I don't know that the parent post is really flamebait (as it is currently modded). The article specifically states that they played games and the grandparent post implies that they didn't.
I'll sleep just a bit longer while all the bugs get worked out on the first wave adopters. The first wave adopters, you know, the people who spend three times as much and get a lower quality product... the ones who pay for the research and development so that the second wave products are relatively glitch free.
Why not use encased, plastic keyboards in hospitals? They are already on the market. They are pretty cheap. And they have a smooth surface that you can wipe clean (no nooks or crannies).
I've also heard rumors that you can put most keyboards through a dish washer. So you could probably sell rebranded dishwashers to the medical industry for $10,000 a pop in the wake of this news.
I often don't agree with you, but in this case I think you are right on.
Discovery Channel and related shows/specials often present the opinions or ideas of a person employed in a science related field - and while they don't explicitly say it - the opinions can easily be mistaken as fact by people without good critical thinking skills.
The structure of the programs doesn't allow for too much depth into WHY they think what they think - only enough time for WHAT they think. It would be a far better service to allow several parties ample time to debate the reasons WHY somewhat in depth. Then people watching the show will truly gain some knowledge. Of course some shows do have this structure, but not nearly enough of them.
I've always wondered about the drive to prolong the human race - much like you wonder about the drive to spread the human race.
While it is easy to see the value in prolonging life that already exists (healthcare, etc), I don't always understand the reasons for wanting life to persist indefinitely. I suppose this is like the man blind from birth not feeling blind because he doesn't know what he is missing. Future generations don't NEED to exists. While there is some sense of loss in the thought of mankind ceasing to exist, it wouldn't be a terrible calamity. I'm not advocating the end of humanity, mind you. But I do wonder at the "persist throughout all eternity" thought process.
Microsoft is still not under ANY obligation to update YOUR emulator.
That is true. And if it required additional effort to update the emulators, I would expect them not to. But it appears as if they are are putting forth additional effort to hamper emulators. And that just makes them look like jerks.
Well, the problem that most people have is that this specific set of guidelines were motivated by religion, rather than the promotion of the best interests of the citizens of the United States.
There is some truth to that. But as members of a democratic society, we are free to be motivated by whatever we choose. If I choose to vote according to my faith, I am free to do so. If you choose to vote according to a magic eight ball, you are free to do so. If you choose to vote according to what you view is the best interest of science, you are free to do so.
As for the best interest of the people of the United States - you'll find that to be a very subjective term. Most everyone will say they are for the best interest of the people. But what exactly that means varies widely.
And yet federal money can't go to stem cell research? I'd rather my tax money go to that than a stupid war....
You've got that wrong. It may not be your fault though, many people have said what you just said - maybe you heard it from them and assumed it was true.
Federal money can't go to stem cell research that doesn't abide by a set of guidelines. THERE IS A LOT OF GOVERNMENT FUNDED STEM CELL RESEARCH IN THE USA RIGHT NOW. It is very common for the government to attach rules to the money it hands out. This is no exception. Why does that have you so worked up?
This is another step in a long chain of smart moves by Google. They have already proven they can create technical masterpieces. But where this (and Google News, and Froogle, etc.) really shines is in the practical usability department. There are search engines out there that will let you search using wildcards and all sorts of other features that are neat from a technical point of view. But I will use Google Movies a whole lot more than wildcards - because I like movies. And I bet a lot of other people will use it for the same reason.
It seems to me that the best way to procede is to live as though global warming were happening: use less energy, be clean, buy fuel efficient cars, etc. There is plenty of data to go through. We are collecting more all the time. Certainly there will remain people on both sides of this issue, but the actionable implications (less polution, more efficiency, non-petroleum based fuel) are no-brainers. We should be doing this stuff anyway. And then we should have plenty of time to discuss data and models.
Thank you for pointing out that we who disagree with you are not real scientists and have no concept of error propogation.
The fact is, when you use a discrete computer model you simply can't take into account all the errors. When you have even 10,000 data points, each with an associated error, there isn't enough time to compute all the possibilities. And a good model should have way more than 10,000 data points. Keep in mind here that weather is a highly chaotic, yet deterministic system. So changing one data point does effect the outcome. The time it would take to run fluid dynamic simulations (especially with a high voxel count) for three values per point (average, average - stddev, average + stddev) would be proposterous let alone sampling within the entire probable region. And since the simulation isn't any sort of well behaved equation you can't just propogate the error through to your answer. That means the error on each of those readings, especially those readings with the highest probability for error, CANNOT be accurately taken into account. By your own admission that makes the conclusion "useless to the extreme."
