A an occasional typo is one thing. When they litter your post, the reader has to wonder if you are a) barely literate, and perhaps your thoughts on quantum mechanics may be of lesser value, particularly where they conflict with those of actual experts in the field or, b) extremely careless and/or lazy, and perhaps your thoughts on quantum mechanics may be of lesser value, particularly where they conflict with those of actual experts in the field.
Take a deep breath. Suffocating from too much CO2 in the air is not something we need to worry about. You have to go back a LOT of millions of years until you get to an atmosphere with too much CO2 for us to breath.
That's not the way regression works. If you can change the result that much by including or excluding a data point, your evidence is extremely weak.
The data, at least the data in that graph, simply doesn't support an unequivocal claim of warming over the last decade. Over the last century, however, yes.
Climate is complex, and influenced by more than one thing. The last decade was not like the ones that preceded it. Pretending it was is unscientific.
Second derivative? Maybe you mean the slope, i.e.the first derivative? You're not exactly doing yourself any favors by using terms you don understand well incorrectly.
It's highly unlikely. Prions "reproduce" by causing normally folded proteins to refold in the prion shape. A "mutated" prion wouldn't match the regular one anymore.
Classic politically motivated Slashdot climate post.
The guy didn't say anything about current warming, carbon dioxide, human activities or anything else. He's saying that cosmic rays influence climate (they do), short term variation due to the sun's magnetic field have a fairly small effect (the opposite of the words you're trying to put in his mouth) and a bunch of supernovae going off nearby has a larger effect (not hard to believe).
I really wish ACs on Slashdot who can't spell "wish" or "you're" would stop acting like they know what they're talking about and people who actually study quantum mechanics don't.
People have pointed out that assuming a Hilbert space model assumes no communication at a distance. Also, by using relativistic quantum mechanics, you're assuming that special relativity holds. Those points are from the wiki article you link to.
On the other hand, you can still have causality violations without communication at a distance. This experiment is probably an example - if Victor confers with Alice and Bob before making his decision, or Alice and Bob look at their measurements before Victor makes his decision, there would probably be no correlation in any case. So causality can be technically violated, but in a way that is discoverable only after it happens, disallowing communication at a distance.
If you look at the post I replied to, you'll find that the OP was suggesting that we don't have a long enough baseline to assess growth rates of humans because the pill was only invented in the 60s and Roe vs Wade was whenever. People were getting abortions LONG before some court case made it legal in the US, and effective contraception was around long before the pill.
The pill IS special because, combined with educated women, it's a VERY powerful brake on population growth, but the major predictors of human population growth have been effective even without it, for a long time.
Ah, a comment about Apple and the Mac from someone who clearly doesn't know much about it.
Dragging an executable to a particular place on the drive (/Applications isn't a system folder) isn't insecure. Of course, once you do that, and run the thing, the OS will ask you if you really want to do it anyway.
But yes, the dominant system on Windows where everything asks for admin credentials whenever it does anything, resulting in most people just running as admin all the time is MUCH better.
Natural gas is mostly used for generating electricity and heating houses. You can get along without electricity if you have to (but you'd pay quite a bit not to have to) but in the UK, as in many other places, heating isn't really an optional thing, regardless of the cost.
As I said, a graph without error bars is meaningless. From two runs they get different results so that tells us that there is variation but doesn't give us enough information to properly quantify it (to make error bars). So their graph is meaningless. Do the copy cats really do better, or was it just on one of the runs and they almost never survive? We don't know. Their results, as presented, are meaningless.
They obviously did run multiple simulation runs, and their paper may well quantify the variation, but the results they've given in the blog post are only sufficient to suggest that the data they've shown is inadequate to draw any conclusions.
If you believe that, you've never met a cow. Cows are dumb, slow, mostly defenceless and delicious. If we didn't eat them, they wouldn't exist. The same goes for domesticated pigs, chickens and any other species that is widely used for food.
Modern vegans and vegetarians have massive global agricultural and transportation systems to support their choices, including efficient domesticated (enslaved if you prefer) animals for food production.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh. So you eat chicken and beef, both animals that have been "screwed around with" by humans for tens of thousands of years?
Maybe you eat grains (screwed around with)? Legumes (ditto)?
A an occasional typo is one thing. When they litter your post, the reader has to wonder if you are a) barely literate, and perhaps your thoughts on quantum mechanics may be of lesser value, particularly where they conflict with those of actual experts in the field or, b) extremely careless and/or lazy, and perhaps your thoughts on quantum mechanics may be of lesser value, particularly where they conflict with those of actual experts in the field.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but this thread is about a particular excerpt from the story current under discussion.
