Yep, copyright is a "Mickey Mouse" system! Every school in the nation should have a MM club where kids turn up in pirated MM clothes and reads aloud from "Through the looking glass".
"Show me doctors who have amassed similar wealth as some artists."
Blah, blah, blah, and butterflys, you expect me to swallow your simplistic explination as "proof" that thousands of scientists are just dumb fucks who don't understand maths. You will convince me you have a serious argument when you write a paper and submit it, in particular you should aim to pull the 2007 IPCC-SPM attribution graph to bits, I belive it is figure SPM-2.
"...a chaotic system can be as regualar as any non-chaotic system under certain parameters..."
Not quite, and that is the whole point. The statistics of a chaotic system can be regular, ie: climate is the regular statistical behaviour of the chaotic system we call weather. When these "parameters" are regular the chaotic system is said to be in "dynamic equilibrium", if you destabalise that state then the system can flip all over the place until it settles down into another "dynamic equilibrium". From paleoclimatology we also know that rapid change goes hand in hand with massive extinctions.
"...is it even possible for humans to ever demonstrate that the computer models predict anything real with reasonable confidence?"
Yes, "polar amplification" and the "hockey stick" are two that spring to mind. If you followed the science you would know that the biggest failure in the 2001 IPCC model predictions is methane levels (they were predicted to rise but have remained stable for some unknown reason). Many of the other predictions have turned out to be on the conservative side, as you would expect from a report agreed apon by every national science body on the planet.
"Firstly it seems that you assume that a series of events that display apparent randomness as chaotic, and a series that has little randomness as non-chaotic"
I did not mean to imply chaos theory is synonomous with random number theory (I don't actually see the word random in my post?). You will find that a chaotic system has no random inputs, you will also find the examples I chose are chaotic systems. To deny that climate models are usefull is to deny that finite element analysis is useful and considering the success of FEA in other fields, that stance is just plain silly. Also if you are right in claiming climate models are useless then how do you explain the predictions mentioned above, beginers luck?
If you really want to pick holes then attack the quality of the data or the resolution of the simulation, both need to improve if we are to solve puzzles such as the "missing methane". In other words be a skeptic, attack your own arguments as vigourosly as you attack others.
I don't disagree with any of that but I was pointing out to someone that India is not a "pretend democracy", it's beginings are synonomous with "civil disobeidience" and the power of the British empire. The whole idea of carving up the globe into universaly recognised nation states that deal with each other through a national government is (historically) a very recent development.
Well said, great sci-fi tells a story and hints at a pausible explaination. I was watching "I robot" the other day, they don't bother explaining the science it "just is". Many people in the audience won't understand the words when the robot asks "When does a difference engine become a search for truth?", but they don't have to because the context makes it's meaning apparent.
I don't for a second claim that India's voting system is impervious to corruption. However it is more secure from systematic corruption (high level manipulation) precisely because the low level "forces" are competing with each other at the "self interest" level. The temptation to "cheat" with bribes/threats is balanced by their opponents temptations and the ability of both sides to take the "moral high ground" when it suits them.
"Boy have you ever touched an area of denial there. The Global-Warmingists will tell you with a perfectly straight face that weather is chaotic but climate is not, of course they can't tell you what "secret-sauce" does the magic."
The "secret sauce" is statistics, this link describes how it is used in climatology. Here are a couple more examples of science that use "secret sauce" in a similar manner...
The quantum world is mathematically perfect chaos, yet our reality emerges from it and our physical laws are derived from it using the same "secret sauce".
The three body problem is a chaotic system with no anylitical solution and yet we can still manage to fly space probes all over the solar system with mind boggling accuracy, again by using the same "secret sauce".
The Sun is one big ball of chaotic plasma...
The "magic" is simple and recipies for "secret sauce" can be found at the heart of all scientific disiplines. In the end your troll has nothing to do with science, maths or "Global-Warmingists", it is your own psudeo-skepticisim that is preventing you from looking behind the curtain.
Nihilism is defined as a belief in "nothing". Nihilisim by definition cannot be a team sport, the fact that extreme right wingers have an ethos (a set of beliefs) implies they do in fact belive in "something" and therefore cannot be categorised as nihilists. To take it a step further even a belief in nothing is still a belief, a strict nihilist is really a I_don't_know_and_don't_care_ist who lives purely on instinct alone, a reptilian brain in a human body so to speak.
The attraction of nihilism to extreme groups is that it serves as dogma to encourage the destruction of the current system (whatever that may be). The 9/11 attackers and other assorted terrorists have also been called nihilists, but screaming praise to God while flying a plane into the "enemy" does not strike me as having a lack of a belief system (no matter how twisted it is).
To paraphrase Eienstien (or was it Edison?): "Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration". If you "save the Economist", I would asume 5% of their company is a fair price.
Yep that's kinda what I was driving at, for starters a professional would not call 80% of their prospective clients idiots.
