Any physical machine can be simulated on a computer, which includes a Turing machine. That doesn't mean the idea is math. In other words, the fact that X can be implemented on a computer does not imply that X is mathematics.
Because programs are used to decode/encode the name. It's the same problem with Y2K, user agent strings, and so on. When programs expect data in a certain format, such as two digits for years or a single number after a u in a version string, they don't react well when the format is changed. RTFA.
And anyone who lives on or has a business on the seashore. And millions of farmers and others that depend on rainfall patterns to continue to supply the water they need.
The question "Is there an invisible pink unicorn?" is just as relevant. Also, logic works only in formal systems, such as mathematics, and mathematics doesn't make any statements about the real world. Of course, you can use mathematics as a language for a model that gives predictions about what we will observe in the real world, but confusing the real world with math is like confusing the territory with a map.
I'm a graduate student in computer science. Nearly every paper I want to see is available for free, generally hosted on one of the authors' sites. When I ask authors for slides because I want to present their paper, they generally make them available for free. It seems to me that researchers want their papers read, presented, and discussed, and if making the papers freely available will accomplish that goal, they'll do it.
No, the problem wasn't no specs. The problem was that the system was designed on paper first, without actually building it. Then the specs for the individual pieces were created, and those individual modules were built from the specs. The idea was that then the parts were completed, they would be integrated and work perfectly together. Of course, that never happens because when the pieces come together for the first time, unanticipated problems occur. This is why early integration is a good idea and is part of the philosophy of release early, release often.
But 1.9 is not between 2 and 4, so those dumbass scientists have no idea. They just keep changing their minds and can't agree on anything, so obviously they have no idea what they're talking about!
Yes, it's ridiculous, but if you need any excuse not to believe in AGW, it will do just fine.
Autonomous unmanned flying vehicles operating outdoors with minimal supervision? I think we'll see secure Internet voting before we see that. I think cars that are able to drive themselves will happen first, too. Just for starters, what happens when the wind speed exceeds the speed the vehicle can achieve? It would have to land safely... and then what? Not to mention avoiding power lines, staying out of restricted airspace, making the system secure, batteries dying at inopportune times, communications issues, liability for damage caused, noise complaints, mechanical issues,...
The latest versions of every other browser run on Windows XP: Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera, and so on. Those latest versions also contain no publicly known security vulnerabilities according to Secunia. So I guess the answer is everyone but Microsoft provides quick fixes for that decade-old OS.
All we really need is the DNA sequence so we can splice it into bacteria or algae. Maybe in a few years we'll have designer babies with custom gene sequences such as the one that produces this substance.
As soon as it is prescribed for the wrong reasons, and as soon as patients do not take the full prescription. I'd give it a few days after coming on the market.
We could simply not require FDA approval before drugs are released to the market. That would result in much cheaper drugs, but it might have other consequences as well.
We would expect to see some record lows even during warming. The important point is that there are many more record highs being hit in recent years than record lows, which is exactly what you'd expect if the climate is warming. You can't tell whether the Earth as a whole is warming or cooling based on cherry-picking data.
What specific "natural influence" is causing the Earth to warm, and where is the evidence that supports this idea? To me, the "nature done it" is as much a cop out for global warming as "God done it" is for evolution. What are the details of this "natural influence"? Is overall solar output increasing significantly? I remember an extended solar minimum a few years ago, during which the temperatures on Earth did not go down. Are more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the Earth, causing more or fewer clouds, which is causing a warming effect? I've heard some talk about that idea, but never any measurements of cosmic rays increasing or decreasing over time.
Most common projections of the globe onto a float surface do not preserve area. Very often, the area near the poles is exaggerated. Greenland is actually smaller than Australia.
Kelvins below freezing would not make any sense. Kelvins are absolute units. 0 K is absolute zero. 1 K is one degree Celsius above absolute zero. On the other hand, degrees Fahrenheit below freezing makes perfect sense. One degree Fahrenheit below freezing is 31 degrees Fahrenheit.
