting killed is going to be unhappy with the result regardless.
"Lohafex researchers say the results suggest that using iron fertilisation to increase the ocean carbon sink would rely on a complex chain of events, making it difficult to control."
Since biology has no first principles (like say physics, math,...), has the barest understanding of the ocean's ecosystems, an even lesser understanding of the ocean's role in climate, how can this possibly be a surprise. Oh, guess what, the experiment was retried a few weeks later but failed to reproduce because "most probably " the AREA WAS SATURATED WITH IRON. Isn't that alarming both of the fact and that the experimenters don't know for sure?
Conclusion: these ill-concieved experiments have commercial interests. Companies hope to profit on carbon credits.
So, in a nutshell, willful pollution of the ocean with little thought of impact all in the name of profit.
Let's say you discovered that global warming was a natural phenomena when all along you'd been saying it was the fault of humans. You can't come out and say you're wrong but how would you explain the lack of impact (now and future) of the measures you've been proselytizing about? Why simply say that the warming effect is so long lasting that none of us will see the outcome of whatever measures we've been bullied/conned in to taking now. Whatever. We understand only the littlest bit of how the climate works. No surprise, since it is very complicated and at this point we can really just observe what is happening with very little comprehension. Just lets quit talking as if we 'get' it. We don't.
IANAC (I am not a cryptographer.) but wouldn't this be a useful tool for criminals and terrorists? It would seem the height of folly to give such a tool away to them... unless there was a way of mitigating it's usefulness.
a) study was local to "pristine" Southern Hemisphere ocean regions. Which are _not_ the same as the rest of the world. They were simply where it was easier to measure cosmic rays. Therefore bit of a stretch to extrapolate globally;
b) time frame for study was 2000-2005. Precise cosmic ray measurements are a recent thing, as are pretty much all climate measurements. No mention of error for extrapolations over any longer time frame when such errors must necessarily be huge.
c) emphasis in article about how conclusions agree with majority of researchers AND how the theory they were testing was adhered to by a largely unsupported minority. Does that matter? Science isn't a democracy eg. Thomas Gold & Pulsars.
As in all climate studies the margins of error are large and the sources for error are unreported.
... so don't. It's that simple. Right now you're just contemplating taking your company's idea and doing it better. Problem is, you promised (contractually) that you wouldn't.
Take the high road. You and your friends sound like you're clever. Maybe tell your company the better way to do it, your vision. Try and sell them on it and maybe you could end up local heroes for doing it. Or better yet, think up something new... really new... original.
Is this something new? Is this what's changing the climate? And before you start with the "No because..." bear in mind that the real answer is... we don't know.
From the article:
"Ten years ago I was pretty sure they didn't exist, but now the evidence is incontrovertible."
"We used to think the connection was permanent and that solar wind could trickle into the near-Earth environment anytime the wind was active," says Sibeck. "We were wrong. The connections are not steady at all. They are often brief, bursty and very dynamic."
"Passive FTEs may not be very important, but until we know more about them we can't be sure."
Oh, and you might try finding something that throttles the CPU clock back. I've been wondering about this since using the Irex Iliad e-book machine. In attempts to extend battery life in the Iliad, the CPU freq is throttled back. Is there any software that does that dynamically say when running a word processor, surfing, email, etc.?
I have Ubuntu 8.04 running on a Fujitsu 7010. The reason is that the laptop is very light, a feature I seek for extended travel. But battery life, my other top desired feature, is still poor... maybe 3 hours tops. I have found that Ubuntu can't do hibernate or suspend with this machine and that is rather important for extending battery life. My conclusion has been to order an AspireOne in the hopes of getting extended battery life (apparently up to 6 hours).
I don't think software is the answer in your case. I think some hardware hacking may be easiest. Put in an SSD HD and upgrade the battery. Those mods and keeping the existing OS (which is exactly tailored to the machine) will likely meet your goals.
A full laptop is a hot, heavy, short lived mother to lug around. And is the latest dual core or multi-ghz processor really necessary for anything but gaming, visual arts and number crunching? Something lighter, cooler, and with a longer battery life to surf, email, do some light editing, and read an e-boook seems to be in order for day to day living.
Who are 'they' and 'them' and why are you assuming you know what they need? Seems like ASUS Eee's success suggests that it nailed what 'they' and 'them' need.