The development teams I have worked with have always looked after their own O/S configurations and tools, desktops are usually SOE based to automate patches but they are chock full of crap that developers tend to download from the net. The only retsriction placed on developers is that we must comply with the wishes of the network security gods if we want to set up external access to (say) an FTP site. The last (unflagged) virus I saw in the workplace was over five years ago and it was delivered via unsolicited email.
Disclaimer: I am not a network security specialist, however I have worked on quite a few large projects that provide authorised personnel access to sensitive data via windows, in other words: I am the "idiot" client of network security.
"Every day I go to client sites running Windows. Every day I have to deal with this POS refusing to shut down, refusing to kill errant processes, refusing to connect across a network, hosing itself for no fucking reason whatsoever, being invaded by every piece of crapware in existence, and costing my clients the fucking earth on top of it all. Anybody using or advocating the use of Windows is at the very least ignorant, and at worst a moron."
If they are your clients then why are they still on windows? I have been a C/C++ developer for nearly two decades, most corporates can run windows and *nix together without any of those basic problems?
OTOH: I'm also sick of flamebait articles and neo-cons.
"We are geeks. Geeks are smart. Smart people spell words correctly and use proper grammar. That is who we are."
That is one of the dumbest sterotypical posts I have ever read on slashdot. It can be summed up by what my dog is thinking when we go for a walk (ie: "we are pack").
Dumber but more popular people felt threatened by our brains and put us down, picked on us, and so forth. One characteristic that groups of those dumber people adopted as their group marker was a disdain for all things intellectual.
No, that is a mental cage built by your phyche in order to rationalise the social isolation your intellectual snobbery has brought apon you. (ref:sig).
Besides, the GP said "Oh, you dorks, proper spelling and grammar don't matter. Get over yourselves.", as a vintage geek I object to being mistaken for a whale's dick, you insesitive clod.
Slashdot Mirror
'nuff said.
Nooooooo, just have the "defectivebyaccident", it is the first tag to make me laugh.
Yep, copyright is a "Mickey Mouse" system! Every school in the nation should have a MM club where kids turn up in pirated MM clothes and reads aloud from "Through the looking glass".
"Show me doctors who have amassed similar wealth as some artists."
Dr. Evil, but I think he's on their side.
PS: Look at your own link, under "attribution".
Blah, blah, blah, and butterflys, you expect me to swallow your simplistic explination as "proof" that thousands of scientists are just dumb fucks who don't understand maths. You will convince me you have a serious argument when you write a paper and submit it, in particular you should aim to pull the 2007 IPCC-SPM attribution graph to bits, I belive it is figure SPM-2.
"...a chaotic system can be as regualar as any non-chaotic system under certain parameters..."
Not quite, and that is the whole point. The statistics of a chaotic system can be regular, ie: climate is the regular statistical behaviour of the chaotic system we call weather. When these "parameters" are regular the chaotic system is said to be in "dynamic equilibrium", if you destabalise that state then the system can flip all over the place until it settles down into another "dynamic equilibrium". From paleoclimatology we also know that rapid change goes hand in hand with massive extinctions.
"...is it even possible for humans to ever demonstrate that the computer models predict anything real with reasonable confidence?"
Yes, "polar amplification" and the "hockey stick" are two that spring to mind. If you followed the science you would know that the biggest failure in the 2001 IPCC model predictions is methane levels (they were predicted to rise but have remained stable for some unknown reason). Many of the other predictions have turned out to be on the conservative side, as you would expect from a report agreed apon by every national science body on the planet.
"Firstly it seems that you assume that a series of events that display apparent randomness as chaotic, and a series that has little randomness as non-chaotic"
I did not mean to imply chaos theory is synonomous with random number theory (I don't actually see the word random in my post?). You will find that a chaotic system has no random inputs, you will also find the examples I chose are chaotic systems. To deny that climate models are usefull is to deny that finite element analysis is useful and considering the success of FEA in other fields, that stance is just plain silly. Also if you are right in claiming climate models are useless then how do you explain the predictions mentioned above, beginers luck?
If you really want to pick holes then attack the quality of the data or the resolution of the simulation, both need to improve if we are to solve puzzles such as the "missing methane". In other words be a skeptic, attack your own arguments as vigourosly as you attack others.
I don't disagree with any of that but I was pointing out to someone that India is not a "pretend democracy", it's beginings are synonomous with "civil disobeidience" and the power of the British empire. The whole idea of carving up the globe into universaly recognised nation states that deal with each other through a national government is (historically) a very recent development.
Well said, great sci-fi tells a story and hints at a pausible explaination. I was watching "I robot" the other day, they don't bother explaining the science it "just is". Many people in the audience won't understand the words when the robot asks "When does a difference engine become a search for truth?", but they don't have to because the context makes it's meaning apparent.
The same number as we have detected in atom smashers.
