Journals certify the peer review. They pick the reviewers, keep track of who's a crappy reviewer, etc. The journal is motivated to make sure things stay legit because their reputation is on the line, and that's really all they have. If you don't have someone overseeing things you get... the YouTube comment section. Or Slashdot.
You're right! What we need is some entity that accepts papers, matches them up with peer reviewers, provides editors, provides a known location to find papers... oh right, that's what journals do now. I don't know anyone who actually uses paper journals, and I don't think the library at my (major) university buys most journals in physical format anymore. I also don't think PLOS even prints a dead tree version. That doesn't mean "journals" aren't necessary.
Seagate was saying (that is, it's vapour) they might have 60 TB disks by 2016. Not now.
At the moment I have a 256 GB SSD in my notebook, along side a 512 GB hard drive. Guess which one is being used at the moment? With more people streaming things, the average person's need for storage is probably not going to grow at anything like it used to. Once that happens, capacity becomes a secondary concern, and the speed of SSDs make them very attractive.
SSDs aren't going to kill of hard drives entirely, but they are going to take a decent chunk of the market away from the rotating disk sellers.
The point is, IPv6 isn't required for gstoddart on his home network. He can be a codger and stick with his IPv4 if he wants to. Unless he wants to talk to someone ELSE'S network, of course.
lease
(ls) n. 1. a. A contract granting use or occupation of property during a specified period in exchange for a specified rent. b. The term or duration of such a contract. 2. Property used or occupied under the terms of such a contract.
But sure, if you redefine lease as a transfer of title for an indefinite period in exchange for no rent, with no restrictions on transfer or use except by the laws of the land, then yes, you're right. But then what was your point again?
It wasn't even that. It came down to one of the last paragraphs:
"In my [limited and misleading] experience...."
Python isn't good at visualization? I guess the author has never used VTK-Python or Matplotlib. R isn't good with big data? I suppose that comes from R not having great database interactivity... so just feed it data via Python using rpy2.
They already are. I took a stroll through the ultrabook aisle the other day. The decent quality ones are more expensive, sometimes much more expensive, than an air.
If I come to you and say I'll sell you a 10% share in my company for 10 billion dollars, and you agree, we are both indeed valuing my company at 100 billion dollars.
It may not be a good idea, but everyone who bought FB stock is implicitly valuing FB at PRICE_PER_SHARE * NUMBER_OF_SHARES. Investors who understand this do not think that a high market cap, especially an outrageously high one, is a good thing.
So what you're saying is, if you want to get your iPhone fixed you can go to an authorized repair shop right in your own small city? And if you want to get your Google phone fixed? Oh right, Google doesn't have any stores of their own OR authorized shops.
Theocracies generally don't wind down their war machines and usually beef up the internal secret agencies. Plus they're generally not much fun to live in.
"Again, there seems to be an implication that an average of bad information can be used to determine very accurate and precise information if there is enough of it. That seems specious."
To me it seems specious that your feelings are a better guide to reality than empirical evidence and mathematical proof.
I gave you the formula, which is not only empirically demonstrated, but mathematically proven as well. Suppose each of your measurements has a standard deviation of ten degrees, which is a precision you could probably achieve just by going outside and feeling how cold it is. To get the 1/10th of a degree precision you mention, you need N = (10 / 0.1)^2 = 10,000 such measurements. If your measurements have a standard deviation of one degree, which a grade schooler should be able to achieve with a household thermometer, you need only 100 measurements.
Yes, you don't know what you're talking about. You're drawing conclusions based on uninformed instinct and a pretty big bias. You're also conflating climate prediction through modelling, which is by its nature quite speculative, with historical climate records, which are much less so.
Silly? I think it's awesome. So long as there's some way to identify the paid for posts so we can tell who's narcissistic enough to actually pay for it. Then ridicule them.
An iPad weighs less than most hardcover books I own, and quite a bit less than all but a couple of the textbooks I've been holding for the last twenty years. If you're getting some sort of arm or hand pain from holding a couple of pounds, the gym might very well help. Non-atrophied muscles don't hurt when used to do reasonable, everyday tasks.