Your criticisms are not of the accuracy of the measurements, but of there precision. When measuring dates in the 400,000 year range, an error of +/- 10,000 years may or may not be signifigant.
Some are of accuracy and some are of precission. For instance, leaching before the final measurement can cause large innacuracy because the quantity you are measuring has fundamentally changed.
The problem is more about the GW zealots claiming to have found the one true answer and treating everyone who disagrees or wants more proof than a computer model as a moron, trying to shut down debate because they're RIGHT.
Why not? Do you have a theoretical or a scientific explanation for this line of reasoning?
Yes, ice cores don't deliver the same data, and the data it does provide is based on several assumptions and indirect measurements, which makes it inherently less accurate.
Don't worry about the typos, I do it all the time.
On to the points:
Last one first: Why the denial? What good does it do you?
Don't think that I burn gas all day for fun, and that I will continue until I am convinced we are causing global warming. I hardly use any gas, I live in a small, efficient house, I don't turn the heat way up, I don't use air conditioning, I recycle... The earth is a gift, and I try to be a good steward of that gift. So the only thing at stake here is whether or not I'm convinced of a certain theory. So I would ask "What harm does it do you if I'm not convinced?"
Next one: What sort of evidence are you waiting for ? What would it take? Can you answer that question?
Most of the data I have seen is not conclusive in my mind. I don't know how to convince you that if I were to see data that seemed correct, and that data led me to the logical conclusion that we were causing global warming, I would be convinced. The problem is, the case so far has been based on circumstantial evidence often brought by someone who is politically motivated. When I see data, and I see it has potential sources of error, I start to decide how credible I think it is. Who collected it? How did they collect it? What steps were involved from raw measurements to theory? It is in that realm that I have yet to be convinced.
Do you have any evidence at all to back up your statements?
Yes, I will explain myself further. In order to get data from an ice core, you have to measure a section of the ice core for whatever it is your looking for (C02 for example) and then guess how old that section is.
There are several methods to date an ice core section: 1. Counting layers, 2. Comparative analysis, 3. Radiometric dating, 4. Time-to-form calculation.
Each has a weakness. Method 1, counting layers, cannot practically and reasonably be performed for an ice core if it is truly 400,000 years old. It also depends on yearly cycles or past events that we must simply assume are the same as at present.
Method 2 is nothing more than looking for markers on one ice core that can be matched to another ice core - and as such, whatever error was involved in the first dating will be inherited by the new dating.
Method 3 compares ratios of radioactive materials to calculate an age. This method has yielded ages of tens of thousands of years for items with known ages less than a few hundred years. Furthermore, using different radioactive materials can yield wildly different ages for the same sample! When this happens, it is common place to discard erroneous readings since they "must have been contaminated or leached."
The last method, 4, is the worst of all. It takes as assumption of how long it would take for an ice layer to form, and uses a simple depth to age formula. Ack!
About the only thing you can conclusively say is that an ice section below another ice section is probably the older one. And an ice section a lot lower is probably a lot older.
These errors are all before we even get to the measurement part. Even if you know exactly how old the section is, you must have an accurate measurement of your test substance. But over time, many substances leach in and out of ice, rock, and most other substrates. This problem is even worse if the climate changed much at any time between ice formation and taking the reading.
There is a lot more to talk about here, and books have been written about these subjects - but hopefully it is apparent that there are many potential problems with this method. I have said before, the data gathered in this way is not irrellavent. But it must be weight against the possibility for large errors when it is being taken into account.
You are quite testy about this. First of all, I did check the link, thanks. Secondly, in your blind rage you have assumed that I'm so convinced that there is no such thing as global warming that I'd rather die that accept it. Right? Sorry to ruin your rash assumptions, but I'm in the "awaiting further evidence" catagory. There seems to be evidence of a change, but not enough for me to comfortably say I'm sure what's happening. One of the things keeping me there is people like you, who get angry at anyone who doesn't agree with them. That is not a good way to argue your point. And I will require more evidence than "you're stupid" to change my mind.