You cannot tell with a single coin flip whether the coin is fair (50% probability of heads) or not. You cannot predict any particular flip of the coin. But if you flip a coin 1000 times and it comes up heads 659 times, you can say with a high degree of confidence that the coin is not fair. You still cannot predict any particular flip, but we can predict that we would see about 66 heads if we flipped the coin 100 times. If tomorrow we flip the coin 1000 times and it comes up head 831 times you have a high degree of confidence that the distribution of heads and tails changed since yesterday.
Weather is like a single coin flip. You cannot tell in advance easily whether it will rain or not or exactly what temperature it will be. But we can make statements about the average temperature in January or the average number of rainy days in April. If we see those values change over time, as we have all over the Earth, you can say that the climate is changing. With enough measurements over a long enough period of time, you can see the climate change at only one weather station. If we also see the same thing happen at thousands of other weather stations over decades, and we observe the ice sheets melting and the humidity increasing, then that's clear evidence of the climate changing.
That's the difference between weather and climate. Weather determines what you wear on a particular day. Climate determines what clothes you have in your closet.
Scientific evidence doesn't claim anything. People make claims, and I'm sure people have made false claims. If you look at what climate scientists have predicted, climate is changing even faster than predicted.
Developing countries don't want to cut their emissions because they already have low emissions. Countries that have had low emissions but are suffering from climate change also don't want to lower emissions. Paying them money levels the playing field and gets them to cooperate to continue to keep emissions low or reduce emissions. In short, we need countries to cooperate, so we need a deal that countries will agree to, which is one that everyone finds fair.
I don't think anyone thinks we can control *whether* coastal cities go underwater. We can just make it happen much more slowly by slowing the rate of warming. Many skeptics think that accepting AGW means thinking that we have complete and total control of the climate, which clearly isn't the case. We can control the part of climate change that is caused by human activities, which at this point seems to be most of the change in the past several decades.
Likewise, you're going to die some day, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be concerned about your health because you're going to die no matter what you do.
Slashdot Mirror
Any physical machine can be simulated on a computer, which includes a Turing machine. That doesn't mean the idea is math. In other words, the fact that X can be implemented on a computer does not imply that X is mathematics.
Because programs are used to decode/encode the name. It's the same problem with Y2K, user agent strings, and so on. When programs expect data in a certain format, such as two digits for years or a single number after a u in a version string, they don't react well when the format is changed. RTFA.
Commie!
And anyone who lives on or has a business on the seashore. And millions of farmers and others that depend on rainfall patterns to continue to supply the water they need.
The question "Is there an invisible pink unicorn?" is just as relevant. Also, logic works only in formal systems, such as mathematics, and mathematics doesn't make any statements about the real world. Of course, you can use mathematics as a language for a model that gives predictions about what we will observe in the real world, but confusing the real world with math is like confusing the territory with a map.
I'm a graduate student in computer science. Nearly every paper I want to see is available for free, generally hosted on one of the authors' sites. When I ask authors for slides because I want to present their paper, they generally make them available for free. It seems to me that researchers want their papers read, presented, and discussed, and if making the papers freely available will accomplish that goal, they'll do it.
No, the problem wasn't no specs. The problem was that the system was designed on paper first, without actually building it. Then the specs for the individual pieces were created, and those individual modules were built from the specs. The idea was that then the parts were completed, they would be integrated and work perfectly together. Of course, that never happens because when the pieces come together for the first time, unanticipated problems occur. This is why early integration is a good idea and is part of the philosophy of release early, release often.
But 1.9 is not between 2 and 4, so those dumbass scientists have no idea. They just keep changing their minds and can't agree on anything, so obviously they have no idea what they're talking about!
Yes, it's ridiculous, but if you need any excuse not to believe in AGW, it will do just fine.
Autonomous unmanned flying vehicles operating outdoors with minimal supervision? I think we'll see secure Internet voting before we see that. I think cars that are able to drive themselves will happen first, too. Just for starters, what happens when the wind speed exceeds the speed the vehicle can achieve? It would have to land safely... and then what? Not to mention avoiding power lines, staying out of restricted airspace, making the system secure, batteries dying at inopportune times, communications issues, liability for damage caused, noise complaints, mechanical issues, ...