Two things. The first is that it is tritely obvious that adding more data improves your results. But there are two possible mechanisms at work. On the one hand add more of the same data ie. just make your original database larger with more entries. That form of augmentation will hopefully give you more insight into the underlying distribution of the data. On the other hand you can augment the existing data. In the latter you are really adding extra dimensions/features/attributes to the data set. That's what seems to be alluded to in the article i.e. the students are adding extra features to the original data set. The success of the technique is a trivial result which depends very much on whether the features you add are discriminating or not. In this case, the IMDB presumably added discriminating features. However, if it had not, then "improved algorithms" would have had the upper hand.
The second thing about the claim seems to be that there is always additional information actually available. The comment is made that academia and business don't seem to appreciate the value of augmenting the data. That is false. In business additional data is often just not available (physically or for cost reasons). Consequently, improving your algorithms is all you can do. Similarly in academia (say a computer science department) the assumption is often that you are trying to improve your algorithms while assuming that you have all the data available.
Without them, Hubble would have failed to capture public interest and consequently would have been lobbed into the atmosphere the first time they considered its fate. So, frankly, it is all about the "bloody pictures" because the math only interests a small minority.
Most people don't care how or why a roses exist, it is enough that they are beautiful and fragrant and inspiring.
... remnants from a similar jet is what Earth is currently passing through? As a result our ozone layer has been subjected to some depletion and other atmospheric effects have led to a slight global change in climate. Yeah, yeah. A hypothesis riddled with weak points BUT before you slag it with "why it can't....", what if we extend our minds a bit and see if it could happen THEN slag it.
What if say, our companion dwarf galaxies have somehow redirected a bit of a similar jet from our own galactic black hole and Earth's just started swimming through it?
Or what about the POV of some planet in the affected galaxy that might well have noticed the effects of the onset of the jet but not had the technology or scientific principles to deduce the source eg.they had no black hole theory or no inclination for astronomy. What would their deductions have been and what courses of action might they have been inclined to follow as they saw their atmosphere changing?
Or, with all the hypothesizing about Dark Matter and Energy, is it possible that Dark Jets exist? If so, what might those be and what might they entail? Anyone on the cutting edge of this field?
This isn't progress. It is simply quantification. If you have ever worked with the disabled and physically/psychically traumatized you might wonder why exactly scientists wouldn't believe the brain to be more flexible "than they previously thought". The brain is so poorly understood in terms of how it works expect a long and tedious continuation of these pronouncements in the coming decades.
a) Homogenization of the vote? Any other senator would be wise, in the absence of strong constituency lobbying, to simply vote with the Senator Online. How could you go wrong if the Online vote is a reflection of the public desire?
b) What is the likely demographic of those who would use Senator Online? The hard working middle-class type isn't likely to want the added burden of being a defacto senator added to the existing job, parenting, soccer mom'ing, etc. Maybe the Senator Online would reflect the will of those with time to spare eg. retirees, welfare abusers, other politcal candidates with an agenda to push, Slashdotters wanting to comment on something different?
c) What platform would a Senator Online candidate use? Great to be a candidate if all you do is vote as told. Who could find fault with your performance? A job for life if you could get it. But what's your election platform? "Vote for me. I'll do exactly what you want... uh... better than the other guy who wants to do the same thing. Umm... I'll do it naked!"
Doesn't this almost seem like Tom Sawyer? Get someone else to do the work (assume researchers/collaters are hired), get someone else to take responsibility (the online voters) but you take the perks (and pay). Does this seem like a scam to anyone else?
Apology accepted. And I in turn apologize for the "half-assed guess..." But it is infuriating to see such a pat response tossed out when the hole size almost reached '97-06' min levels at one point. Why can't we just say "We don't know. We are still learning."?
Slashdot Mirror
If the most pessimistic global warming predictions are true it will mean ....
... that someone will have to have made an accurate model about the global economy. And there don't seem to be any of those.
Inaccurate climate model + inaccurate economic model = ?
Scaremongering for the most part seems to be the answer.
There was a time when they said that birds of prey nesting areas were being wiped out by city expansion. The birds adapted. The lesson was repeated over and over. Coyotes adapted. All manner of other creatures adapted.
Life is about change. Change will happen whether we want it or not. Always.
There will always be those for whom it will happen too quickly. And there will always be those who will adapt quickly enough. Enjoy the ride, don't fret about it.
Yes. You're right. And if it's so hard to do, and admittedly inaccurate, doesn't it seem foolish to base global government policies and spending on them? Just saying.
He's Right that:
I do feel entitled to download everything I've already paid for. I will not pay for the e-version of a book I own or that is out of print. I will not pay again for a record/tape/CD I already own. And I will not pay full hardcover price for an ebook, full price for a CD with only one or two desired songs, nor hesitate to view/obtain a movie for free to avoid escalating cinema costs.
