Come on, predicting aircraft behavior is far more than just 'CAD design of a piece of machinery'. It involves predictions of aerodynamic behavior, which also requires far-from-trivial computer models, and it involves predicting 'flyability', which requires careful modeling of human-machine interactions.
Nobody is claiming that whole-world climate models are already as robust or as accurate as these aircraft models, but they are getting more and more sophisticated, and they are certainly far beyond the stage where these predictions can be dismissed as random, meaningless numbers.
But exactly what are you grumbling about? You think the error margins in their results are too large to draw any conclusions? From the quoted fragment of their conclusion it doesn't sound like that. You think they are too optimistic in their error margins? Can you give a specific reason for that? Yes, not all mechanisms that influence the climate are fully understood, but exactly why do you think the authors have underestimated the influence of these mechanisms? Or perhaps you simply think that the journalists are misreporting the results of this scientific paper?
Computer models are nowadays also used to design aircraft, and they are so good that new aircraft routinely perform nearly perfectly on first flight. Modern highly complex ICs in bleeding-edge processes are supposed to work at first tape-out, all design and verification is done by computer. As long as you know the limitations of your model, computer modeling is a very valuable tool.
And look here, the authors of this article do know the limitations of their model:
The uncertainty is due to variation in the global models and the complex seasonal and topographical features of the L.A. regional climate.
Ok, that's an easy answer: yes, predicting the weather is still hard, although modern predictions are actually very good most of the time, and certainly not as bad as common `wisdom' thinks they are.
However, climate models are about climate, not weather. They predict average weather, and that is easier than predicting the weather on a particular day. In a very similar way you cannot reliably predict the next roll of a dice, but you can very reliably predict the tallies of the next hundred rolls.
When predicting the next rolls of the dice you can even predict the expected error in the prediction: the standard deviation. The climate model of this article is apparently so good that they can also predict the expected deviation, which allows them to predict that there will be these hot spells, even though they are not able to predict the exact days these hot spells will happen.
As an Android developer, I have made this mistake myself. My app uses the Bluetooth API to listen to external GPSes, but can also run on 1.6, where this API is not present. I do this by carefully checking that the required API is there before using it. Google even has some documentation on how to do this.
However, it is easy as a developer to make a mistake in this. Forget to do the necessary checks in one place, and your app crashes on 1.6. So for every new release you must carefully check that it runs on every version. Guess what: not every developer will do that religiously, especially if all he did was change something completely unrelated. In my case I fortunately caught the problem before a new release because I have a 1.6 device myself that I use semi-regularly, but it is far to easy to overlook this. Far, far, to easy.
Now of course you can label me and everyone else who makes this mistake a bad programmer, but that doesn't change the fact that this happens, and I suspect it happens pretty often.
It's clear you have made up your mind that the science is simply wrong.
Actually, it's a bit more subtle than that - global warming alarmists simply *aren't doing science*.
If you're not even willing to accept that, what is the point of arguing with you? Here on planet earth there is a lot of solid science that indicates there is global warming. Just see the UN reports for a start. On your planet there might not be, but that is of no concern to us here on earth.
I think you underestimate the repetition there is in the app market: identical book wrappers around hundred of different books, club/idol fan apps that are identical except for a few logos and urls, and so on. And not every app is regularly updated.
Moreover, Apple has strict guidelines about good coding practices, and they have the tools to enforce them on the source code. That's much more than the Android market does, even counting the virus checking that the parent post mentions. So even if all Apple would do is run code inspection tools, there would be significant difference in `vettedness'. In reality they must have tools to make sure that a supposedly innocent book wrapper doesn't use any network communication at all, and similar common-sense checks, and they will have have some knowledgable people that handle the difficult cases. Last but not least, one reason they have this reputation for capricious rejections is that they err on the side of caution.
Calling all this just security theater is not realistic. No, it will not catch every bug and malicious trick, but I'm sure the lock on your front door can also be picked by a competent burglar, and that doesn't make that lock security theater.
Both the Android and the Apple approach have their advantages. It's a bit like a holiday: some people prefer organized trips, some people prefer to do all the planning themselves. But do not underestimate the value of the organized trip to some people; it gets them to places they would not go otherwise.