The latest versions of every other browser run on Windows XP: Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera, and so on. Those latest versions also contain no publicly known security vulnerabilities according to Secunia. So I guess the answer is everyone but Microsoft provides quick fixes for that decade-old OS.
All we really need is the DNA sequence so we can splice it into bacteria or algae. Maybe in a few years we'll have designer babies with custom gene sequences such as the one that produces this substance.
As soon as it is prescribed for the wrong reasons, and as soon as patients do not take the full prescription. I'd give it a few days after coming on the market.
We could simply not require FDA approval before drugs are released to the market. That would result in much cheaper drugs, but it might have other consequences as well.
We would expect to see some record lows even during warming. The important point is that there are many more record highs being hit in recent years than record lows, which is exactly what you'd expect if the climate is warming. You can't tell whether the Earth as a whole is warming or cooling based on cherry-picking data.
What specific "natural influence" is causing the Earth to warm, and where is the evidence that supports this idea? To me, the "nature done it" is as much a cop out for global warming as "God done it" is for evolution. What are the details of this "natural influence"? Is overall solar output increasing significantly? I remember an extended solar minimum a few years ago, during which the temperatures on Earth did not go down. Are more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the Earth, causing more or fewer clouds, which is causing a warming effect? I've heard some talk about that idea, but never any measurements of cosmic rays increasing or decreasing over time.
It will be hard calling you six years ago.
Unlike Earth, whose temperature varies as one moves closer to or farther from the equator, Jupiter's temperature depends more on height above the surface. This is because heat is driven not by the sun but by the interior of the planet. Nice try, though!
Most common projections of the globe onto a float surface do not preserve area. Very often, the area near the poles is exaggerated. Greenland is actually smaller than Australia.
Kelvins below freezing would not make any sense. Kelvins are absolute units. 0 K is absolute zero. 1 K is one degree Celsius above absolute zero. On the other hand, degrees Fahrenheit below freezing makes perfect sense. One degree Fahrenheit below freezing is 31 degrees Fahrenheit.
You cannot tell with a single coin flip whether the coin is fair (50% probability of heads) or not. You cannot predict any particular flip of the coin. But if you flip a coin 1000 times and it comes up heads 659 times, you can say with a high degree of confidence that the coin is not fair. You still cannot predict any particular flip, but we can predict that we would see about 66 heads if we flipped the coin 100 times. If tomorrow we flip the coin 1000 times and it comes up head 831 times you have a high degree of confidence that the distribution of heads and tails changed since yesterday.
Weather is like a single coin flip. You cannot tell in advance easily whether it will rain or not or exactly what temperature it will be. But we can make statements about the average temperature in January or the average number of rainy days in April. If we see those values change over time, as we have all over the Earth, you can say that the climate is changing. With enough measurements over a long enough period of time, you can see the climate change at only one weather station. If we also see the same thing happen at thousands of other weather stations over decades, and we observe the ice sheets melting and the humidity increasing, then that's clear evidence of the climate changing.
That's the difference between weather and climate. Weather determines what you wear on a particular day. Climate determines what clothes you have in your closet.
No, the warming and sea level rise are continuing to accelerate meaning the last decade was the warmest on record.
Scientific evidence doesn't claim anything. People make claims, and I'm sure people have made false claims. If you look at what climate scientists have predicted, climate is changing even faster than predicted.
Developing countries don't want to cut their emissions because they already have low emissions. Countries that have had low emissions but are suffering from climate change also don't want to lower emissions. Paying them money levels the playing field and gets them to cooperate to continue to keep emissions low or reduce emissions. In short, we need countries to cooperate, so we need a deal that countries will agree to, which is one that everyone finds fair.
Ah... so disbelieving AGW has nothing to do with scientific evidence. Thank you for clearing that up once and for all.
I don't think anyone thinks we can control *whether* coastal cities go underwater. We can just make it happen much more slowly by slowing the rate of warming. Many skeptics think that accepting AGW means thinking that we have complete and total control of the climate, which clearly isn't the case. We can control the part of climate change that is caused by human activities, which at this point seems to be most of the change in the past several decades.
Likewise, you're going to die some day, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be concerned about your health because you're going to die no matter what you do.