He's Wrong about the Internet:
The Internet galvanized the public, academia, and industry into pushing the bounds of technology. It has precipitated a technological growth from which the entertainment industry has benefited handsomely. Production quality has increased while its costs have decreased. Dissemination of entertainment has, thanks to the internet (and peripheral technologies), been able to greatly expand markets, enhance product marketing, tune the delivery of content, and all for a lower cost. And I still buy DVD's and CD's and go to cinemas when I think they are worth the price.
He Doesn't get that:
The audience aren't inherently criminals, they simply want a fair price for a product. And until the entertainment industry accepts that, then the audience will seek fairness by any means possible.
Seems the debate about feeling pain is just to address some need to for humans to feel it's "morally okay".
Who cares? You're killing something that, given the choice, doesn't want to be killed. Once you've decided to kill it, the means only matter to you. Whatever is getting killed is going to be unhappy with the result regardless.
From the article:
"Lohafex researchers say the results suggest that using iron fertilisation to increase the ocean carbon sink would rely on a complex chain of events, making it difficult to control."
Since biology has no first principles (like say physics, math, ...), has the barest understanding of the ocean's ecosystems, an even lesser understanding of the ocean's role in climate, how can this possibly be a surprise. Oh, guess what, the experiment was retried a few weeks later but failed to reproduce because "most probably " the AREA WAS SATURATED WITH IRON. Isn't that alarming both of the fact and that the experimenters don't know for sure?
Conclusion: these ill-concieved experiments have commercial interests. Companies hope to profit on carbon credits.
So, in a nutshell, willful pollution of the ocean with little thought of impact all in the name of profit.
Give me climate change thanks.
Let's say you discovered that global warming was a natural phenomena when all along you'd been saying it was the fault of humans. You can't come out and say you're wrong but how would you explain the lack of impact (now and future) of the measures you've been proselytizing about? Why simply say that the warming effect is so long lasting that none of us will see the outcome of whatever measures we've been bullied/conned in to taking now. Whatever. We understand only the littlest bit of how the climate works. No surprise, since it is very complicated and at this point we can really just observe what is happening with very little comprehension. Just lets quit talking as if we 'get' it. We don't.
So we know exactly how to fix this? And we are become God. Woohoo! Wait ... and isn't that how we got into this purported mess?
IANAC (I am not a cryptographer.) but wouldn't this be a useful tool for criminals and terrorists? It would seem the height of folly to give such a tool away to them ... unless there was a way of mitigating it's usefulness.
There is no free lunch.
a) study was local to "pristine" Southern Hemisphere ocean regions. Which are _not_ the same as the rest of the world. They were simply where it was easier to measure cosmic rays. Therefore bit of a stretch to extrapolate globally;
b) time frame for study was 2000-2005. Precise cosmic ray measurements are a recent thing, as are pretty much all climate measurements. No mention of error for extrapolations over any longer time frame when such errors must necessarily be huge.
c) emphasis in article about how conclusions agree with majority of researchers AND how the theory they were testing was adhered to by a largely unsupported minority. Does that matter? Science isn't a democracy eg. Thomas Gold & Pulsars.
As in all climate studies the margins of error are large and the sources for error are unreported.
... so don't. It's that simple. Right now you're just contemplating taking your company's idea and doing it better. Problem is, you promised (contractually) that you wouldn't.
Take the high road. You and your friends sound like you're clever. Maybe tell your company the better way to do it, your vision. Try and sell them on it and maybe you could end up local heroes for doing it. Or better yet, think up something new ... really new ... original.
Is this something new? Is this what's changing the climate? And before you start with the "No because ..." bear in mind that the real answer is ... we don't know.
From the article:
"Ten years ago I was pretty sure they didn't exist, but now the evidence is incontrovertible."
"We used to think the connection was permanent and that solar wind could trickle into the near-Earth environment anytime the wind was active," says Sibeck. "We were wrong. The connections are not steady at all. They are often brief, bursty and very dynamic."
"Passive FTEs may not be very important, but until we know more about them we can't be sure."
Oh, and you might try finding something that throttles the CPU clock back. I've been wondering about this since using the Irex Iliad e-book machine. In attempts to extend battery life in the Iliad, the CPU freq is throttled back. Is there any software that does that dynamically say when running a word processor, surfing, email, etc.?
I have Ubuntu 8.04 running on a Fujitsu 7010. The reason is that the laptop is very light, a feature I seek for extended travel. But battery life, my other top desired feature, is still poor ... maybe 3 hours tops. I have found that Ubuntu can't do hibernate or suspend with this machine and that is rather important for extending battery life. My conclusion has been to order an AspireOne in the hopes of getting extended battery life (apparently up to 6 hours).