I've used both platforms, and both seem to have an 'approved' appstore and both can access others by jailbreaking (sic). Even the android phones I used were locked down by the carrier to only use the 'real' appstore. I don't see what the substantive difference is in those kinds of cases.
Apart from what others have posted: the apps in the Google App store are hardly vetted: any developer can post whatever s/he likes, and it is immediately available in the store. Google may remove the app later on if it breaks some of the rules, and I don't think that happens very often.
In contrast, Apple checks every version of every app, and only when it is approved it is published.
If it's a good investment, if it's actually "booming", it shouldn't need public money.
Yeah, yeah. A good investment for a government is something else then for a shareholder. What I of course mean is that it makes sense for a government to spend some public money on exploring and stimulating alternatives to oil with all its political and pollution problems.
Your economic theories make no sense to me. The point of this kind of public investment is to be a `launching customer' that makes the price low enough to attract other buyers, and hopefully after a few years the government money is no longer needed for a healthy market. Since the cost of solar energy is dropping rapidly, that whole theory doesn't seem so farfetched to me. No doubt there were other factors in play here, but nevertheless it still looks to me that the money did some good, and was well spent.
Obama's "Green" initiatives are about more than implementing a renewable technology such as solar. Just as important in that imitative is "Green Jobs". It is seen as a twofer, ween us off the eeeevil oil and bring manufacturing jobs back.
The reality is that most of that 21 billion was heavily subsidized by the tax payers, the purchase, the manufacturing and the installation.
You say that as if it is some kind of dirty secret. But isn't this what the Obama administration has been saying explicitly from the start? And why would they be ashamed of it? It sounds to me like a good investment of public money.
The only way the governments are going to monitor this is if they crack every possible key, and/or get that quantum computer thing going.
They don't have to crack every possible key. Google openssl compromise. There is every likelyhood that they already have a backdoor to most encryption standards. Why else would the NSA publish its own blueprint for smartphones and lay out the proposed encryption standards if they didn't already have access to those encrypted streams?
The NSA design uses IPSec tunnels, not ssl.
Plus, the NSA design is intended to be used for top-secret US communication. I strongly doubt that they would offer a design that they know is compromised. If they can do it, a sufficiently determined adversary can do it as well. If not now, then in a few years, just when the US government has started to use those smartphones on a large scale.
It is always wise to be wary of NSA designs (or any other design claiming to offer strong security), but this scenario seems implausible to me. Of course, if the US government doesn't actually adopt the design, that's a bad sign.
The premise you're using is also flawed. Why is Government funding healthcare? Government should not fund nor is really legal for it to fund healthcare. Once you get past that part you will realize why taxing people to change their behavior is morally wrong.
Personally I would say that subjecting people's health to market forces is morally wrong, and I am certainly not alone in that opinion: a lot of countries have organized their healthcare accordingly. Calling those systems government-funded would often be misleading, though: the insurance and health care organizations that maintain the necessary funds are usually kept at arms-length from politics, to ensure that they do not become victim of party politics.
But even in a society where all heath care is privately financed, you could make a very solid argument for using taxes to change people's behavior. Even someone who smokes himself to death without any medical intervention still damages society in many ways: for example, he deprives society of his labor over the years, he causes grieve and anxiety in his social network, and he sets a bad example to others.
Therefore, since any society has to raise taxes anyway, why not use this necessity to do some additional good for the society at the same time?
Apart from that, in a society where all heath care is privately financed it is the private institutes that have the incentive to stimulate healthy living. The instruments they have to do that are not very different from what the government would have, so you'd still get the cheerful folders about the benefits of regular exercise, low weight, and quitting smoking. The organization that sends you those folders is just privately owned. Big deal. Also, you may get a discount on your premiums if you don't smoke or are not overweight, which looks pretty similar to a tax break to me.
No. fact is where we park winner. You drop something from a 110 story building, it falls at the same rate either feather or brick. that's gravity. Gravity is fact.
Why are you so sure that that will be the observed behavior? Gravity is just a theory. Granted, there are a lot of observations that fit the theory, but how can you be absolutely sure that this theory applies at every place and moment? You are basing yourself on a finite number of observations, and the vast majority of these observations are so casual that they wouldn't spot subtle deviations.