If you're making a reference to repetitive strain injuries then you've missed the implications of "repetitive" and exercise can help to a limited degree with those as well.
Ah, another "my needs are everyone's needs and they never change" Slashdotter.
I am currently sitting here with an iPad and a notebook. The iPad is out, being used because I'm eating on a patio and it's easier than hauling out the notebook. When I want to work, the notebook will come out, but the iPad will be a second screen, usually with a scientific paper or some technical docs on it.
What you're describing in terms of climate data is data that is of potentially low precision, poor accuracy and may be biased. Using data from a large number of independent such stations improves precision through averaging and can also improve accuracy and decrease all but systematic bias. You can also try to identify sources of bias specifically. For example, urban weather stations report systematically higher temperatures. We know this because we can compare urban data with nearby rural data, and as a result we can account for the bias.
If you know anything about science, or climatology in particular, you would know that data is never "assumed to be good." By suggesting using significant digits you were actually doing this - you were assuming the data was as precise as the stated number of digits. In real science you almost always MEASURE the precision of the data by using multiple measurements, or multiple datasets, and calculating the standard deviation or standard error. That way you know how precise your final values are, and can use statistical tests to quantify the probabilities of various conclusions. Problems with accuracy and bias are more difficult to deal with, but they can also be quantified and improved, usually by comparing with data from an independent source, preferably using a different measurement method. In climate research you can use different weather stations using different instruments, or compare data from tree rings with ice cores, with weather stations. In particle physics, the LHC has two detectors, each designed, built and operated by different, independent teams, using different methods. There are a number of metrics that quantify accuracy and bias. Inter-operator agreement and the ratio of intra- to inter-class variance among them. Provided you have multiple measurements you certainly can take data of low precision and produce measurements of higher precision, and make reliable conclusions based on those measurements.
You seem to have particular issues with climate science and are attacking science in general on that basis. Even specifically in climatology, your criticisms seem to be overly general. There have been some quite reasonable suggestions that climatology is now too important to allow raw data to be proprietary, and the field has moved to address that, although most of the data seems to have been available anyway. As for criticism of methods, you will always find someone who will criticize your methods. The proper thing to do then is for someone (you, them, or someone else) to replicate the experiment or analysis with other methods and confirm or refute your conclusion. That's also been done in climate, and resulted in confirmation.
Yes, brow beating is wrong. In climate, the people who do that are usually not scientists but are often people with some political agenda (for OR against). Sometimes a scientist might brush off criticism like yours that claims the scientist (or all scientists) are obviously wrong for doing something, when it's clear that you have very little understanding of the issue. If you then dismiss the civil counter argument as "semantics" and stick to your erroneous assertion, you're sure to be either ignored or ridiculed.
I'm happy to have a civil conversation with you now that you're being civil. You don't seem to be stupid, but you do appear to have very little knowledge of some of the things you're talking about. There's nothing wrong with that, but beware of making bold assertions, particularly critical ones, about things you don't know much about.
And money laundering with real money is illegal for that reason. Actually, money laundering with bit coins is probably illegal too, but the bit coiners are kind of ignoring that little inconvenience.
Also, we probably wouldn't feel that sorry for a financial business that specializes in anonymous clients and got robbed because it keeps large amounts of poorly secured cash lying around.
There's an unfortunate habit of a lot of people, not just journalists, to regard journals as a record of Truth. They're not. Lots of things get published, and SHOULD get published that aren't very reliable. The authors should be up front about their unreliability of course. When you see something interesting you publish it so other people can independently look at it. Part of the job of a scientist is to read the literature and evaluate it's state, and the state of individual papers.
Slashdot Mirror
You call that addressed?
Journals certify the peer review. They pick the reviewers, keep track of who's a crappy reviewer, etc. The journal is motivated to make sure things stay legit because their reputation is on the line, and that's really all they have. If you don't have someone overseeing things you get... the YouTube comment section. Or Slashdot.