I don't think software is the answer in your case. I think some hardware hacking may be easiest. Put in an SSD HD and upgrade the battery. Those mods and keeping the existing OS (which is exactly tailored to the machine) will likely meet your goals.
Celio Redfly
Where's the surprise in this? No news here.
A full laptop is a hot, heavy, short lived mother to lug around. And is the latest dual core or multi-ghz processor really necessary for anything but gaming, visual arts and number crunching? Something lighter, cooler, and with a longer battery life to surf, email, do some light editing, and read an e-boook seems to be in order for day to day living.
Who are 'they' and 'them' and why are you assuming you know what they need? Seems like ASUS Eee's success suggests that it nailed what 'they' and 'them' need.
Two things. The first is that it is tritely obvious that adding more data improves your results. But there are two possible mechanisms at work. On the one hand add more of the same data ie. just make your original database larger with more entries. That form of augmentation will hopefully give you more insight into the underlying distribution of the data. On the other hand you can augment the existing data. In the latter you are really adding extra dimensions/features/attributes to the data set. That's what seems to be alluded to in the article i.e. the students are adding extra features to the original data set. The success of the technique is a trivial result which depends very much on whether the features you add are discriminating or not. In this case, the IMDB presumably added discriminating features. However, if it had not, then "improved algorithms" would have had the upper hand.
The second thing about the claim seems to be that there is always additional information actually available. The comment is made that academia and business don't seem to appreciate the value of augmenting the data. That is false. In business additional data is often just not available (physically or for cost reasons). Consequently, improving your algorithms is all you can do. Similarly in academia (say a computer science department) the assumption is often that you are trying to improve your algorithms while assuming that you have all the data available.
Without them, Hubble would have failed to capture public interest and consequently would have been lobbed into the atmosphere the first time they considered its fate. So, frankly, it is all about the "bloody pictures" because the math only interests a small minority.
Most people don't care how or why a roses exist, it is enough that they are beautiful and fragrant and inspiring.
... remnants from a similar jet is what Earth is currently passing through? As a result our ozone layer has been subjected to some depletion and other atmospheric effects have led to a slight global change in climate. Yeah, yeah. A hypothesis riddled with weak points BUT before you slag it with "why it can't ....", what if we extend our minds a bit and see if it could happen THEN slag it.
What if say, our companion dwarf galaxies have somehow redirected a bit of a similar jet from our own galactic black hole and Earth's just started swimming through it?
Or what about the POV of some planet in the affected galaxy that might well have noticed the effects of the onset of the jet but not had the technology or scientific principles to deduce the source eg.they had no black hole theory or no inclination for astronomy. What would their deductions have been and what courses of action might they have been inclined to follow as they saw their atmosphere changing?
Or, with all the hypothesizing about Dark Matter and Energy, is it possible that Dark Jets exist? If so, what might those be and what might they entail? Anyone on the cutting edge of this field?
Does anyone know if the OLPC can be claimed as a charitable organization in Canada i.e. can you claim an exemption?
This isn't progress. It is simply quantification. If you have ever worked with the disabled and physically/psychically traumatized you might wonder why exactly scientists wouldn't believe the brain to be more flexible "than they previously thought". The brain is so poorly understood in terms of how it works expect a long and tedious continuation of these pronouncements in the coming decades.
Some thoughts:
... uh ... better than the other guy who wants to do the same thing. Umm ... I'll do it naked!"
a) Homogenization of the vote? Any other senator would be wise, in the absence of strong constituency lobbying, to simply vote with the Senator Online. How could you go wrong if the Online vote is a reflection of the public desire?
b) What is the likely demographic of those who would use Senator Online? The hard working middle-class type isn't likely to want the added burden of being a defacto senator added to the existing job, parenting, soccer mom'ing, etc. Maybe the Senator Online would reflect the will of those with time to spare eg. retirees, welfare abusers, other politcal candidates with an agenda to push, Slashdotters wanting to comment on something different?
c) What platform would a Senator Online candidate use? Great to be a candidate if all you do is vote as told. Who could find fault with your performance? A job for life if you could get it. But what's your election platform? "Vote for me. I'll do exactly what you want
Doesn't this almost seem like Tom Sawyer? Get someone else to do the work (assume researchers/collaters are hired), get someone else to take responsibility (the online voters) but you take the perks (and pay). Does this seem like a scam to anyone else?
Apology accepted. And I in turn apologize for the "half-assed guess ..." But it is infuriating to see such a pat response tossed out when the hole size almost reached '97-06' min levels at one point. Why can't we just say "We don't know. We are still learning."?