Actually, I am sure that if you drop a feather and a brick and a feather from a 110 story building they will not fall at the same rate, and neither of them will fall at a rate or trajectory predicted by gravity.
Aww, it seems someone needs a BIIIIIIGGG hug here. Those poor tax payers, they always get the short end of the stick. You want a tissue? Here, take the whole box, you'll need it.
The truth is that in any civilized society everyone is a tax payer, and everyone benefits from those taxes. And yes, there will be some people that get more out of the system than they put into it, but they will be rare, especially if you average over a lifetime, and those rare cases usually have a good reason, such as a severe mental or physical disability.
Respect for your fellow citizen is always good, but people that use food stamps or free medical care also contribute to society, and also deserve respect.
It's not theft because the "victim" is party to the crime, which is not a feature characteristic of theft.
This is about cases where people get billed for "services" that they never agreed to pay for. Go read the article, it is clearly spelled out.
Whatever you call it, it is illegal, and there is a victim.
Aww, come on! Do you really believe that? NOTW are also accused of a whole string of similar hacks on royalty and celebrity phones. One such incident they can explain away, but all of them? Especially because they have a well-deserved reputation for other dirty tricks.
And no, Rupert Murdoch didn't personally hack those phones. Osama Bin Laden also didn't personally fly one of those airplanes. Still, OBL was considered a mass murderer. Rupert Murdoch is no mass murderer, but he IS a ruthless psychopath.
Three-day weather forecasts aren't significantly more precise or accurate than what you can get from the farmer's almanacs, or what any intelligent, observant person who's lived in the area for a few years can tell you by virtue of what month it is.
The weather forecast community is claiming that they do far better than that. If you disagree, you'd better back it up with some credible arguments.
This article is nothing more than a troll from NASA to scare people into thinking that if they don't get ALL their funding, people will die in blizzards and tornadoes.
Or perhaps NASA is right to complain: people WILL die if they have to stop running those satellites?
Is concentrating solar power into "power plants" the best way? Wouldn't it make more sense to distribute the collection over a large area, namely every persons house?
As I understand it, this method is cheaper per megawatt than PV panels are, and it is also able to generate energy at night.
Downsides are that it works best on a large scale, and that if ever the molten salt would solidify, the plant would be dead. It's also relatively unproven technology that due to the large size requires large investments.
So is this the way to go? It seems to me that there will be circumstances where this makes more sense, and circumstances where PV panels make more sense. Therefore, this loan guarantee looks like excellent use of public money: it puts a little lubrication in the economy where it can do a lot of good, and where the risks are relatively low. I wish all public money was spent so well.
No, he's not a Marxist, he's just Mussolini. Who can't even make the trains run on time, and has us involved in a war in North Africa. Again.
Hmm, Mussolini. Yes, I must say that I see quite some resemblance between current USA and the fascist Italy of Mussolini. But Obama's USA hasn't changed much from GWB's USA, so that would make GWB another Mussolini, no? And based on history, wouldn't it be wise for the US people to vote far more left-wing than they do now? More Marxist, so to say?
Since the USA doesn't have any (passenger) trains to speak of, I'm not sure what you are complaining about. You think Obama should have created a decent train network in the two years he has been in office? That's quite a tall order, and I understand that he at least tried to do something in this area.
But Obama is a Marxist, so anything he does is wonderful.
The funny part is that the left seem to believe that discrediting Palin would help them, whereas the right-wing Americans I know only like Pailn because she pisses off the left so much; they'd never actually vote for her, but she's a useful distraction.
In current US politics Marxist must mean something like `slightly less rightwing than the really extreme rightwingers', because Obama is certainly not anywhere near a real Marxist as we Europeans know the term.
And if Palin is a distraction, exactly what or whom is she distracting from?
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, predicting aircraft behavior is far more than just 'CAD design of a piece of machinery'. It involves predictions of aerodynamic behavior, which also requires far-from-trivial computer models, and it involves predicting 'flyability', which requires careful modeling of human-machine interactions.