While we can gather some information from ice cores, there are MANY potentially HUGE sources of error in this method. Contrived tests with known values have shown that these samplings can yield wildly innaccurate data. Unfortunately, that data is usually discarded because "everyone knows this is one of those erroneous readings that doesn't fit the trend." The resulting data may or may not be correct - which isn't much to stand on.
You are correct. There is a disturbing notion that scientists are infallible and their conclusions unquestionable. This is clearly not the case as scientists often disagree with each other!
I would consider myself a scientist, or at least a strong thinker with a lot of scientific knowledge, and I am very uncomfortable with how far we are willing to extrapolate our knowledge. By the time you make a fifth degree indirect measurement and mix in a handful of assumptions (reasonable though they might be) you just can't be too sure of your conclusion. Yet many people seem very comfortable doing this on a regular basis and standing VERY firmly behind their findings. I question the scientific depth of those people.
Unfortunately, there are many people who will refuse to let your overwhelming evidence influence their dogma...
You are right on. This is true on both sides of this issue, and many others. Much of the problem, I believe, has to do with the manner in which we discuss these issues. Looking over the previous posts on this page, you will see a number of posts that are knee-jerk reactions from both camps. THESE DO NOT HELP ANYBODY.
When a story like this comes a long, the first thing we should all be thinking is how the computer model works, what data it uses, how accurate/inaccurate the data is, etc... That is where the discussion should start. Then tell people WHY you think what you think WITHOUT INSULTING THEM if possible.
On an encouraging note, there are already quite a few posts that do argue ideas without hurling politically loaded accusations. To the authors of those posts: I salute you.
I'm suspicious when you saw we have 400,000 years worth of data. Perhaps you are referring to ice core samples? If you are, they offer very limited information (like % C02 in atmosphere) and are based on several assumptions. This data IS meaningful, but I would not say that we have 400,000 years of data. And I would not put data collected from ice cores on par with data recorded from weather stations in recent years.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know that the parent post is really flamebait (as it is currently modded). The article specifically states that they played games and the grandparent post implies that they didn't.
I'll sleep just a bit longer while all the bugs get worked out on the first wave adopters. The first wave adopters, you know, the people who spend three times as much and get a lower quality product... the ones who pay for the research and development so that the second wave products are relatively glitch free.
Wake me up when those come out.
Why not use encased, plastic keyboards in hospitals? They are already on the market. They are pretty cheap. And they have a smooth surface that you can wipe clean (no nooks or crannies).
I've also heard rumors that you can put most keyboards through a dish washer. So you could probably sell rebranded dishwashers to the medical industry for $10,000 a pop in the wake of this news.
I very much agree with you. I wrote a similar post, but yours is worded much better. If I had moderator points...
I often don't agree with you, but in this case I think you are right on.
Discovery Channel and related shows/specials often present the opinions or ideas of a person employed in a science related field - and while they don't explicitly say it - the opinions can easily be mistaken as fact by people without good critical thinking skills.
The structure of the programs doesn't allow for too much depth into WHY they think what they think - only enough time for WHAT they think. It would be a far better service to allow several parties ample time to debate the reasons WHY somewhat in depth. Then people watching the show will truly gain some knowledge. Of course some shows do have this structure, but not nearly enough of them.
I've always wondered about the drive to prolong the human race - much like you wonder about the drive to spread the human race.
While it is easy to see the value in prolonging life that already exists (healthcare, etc), I don't always understand the reasons for wanting life to persist indefinitely. I suppose this is like the man blind from birth not feeling blind because he doesn't know what he is missing. Future generations don't NEED to exists. While there is some sense of loss in the thought of mankind ceasing to exist, it wouldn't be a terrible calamity. I'm not advocating the end of humanity, mind you. But I do wonder at the "persist throughout all eternity" thought process.
Microsoft is still not under ANY obligation to update YOUR emulator.
That is true. And if it required additional effort to update the emulators, I would expect them not to. But it appears as if they are are putting forth additional effort to hamper emulators. And that just makes them look like jerks.
Well, the problem that most people have is that this specific set of guidelines were motivated by religion, rather than the promotion of the best interests of the citizens of the United States.
There is some truth to that. But as members of a democratic society, we are free to be motivated by whatever we choose. If I choose to vote according to my faith, I am free to do so. If you choose to vote according to a magic eight ball, you are free to do so. If you choose to vote according to what you view is the best interest of science, you are free to do so.