You're right! What we need is some entity that accepts papers, matches them up with peer reviewers, provides editors, provides a known location to find papers... oh right, that's what journals do now. I don't know anyone who actually uses paper journals, and I don't think the library at my (major) university buys most journals in physical format anymore. I also don't think PLOS even prints a dead tree version. That doesn't mean "journals" aren't necessary.
Seagate was saying (that is, it's vapour) they might have 60 TB disks by 2016. Not now.
At the moment I have a 256 GB SSD in my notebook, along side a 512 GB hard drive. Guess which one is being used at the moment? With more people streaming things, the average person's need for storage is probably not going to grow at anything like it used to. Once that happens, capacity becomes a secondary concern, and the speed of SSDs make them very attractive.
SSDs aren't going to kill of hard drives entirely, but they are going to take a decent chunk of the market away from the rotating disk sellers.
Well, IPv4 does that pretty reliably now too.
The point is, IPv6 isn't required for gstoddart on his home network. He can be a codger and stick with his IPv4 if he wants to. Unless he wants to talk to someone ELSE'S network, of course.
Better than you do, apparently. A lease is:
But sure, if you redefine lease as a transfer of title for an indefinite period in exchange for no rent, with no restrictions on transfer or use except by the laws of the land, then yes, you're right. But then what was your point again?
"Possibly a limitation of Windows"
There you go.
And no, if it's your home network you don't need IPv6. You don't need IP either, really. You could use something else. Nobody cares.
IPv6 is for when you want to talk to someone who isn't part of your home network.
Strange. Most people who own a house are pretty sure they own that property, and the address is a description of its location.
Did you mean "you cannot own an IP address?"
It wasn't even that. It came down to one of the last paragraphs:
"In my [limited and misleading] experience...."
Python isn't good at visualization? I guess the author has never used VTK-Python or Matplotlib. R isn't good with big data? I suppose that comes from R not having great database interactivity... so just feed it data via Python using rpy2.
This one is much cheaper.
They already are. I took a stroll through the ultrabook aisle the other day. The decent quality ones are more expensive, sometimes much more expensive, than an air.
If I come to you and say I'll sell you a 10% share in my company for 10 billion dollars, and you agree, we are both indeed valuing my company at 100 billion dollars.
It may not be a good idea, but everyone who bought FB stock is implicitly valuing FB at PRICE_PER_SHARE * NUMBER_OF_SHARES. Investors who understand this do not think that a high market cap, especially an outrageously high one, is a good thing.
So what you're saying is, if you want to get your iPhone fixed you can go to an authorized repair shop right in your own small city? And if you want to get your Google phone fixed? Oh right, Google doesn't have any stores of their own OR authorized shops.
I used to have to go 100 miles to get a doughnut.
I don't see any Google stores. So no, it's not going to be the same.
Theocracies generally don't wind down their war machines and usually beef up the internal secret agencies. Plus they're generally not much fun to live in.
"Again, there seems to be an implication that an average of bad information can be used to determine very accurate and precise information if there is enough of it. That seems specious."
To me it seems specious that your feelings are a better guide to reality than empirical evidence and mathematical proof.
I gave you the formula, which is not only empirically demonstrated, but mathematically proven as well. Suppose each of your measurements has a standard deviation of ten degrees, which is a precision you could probably achieve just by going outside and feeling how cold it is. To get the 1/10th of a degree precision you mention, you need N = (10 / 0.1)^2 = 10,000 such measurements. If your measurements have a standard deviation of one degree, which a grade schooler should be able to achieve with a household thermometer, you need only 100 measurements.
Yes, you don't know what you're talking about. You're drawing conclusions based on uninformed instinct and a pretty big bias. You're also conflating climate prediction through modelling, which is by its nature quite speculative, with historical climate records, which are much less so.
Silly? I think it's awesome. So long as there's some way to identify the paid for posts so we can tell who's narcissistic enough to actually pay for it. Then ridicule them.
An iPad weighs less than most hardcover books I own, and quite a bit less than all but a couple of the textbooks I've been holding for the last twenty years. If you're getting some sort of arm or hand pain from holding a couple of pounds, the gym might very well help. Non-atrophied muscles don't hurt when used to do reasonable, everyday tasks.