Nobody is claiming that whole-world climate models are already as robust or as accurate as these aircraft models, but they are getting more and more sophisticated, and they are certainly far beyond the stage where these predictions can be dismissed as random, meaningless numbers.
But exactly what are you grumbling about? You think the error margins in their results are too large to draw any conclusions? From the quoted fragment of their conclusion it doesn't sound like that. You think they are too optimistic in their error margins? Can you give a specific reason for that? Yes, not all mechanisms that influence the climate are fully understood, but exactly why do you think the authors have underestimated the influence of these mechanisms? Or perhaps you simply think that the journalists are misreporting the results of this scientific paper?
Computer models are nowadays also used to design aircraft, and they are so good that new aircraft routinely perform nearly perfectly on first flight. Modern highly complex ICs in bleeding-edge processes are supposed to work at first tape-out, all design and verification is done by computer. As long as you know the limitations of your model, computer modeling is a very valuable tool.
And look here, the authors of this article do know the limitations of their model:
Doesn't sound like hubris to me.
Ok, that's an easy answer: yes, predicting the weather is still hard, although modern predictions are actually very good most of the time, and certainly not as bad as common `wisdom' thinks they are.
However, climate models are about climate, not weather. They predict average weather, and that is easier than predicting the weather on a particular day. In a very similar way you cannot reliably predict the next roll of a dice, but you can very reliably predict the tallies of the next hundred rolls.
When predicting the next rolls of the dice you can even predict the expected error in the prediction: the standard deviation. The climate model of this article is apparently so good that they can also predict the expected deviation, which allows them to predict that there will be these hot spells, even though they are not able to predict the exact days these hot spells will happen.
As an Android developer, I have made this mistake myself. My app uses the Bluetooth API to listen to external GPSes, but can also run on 1.6, where this API is not present. I do this by carefully checking that the required API is there before using it. Google even has some documentation on how to do this.
However, it is easy as a developer to make a mistake in this. Forget to do the necessary checks in one place, and your app crashes on 1.6. So for every new release you must carefully check that it runs on every version. Guess what: not every developer will do that religiously, especially if all he did was change something completely unrelated. In my case I fortunately caught the problem before a new release because I have a 1.6 device myself that I use semi-regularly, but it is far to easy to overlook this. Far, far, to easy.
Now of course you can label me and everyone else who makes this mistake a bad programmer, but that doesn't change the fact that this happens, and I suspect it happens pretty often.
Actually, it's a bit more subtle than that - global warming alarmists simply *aren't doing science*.
If you're not even willing to accept that, what is the point of arguing with you? Here on planet earth there is a lot of solid science that indicates there is global warming. Just see the UN reports for a start. On your planet there might not be, but that is of no concern to us here on earth.
I think you underestimate the repetition there is in the app market: identical book wrappers around hundred of different books, club/idol fan apps that are identical except for a few logos and urls, and so on. And not every app is regularly updated.
Moreover, Apple has strict guidelines about good coding practices, and they have the tools to enforce them on the source code. That's much more than the Android market does, even counting the virus checking that the parent post mentions. So even if all Apple would do is run code inspection tools, there would be significant difference in `vettedness'. In reality they must have tools to make sure that a supposedly innocent book wrapper doesn't use any network communication at all, and similar common-sense checks, and they will have have some knowledgable people that handle the difficult cases. Last but not least, one reason they have this reputation for capricious rejections is that they err on the side of caution.
Calling all this just security theater is not realistic. No, it will not catch every bug and malicious trick, but I'm sure the lock on your front door can also be picked by a competent burglar, and that doesn't make that lock security theater.
Both the Android and the Apple approach have their advantages. It's a bit like a holiday: some people prefer organized trips, some people prefer to do all the planning themselves. But do not underestimate the value of the organized trip to some people; it gets them to places they would not go otherwise.
I've used both platforms, and both seem to have an 'approved' appstore and both can access others by jailbreaking (sic). Even the android phones I used were locked down by the carrier to only use the 'real' appstore. I don't see what the substantive difference is in those kinds of cases.
Apart from what others have posted: the apps in the Google App store are hardly vetted: any developer can post whatever s/he likes, and it is immediately available in the store. Google may remove the app later on if it breaks some of the rules, and I don't think that happens very often. In contrast, Apple checks every version of every app, and only when it is approved it is published.