As for the best interest of the people of the United States - you'll find that to be a very subjective term. Most everyone will say they are for the best interest of the people. But what exactly that means varies widely.
And yet federal money can't go to stem cell research? I'd rather my tax money go to that than a stupid war....
You've got that wrong. It may not be your fault though, many people have said what you just said - maybe you heard it from them and assumed it was true.
Federal money can't go to stem cell research that doesn't abide by a set of guidelines. THERE IS A LOT OF GOVERNMENT FUNDED STEM CELL RESEARCH IN THE USA RIGHT NOW. It is very common for the government to attach rules to the money it hands out. This is no exception. Why does that have you so worked up?
This is another step in a long chain of smart moves by Google. They have already proven they can create technical masterpieces. But where this (and Google News, and Froogle, etc.) really shines is in the practical usability department. There are search engines out there that will let you search using wildcards and all sorts of other features that are neat from a technical point of view. But I will use Google Movies a whole lot more than wildcards - because I like movies. And I bet a lot of other people will use it for the same reason.
Here's the kicker: the sea of block ice is only five degrees away from the Martian equator.
I have to admit I don't know a lot about this yet... but why is it such a "kicker" that the ice is so near the equator?
It seems to me that the best way to procede is to live as though global warming were happening: use less energy, be clean, buy fuel efficient cars, etc. There is plenty of data to go through. We are collecting more all the time. Certainly there will remain people on both sides of this issue, but the actionable implications (less polution, more efficiency, non-petroleum based fuel) are no-brainers. We should be doing this stuff anyway. And then we should have plenty of time to discuss data and models.
Thank you for pointing out that we who disagree with you are not real scientists and have no concept of error propogation.
The fact is, when you use a discrete computer model you simply can't take into account all the errors. When you have even 10,000 data points, each with an associated error, there isn't enough time to compute all the possibilities. And a good model should have way more than 10,000 data points. Keep in mind here that weather is a highly chaotic, yet deterministic system. So changing one data point does effect the outcome. The time it would take to run fluid dynamic simulations (especially with a high voxel count) for three values per point (average, average - stddev, average + stddev) would be proposterous let alone sampling within the entire probable region. And since the simulation isn't any sort of well behaved equation you can't just propogate the error through to your answer. That means the error on each of those readings, especially those readings with the highest probability for error, CANNOT be accurately taken into account. By your own admission that makes the conclusion "useless to the extreme."
Your criticisms are not of the accuracy of the measurements, but of there precision. When measuring dates in the 400,000 year range, an error of +/- 10,000 years may or may not be signifigant.
Some are of accuracy and some are of precission. For instance, leaching before the final measurement can cause large innacuracy because the quantity you are measuring has fundamentally changed.
The problem is more about the GW zealots claiming to have found the one true answer and treating everyone who disagrees or wants more proof than a computer model as a moron, trying to shut down debate because they're RIGHT.
Very good points.
Why not? Do you have a theoretical or a scientific explanation for this line of reasoning?
Yes, ice cores don't deliver the same data, and the data it does provide is based on several assumptions and indirect measurements, which makes it inherently less accurate.
Brilliant!.
You are sooooo much smarter then those silly scientists that are studying all this. I bet they never thought of any of that.
I don't suppose it would occur to a smartass like yourself that scientist did come up with this, and that is why there is some question.
By the way, if you disagree with any of my points, feel free to argue those points. That is the test of an idea - not in sarcasm.
Don't worry about the typos, I do it all the time.
On to the points:
Last one first: Why the denial? What good does it do you?
Don't think that I burn gas all day for fun, and that I will continue until I am convinced we are causing global warming. I hardly use any gas, I live in a small, efficient house, I don't turn the heat way up, I don't use air conditioning, I recycle... The earth is a gift, and I try to be a good steward of that gift. So the only thing at stake here is whether or not I'm convinced of a certain theory. So I would ask "What harm does it do you if I'm not convinced?"
Next one: What sort of evidence are you waiting for ? What would it take? Can you answer that question?
Most of the data I have seen is not conclusive in my mind. I don't know how to convince you that if I were to see data that seemed correct, and that data led me to the logical conclusion that we were causing global warming, I would be convinced. The problem is, the case so far has been based on circumstantial evidence often brought by someone who is politically motivated. When I see data, and I see it has potential sources of error, I start to decide how credible I think it is. Who collected it? How did they collect it? What steps were involved from raw measurements to theory? It is in that realm that I have yet to be convinced.