Extremist Christians and Muslims are intolerant of each other not because of their differences but because of their similarity.
Nature tests the theory every day by smashing cosmic rays into the upper atmosphere. - *public* shrugs and moves on...
Exactly, if my CS degree is dead I can only assume it must have died laughing on the way to the bank.
I don't for a second claim that India's voting system is impervious to corruption. However it is more secure from systematic corruption (high level manipulation) precisely because the low level "forces" are competing with each other at the "self interest" level. The temptation to "cheat" with bribes/threats is balanced by their opponents temptations and the ability of both sides to take the "moral high ground" when it suits them.
"Boy have you ever touched an area of denial there. The Global-Warmingists will tell you with a perfectly straight face that weather is chaotic but climate is not, of course they can't tell you what "secret-sauce" does the magic."
The "secret sauce" is statistics, this link describes how it is used in climatology. Here are a couple more examples of science that use "secret sauce" in a similar manner...
The quantum world is mathematically perfect chaos, yet our reality emerges from it and our physical laws are derived from it using the same "secret sauce".
The three body problem is a chaotic system with no anylitical solution and yet we can still manage to fly space probes all over the solar system with mind boggling accuracy, again by using the same "secret sauce".
The Sun is one big ball of chaotic plasma...
The "magic" is simple and recipies for "secret sauce" can be found at the heart of all scientific disiplines. In the end your troll has nothing to do with science, maths or "Global-Warmingists", it is your own psudeo-skepticisim that is preventing you from looking behind the curtain.
"You can not reverse a non-linear chaotic system."
Yet another reason to stop driving the cliamte towards a state that is known to be detrimental to our species.
"I thought India was atleast a pretend democracy?"
India happens to be the world's largest democracy, their voting system is simpler and more secure than what can be found in recent US elections.
Nihilism is defined as a belief in "nothing". Nihilisim by definition cannot be a team sport, the fact that extreme right wingers have an ethos (a set of beliefs) implies they do in fact belive in "something" and therefore cannot be categorised as nihilists. To take it a step further even a belief in nothing is still a belief, a strict nihilist is really a I_don't_know_and_don't_care_ist who lives purely on instinct alone, a reptilian brain in a human body so to speak.
The attraction of nihilism to extreme groups is that it serves as dogma to encourage the destruction of the current system (whatever that may be). The 9/11 attackers and other assorted terrorists have also been called nihilists, but screaming praise to God while flying a plane into the "enemy" does not strike me as having a lack of a belief system (no matter how twisted it is).
A sensitive redneck, how quaint.
To paraphrase Eienstien (or was it Edison?): "Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration". If you "save the Economist", I would asume 5% of their company is a fair price.
Yeah, back in my day we had no stinking commitees, the Pharoh drew a trinagle in the sand and proceeded to beat people until he got what he wanted.
I would have thought of it as the absence of ethos.
Yep that's kinda what I was driving at, for starters a professional would not call 80% of their prospective clients idiots.
The development teams I have worked with have always looked after their own O/S configurations and tools, desktops are usually SOE based to automate patches but they are chock full of crap that developers tend to download from the net. The only retsriction placed on developers is that we must comply with the wishes of the network security gods if we want to set up external access to (say) an FTP site. The last (unflagged) virus I saw in the workplace was over five years ago and it was delivered via unsolicited email.
Disclaimer: I am not a network security specialist, however I have worked on quite a few large projects that provide authorised personnel access to sensitive data via windows, in other words: I am the "idiot" client of network security.
"Every day I go to client sites running Windows. Every day I have to deal with this POS refusing to shut down, refusing to kill errant processes, refusing to connect across a network, hosing itself for no fucking reason whatsoever, being invaded by every piece of crapware in existence, and costing my clients the fucking earth on top of it all. Anybody using or advocating the use of Windows is at the very least ignorant, and at worst a moron."
If they are your clients then why are they still on windows? I have been a C/C++ developer for nearly two decades, most corporates can run windows and *nix together without any of those basic problems?
OTOH: I'm also sick of flamebait articles and neo-cons.
"We are geeks. Geeks are smart. Smart people spell words correctly and use proper grammar. That is who we are."
That is one of the dumbest sterotypical posts I have ever read on slashdot. It can be summed up by what my dog is thinking when we go for a walk (ie: "we are pack").
Dumber but more popular people felt threatened by our brains and put us down, picked on us, and so forth. One characteristic that groups of those dumber people adopted as their group marker was a disdain for all things intellectual.
No, that is a mental cage built by your phyche in order to rationalise the social isolation your intellectual snobbery has brought apon you. (ref:sig).
Besides, the GP said "Oh, you dorks, proper spelling and grammar don't matter. Get over yourselves.", as a vintage geek I object to being mistaken for a whale's dick, you insesitive clod.
They may have a capital but they don't deserve one.
Why do you hate NASA? /sarcasm