If it's a good investment, if it's actually "booming", it shouldn't need public money.
Yeah, yeah. A good investment for a government is something else then for a shareholder. What I of course mean is that it makes sense for a government to spend some public money on exploring and stimulating alternatives to oil with all its political and pollution problems.
Your economic theories make no sense to me. The point of this kind of public investment is to be a `launching customer' that makes the price low enough to attract other buyers, and hopefully after a few years the government money is no longer needed for a healthy market. Since the cost of solar energy is dropping rapidly, that whole theory doesn't seem so farfetched to me. No doubt there were other factors in play here, but nevertheless it still looks to me that the money did some good, and was well spent.
Obama's "Green" initiatives are about more than implementing a renewable technology such as solar. Just as important in that imitative is "Green Jobs". It is seen as a twofer, ween us off the eeeevil oil and bring manufacturing jobs back.
The reality is that most of that 21 billion was heavily subsidized by the tax payers, the purchase, the manufacturing and the installation.
You say that as if it is some kind of dirty secret. But isn't this what the Obama administration has been saying explicitly from the start? And why would they be ashamed of it? It sounds to me like a good investment of public money.
The only way the governments are going to monitor this is if they crack every possible key, and/or get that quantum computer thing going.
They don't have to crack every possible key. Google openssl compromise. There is every likelyhood that they already have a backdoor to most encryption standards. Why else would the NSA publish its own blueprint for smartphones and lay out the proposed encryption standards if they didn't already have access to those encrypted streams?
The NSA design uses IPSec tunnels, not ssl.
Plus, the NSA design is intended to be used for top-secret US communication. I strongly doubt that they would offer a design that they know is compromised. If they can do it, a sufficiently determined adversary can do it as well. If not now, then in a few years, just when the US government has started to use those smartphones on a large scale.
It is always wise to be wary of NSA designs (or any other design claiming to offer strong security), but this scenario seems implausible to me. Of course, if the US government doesn't actually adopt the design, that's a bad sign.
The premise you're using is also flawed. Why is Government funding healthcare? Government should not fund nor is really legal for it to fund healthcare. Once you get past that part you will realize why taxing people to change their behavior is morally wrong.
Personally I would say that subjecting people's health to market forces is morally wrong, and I am certainly not alone in that opinion: a lot of countries have organized their healthcare accordingly. Calling those systems government-funded would often be misleading, though: the insurance and health care organizations that maintain the necessary funds are usually kept at arms-length from politics, to ensure that they do not become victim of party politics.
But even in a society where all heath care is privately financed, you could make a very solid argument for using taxes to change people's behavior. Even someone who smokes himself to death without any medical intervention still damages society in many ways: for example, he deprives society of his labor over the years, he causes grieve and anxiety in his social network, and he sets a bad example to others.
Therefore, since any society has to raise taxes anyway, why not use this necessity to do some additional good for the society at the same time?
Apart from that, in a society where all heath care is privately financed it is the private institutes that have the incentive to stimulate healthy living. The instruments they have to do that are not very different from what the government would have, so you'd still get the cheerful folders about the benefits of regular exercise, low weight, and quitting smoking. The organization that sends you those folders is just privately owned. Big deal. Also, you may get a discount on your premiums if you don't smoke or are not overweight, which looks pretty similar to a tax break to me.
Yes...because only the almighty government can do these things...
Do you have any good counter examples?
I don't know about that. Obviously, anyone with a first, last, or middle name of "Hussien" is a security threat and should be on the terror list.
Yeah, you just can't trust those dyslectics.
No. fact is where we park winner. You drop something from a 110 story building, it falls at the same rate either feather or brick. that's gravity. Gravity is fact.
Why are you so sure that that will be the observed behavior? Gravity is just a theory. Granted, there are a lot of observations that fit the theory, but how can you be absolutely sure that this theory applies at every place and moment? You are basing yourself on a finite number of observations, and the vast majority of these observations are so casual that they wouldn't spot subtle deviations.