If you're making a reference to repetitive strain injuries then you've missed the implications of "repetitive" and exercise can help to a limited degree with those as well.
Go to the gym. I'm reading on my iPad in the sunshine right now.
The gym helps with the picking up chicks too, BTW.
Ah, another "my needs are everyone's needs and they never change" Slashdotter.
I am currently sitting here with an iPad and a notebook. The iPad is out, being used because I'm eating on a patio and it's easier than hauling out the notebook. When I want to work, the notebook will come out, but the iPad will be a second screen, usually with a scientific paper or some technical docs on it.
But two screens? Who needs that, right?
What you're describing in terms of climate data is data that is of potentially low precision, poor accuracy and may be biased. Using data from a large number of independent such stations improves precision through averaging and can also improve accuracy and decrease all but systematic bias. You can also try to identify sources of bias specifically. For example, urban weather stations report systematically higher temperatures. We know this because we can compare urban data with nearby rural data, and as a result we can account for the bias.
If you know anything about science, or climatology in particular, you would know that data is never "assumed to be good." By suggesting using significant digits you were actually doing this - you were assuming the data was as precise as the stated number of digits. In real science you almost always MEASURE the precision of the data by using multiple measurements, or multiple datasets, and calculating the standard deviation or standard error. That way you know how precise your final values are, and can use statistical tests to quantify the probabilities of various conclusions. Problems with accuracy and bias are more difficult to deal with, but they can also be quantified and improved, usually by comparing with data from an independent source, preferably using a different measurement method. In climate research you can use different weather stations using different instruments, or compare data from tree rings with ice cores, with weather stations. In particle physics, the LHC has two detectors, each designed, built and operated by different, independent teams, using different methods. There are a number of metrics that quantify accuracy and bias. Inter-operator agreement and the ratio of intra- to inter-class variance among them. Provided you have multiple measurements you certainly can take data of low precision and produce measurements of higher precision, and make reliable conclusions based on those measurements.
You seem to have particular issues with climate science and are attacking science in general on that basis. Even specifically in climatology, your criticisms seem to be overly general. There have been some quite reasonable suggestions that climatology is now too important to allow raw data to be proprietary, and the field has moved to address that, although most of the data seems to have been available anyway. As for criticism of methods, you will always find someone who will criticize your methods. The proper thing to do then is for someone (you, them, or someone else) to replicate the experiment or analysis with other methods and confirm or refute your conclusion. That's also been done in climate, and resulted in confirmation.
Yes, brow beating is wrong. In climate, the people who do that are usually not scientists but are often people with some political agenda (for OR against). Sometimes a scientist might brush off criticism like yours that claims the scientist (or all scientists) are obviously wrong for doing something, when it's clear that you have very little understanding of the issue. If you then dismiss the civil counter argument as "semantics" and stick to your erroneous assertion, you're sure to be either ignored or ridiculed.
I'm happy to have a civil conversation with you now that you're being civil. You don't seem to be stupid, but you do appear to have very little knowledge of some of the things you're talking about. There's nothing wrong with that, but beware of making bold assertions, particularly critical ones, about things you don't know much about.
And money laundering with real money is illegal for that reason. Actually, money laundering with bit coins is probably illegal too, but the bit coiners are kind of ignoring that little inconvenience.
Also, we probably wouldn't feel that sorry for a financial business that specializes in anonymous clients and got robbed because it keeps large amounts of poorly secured cash lying around.
All right, anonymous. Which, when you add a money launderer, is the same thing.
There's an unfortunate habit of a lot of people, not just journalists, to regard journals as a record of Truth. They're not. Lots of things get published, and SHOULD get published that aren't very reliable. The authors should be up front about their unreliability of course. When you see something interesting you publish it so other people can independently look at it. Part of the job of a scientist is to read the literature and evaluate it's state, and the state of individual papers.
I think you'll find the insurance rates on anonymous Internet funny money to be rather high.