Take a deep breath. Suffocating from too much CO2 in the air is not something we need to worry about. You have to go back a LOT of millions of years until you get to an atmosphere with too much CO2 for us to breath.
That's not the way regression works. If you can change the result that much by including or excluding a data point, your evidence is extremely weak.
The data, at least the data in that graph, simply doesn't support an unequivocal claim of warming over the last decade. Over the last century, however, yes.
Climate is complex, and influenced by more than one thing. The last decade was not like the ones that preceded it. Pretending it was is unscientific.
Second derivative? Maybe you mean the slope, i.e.the first derivative? You're not exactly doing yourself any favors by using terms you don understand well incorrectly.
Sorry, but after the ride you guys gave other countries after outbreaks of BSE, you deserve it this time.
It's highly unlikely. Prions "reproduce" by causing normally folded proteins to refold in the prion shape. A "mutated" prion wouldn't match the regular one anymore.
Going with the ad hominem argument then?
Ah. Someone who doesn't understand statistics.
Possibly, but it's certainly not going to be the electric universe "theory" that replaces it.
Classic politically motivated Slashdot climate post.
The guy didn't say anything about current warming, carbon dioxide, human activities or anything else. He's saying that cosmic rays influence climate (they do), short term variation due to the sun's magnetic field have a fairly small effect (the opposite of the words you're trying to put in his mouth) and a bunch of supernovae going off nearby has a larger effect (not hard to believe).
I really wish ACs on Slashdot who can't spell "wish" or "you're" would stop acting like they know what they're talking about and people who actually study quantum mechanics don't.
People have pointed out that assuming a Hilbert space model assumes no communication at a distance. Also, by using relativistic quantum mechanics, you're assuming that special relativity holds. Those points are from the wiki article you link to.
On the other hand, you can still have causality violations without communication at a distance. This experiment is probably an example - if Victor confers with Alice and Bob before making his decision, or Alice and Bob look at their measurements before Victor makes his decision, there would probably be no correlation in any case. So causality can be technically violated, but in a way that is discoverable only after it happens, disallowing communication at a distance.
If you look at the post I replied to, you'll find that the OP was suggesting that we don't have a long enough baseline to assess growth rates of humans because the pill was only invented in the 60s and Roe vs Wade was whenever. People were getting abortions LONG before some court case made it legal in the US, and effective contraception was around long before the pill.
The pill IS special because, combined with educated women, it's a VERY powerful brake on population growth, but the major predictors of human population growth have been effective even without it, for a long time.
Ah, a comment about Apple and the Mac from someone who clearly doesn't know much about it.
Dragging an executable to a particular place on the drive (/Applications isn't a system folder) isn't insecure. Of course, once you do that, and run the thing, the OS will ask you if you really want to do it anyway.
But yes, the dominant system on Windows where everything asks for admin credentials whenever it does anything, resulting in most people just running as admin all the time is MUCH better.
Natural gas is mostly used for generating electricity and heating houses. You can get along without electricity if you have to (but you'd pay quite a bit not to have to) but in the UK, as in many other places, heating isn't really an optional thing, regardless of the cost.
As I said, a graph without error bars is meaningless. From two runs they get different results so that tells us that there is variation but doesn't give us enough information to properly quantify it (to make error bars). So their graph is meaningless. Do the copy cats really do better, or was it just on one of the runs and they almost never survive? We don't know. Their results, as presented, are meaningless.
They obviously did run multiple simulation runs, and their paper may well quantify the variation, but the results they've given in the blog post are only sufficient to suggest that the data they've shown is inadequate to draw any conclusions.
Puppeteers can make a lot of money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Muppets
If you believe that, you've never met a cow. Cows are dumb, slow, mostly defenceless and delicious. If we didn't eat them, they wouldn't exist. The same goes for domesticated pigs, chickens and any other species that is widely used for food.
Faster anything development is beneficial when you and your child is in considerable danger of being eaten.
Modern vegans and vegetarians have massive global agricultural and transportation systems to support their choices, including efficient domesticated (enslaved if you prefer) animals for food production.
Just look at the vegan and lick your lips. Repeatedly. Until he or she gets nervous and leaves.
The vegetarians studied had the considerable advantage of access to global agriculture and transport.
Vegetarianism today is viable. Before this century it probably would have led to very sick vegetarians in most places in the world.
Except that we're not talking about modern humans. The article is talking about evolution.