Actually, I am sure that if you drop a feather and a brick and a feather from a 110 story building they will not fall at the same rate, and neither of them will fall at a rate or trajectory predicted by gravity.
The Tea Party also has the virtue of being on the right side of the taxation argument.
The far, far, far right side, I would say. Personally, I don't consider that a virtue, but then I'm not an American, only a bemused spectator.
Yeah, that's a really accurate translation of the scientific statement. Don't give up your day job.
A "just in time" compiler is a type of interpreter. I know it sounds confusing but that is the way it is.
Eh? A JIT compiler generates native machine code, and the generated code will be directly executed by the processor. Why isn't that compilation?
Aww, it seems someone needs a BIIIIIIGGG hug here. Those poor tax payers, they always get the short end of the stick. You want a tissue? Here, take the whole box, you'll need it.
The truth is that in any civilized society everyone is a tax payer, and everyone benefits from those taxes. And yes, there will be some people that get more out of the system than they put into it, but they will be rare, especially if you average over a lifetime, and those rare cases usually have a good reason, such as a severe mental or physical disability.
Respect for your fellow citizen is always good, but people that use food stamps or free medical care also contribute to society, and also deserve respect.
It's not theft because the "victim" is party to the crime, which is not a feature characteristic of theft.
This is about cases where people get billed for "services" that they never agreed to pay for. Go read the article, it is clearly spelled out. Whatever you call it, it is illegal, and there is a victim.
Aww, come on! Do you really believe that? NOTW are also accused of a whole string of similar hacks on royalty and celebrity phones. One such incident they can explain away, but all of them? Especially because they have a well-deserved reputation for other dirty tricks.
And no, Rupert Murdoch didn't personally hack those phones. Osama Bin Laden also didn't personally fly one of those airplanes. Still, OBL was considered a mass murderer. Rupert Murdoch is no mass murderer, but he IS a ruthless psychopath.
Three-day weather forecasts aren't significantly more precise or accurate than what you can get from the farmer's almanacs, or what any intelligent, observant person who's lived in the area for a few years can tell you by virtue of what month it is.
The weather forecast community is claiming that they do far better than that. If you disagree, you'd better back it up with some credible arguments.
This article is nothing more than a troll from NASA to scare people into thinking that if they don't get ALL their funding, people will die in blizzards and tornadoes.
Or perhaps NASA is right to complain: people WILL die if they have to stop running those satellites?
Is concentrating solar power into "power plants" the best way? Wouldn't it make more sense to distribute the collection over a large area, namely every persons house?
As I understand it, this method is cheaper per megawatt than PV panels are, and it is also able to generate energy at night. Downsides are that it works best on a large scale, and that if ever the molten salt would solidify, the plant would be dead. It's also relatively unproven technology that due to the large size requires large investments.
So is this the way to go? It seems to me that there will be circumstances where this makes more sense, and circumstances where PV panels make more sense. Therefore, this loan guarantee looks like excellent use of public money: it puts a little lubrication in the economy where it can do a lot of good, and where the risks are relatively low. I wish all public money was spent so well.
No, he's not a Marxist, he's just Mussolini. Who can't even make the trains run on time, and has us involved in a war in North Africa. Again.
Hmm, Mussolini. Yes, I must say that I see quite some resemblance between current USA and the fascist Italy of Mussolini. But Obama's USA hasn't changed much from GWB's USA, so that would make GWB another Mussolini, no? And based on history, wouldn't it be wise for the US people to vote far more left-wing than they do now? More Marxist, so to say?
Since the USA doesn't have any (passenger) trains to speak of, I'm not sure what you are complaining about. You think Obama should have created a decent train network in the two years he has been in office? That's quite a tall order, and I understand that he at least tried to do something in this area.
But Obama is a Marxist, so anything he does is wonderful.
The funny part is that the left seem to believe that discrediting Palin would help them, whereas the right-wing Americans I know only like Pailn because she pisses off the left so much; they'd never actually vote for her, but she's a useful distraction.
In current US politics Marxist must mean something like `slightly less rightwing than the really extreme rightwingers', because Obama is certainly not anywhere near a real Marxist as we Europeans know the term.
And if Palin is a distraction, exactly what or whom is she distracting from?