I wish I had written your words. Very well put.
Do you have any evidence at all to back up your statements?
Yes, I will explain myself further. In order to get data from an ice core, you have to measure a section of the ice core for whatever it is your looking for (C02 for example) and then guess how old that section is.
There are several methods to date an ice core section: 1. Counting layers, 2. Comparative analysis, 3. Radiometric dating, 4. Time-to-form calculation.
Each has a weakness. Method 1, counting layers, cannot practically and reasonably be performed for an ice core if it is truly 400,000 years old. It also depends on yearly cycles or past events that we must simply assume are the same as at present.
Method 2 is nothing more than looking for markers on one ice core that can be matched to another ice core - and as such, whatever error was involved in the first dating will be inherited by the new dating.
Method 3 compares ratios of radioactive materials to calculate an age. This method has yielded ages of tens of thousands of years for items with known ages less than a few hundred years. Furthermore, using different radioactive materials can yield wildly different ages for the same sample! When this happens, it is common place to discard erroneous readings since they "must have been contaminated or leached."
The last method, 4, is the worst of all. It takes as assumption of how long it would take for an ice layer to form, and uses a simple depth to age formula. Ack!
About the only thing you can conclusively say is that an ice section below another ice section is probably the older one. And an ice section a lot lower is probably a lot older.
These errors are all before we even get to the measurement part. Even if you know exactly how old the section is, you must have an accurate measurement of your test substance. But over time, many substances leach in and out of ice, rock, and most other substrates. This problem is even worse if the climate changed much at any time between ice formation and taking the reading.
There is a lot more to talk about here, and books have been written about these subjects - but hopefully it is apparent that there are many potential problems with this method. I have said before, the data gathered in this way is not irrellavent. But it must be weight against the possibility for large errors when it is being taken into account.
You are quite testy about this. First of all, I did check the link, thanks. Secondly, in your blind rage you have assumed that I'm so convinced that there is no such thing as global warming that I'd rather die that accept it. Right? Sorry to ruin your rash assumptions, but I'm in the "awaiting further evidence" catagory. There seems to be evidence of a change, but not enough for me to comfortably say I'm sure what's happening. One of the things keeping me there is people like you, who get angry at anyone who doesn't agree with them. That is not a good way to argue your point. And I will require more evidence than "you're stupid" to change my mind.
While we can gather some information from ice cores, there are MANY potentially HUGE sources of error in this method. Contrived tests with known values have shown that these samplings can yield wildly innaccurate data. Unfortunately, that data is usually discarded because "everyone knows this is one of those erroneous readings that doesn't fit the trend." The resulting data may or may not be correct - which isn't much to stand on.
You are correct. There is a disturbing notion that scientists are infallible and their conclusions unquestionable. This is clearly not the case as scientists often disagree with each other!
I would consider myself a scientist, or at least a strong thinker with a lot of scientific knowledge, and I am very uncomfortable with how far we are willing to extrapolate our knowledge. By the time you make a fifth degree indirect measurement and mix in a handful of assumptions (reasonable though they might be) you just can't be too sure of your conclusion. Yet many people seem very comfortable doing this on a regular basis and standing VERY firmly behind their findings. I question the scientific depth of those people.
Unfortunately, there are many people who will refuse to let your overwhelming evidence influence their dogma...
You are right on. This is true on both sides of this issue, and many others. Much of the problem, I believe, has to do with the manner in which we discuss these issues. Looking over the previous posts on this page, you will see a number of posts that are knee-jerk reactions from both camps. THESE DO NOT HELP ANYBODY.
When a story like this comes a long, the first thing we should all be thinking is how the computer model works, what data it uses, how accurate/inaccurate the data is, etc... That is where the discussion should start. Then tell people WHY you think what you think WITHOUT INSULTING THEM if possible.
On an encouraging note, there are already quite a few posts that do argue ideas without hurling politically loaded accusations. To the authors of those posts: I salute you.
I'm suspicious when you saw we have 400,000 years worth of data. Perhaps you are referring to ice core samples? If you are, they offer very limited information (like % C02 in atmosphere) and are based on several assumptions. This data IS meaningful, but I would not say that we have 400,000 years of data. And I would not put data collected from ice cores on par with data recorded from weather stations in recent years.