A 5% false positive rate is far too high for any broad screening application. For example if 5% of all Skype accounts are scam accounts, then when you lump those in with the 5% false positives, you're no more likely than chance to correctly label someone as a scammer.
It's not a fine line at all in many jurisdictions, where any paid promotion must be explicitly disclosed. The agreement quoted here includes a gagging clause that's in direct conflict with that.
It would be fairer to say that there wasn't firm evidence for anything like "ball lightning" until that point. And the stuff that there's evidence for is still a tiny subset of ball lightning's supposed properties, most of which are more likely caused by phosphenes.
Not just law enforcement, but the F-B-fucking-I. What the heck is going on in the US that one guy seemingly recording a movie requires a prompt response from the most important crime-fighting agency in the country?
For those keeping track, all of their highest-ever Cartel fines were against EU companies, in one case jointly with a Korean company. If you read the numbers in the PDF they make everything Google and MS have ever paid with seem like a diner tip.
Saint Gobain (France) Philips (Netherlands) and LG Electronics (Korea) Deutsche Bank AG (Germany) F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (Switzerland) Société Générale (France) Siemens AG (Germany) Pilkington (UK) E.ON (Germany) GDF Suez (France)
If the reason you think someone's doing something is really, really stupid, maybe it's not actually the reason they're doing it. All the other people in the world are not morons.
That's why it's a very technical and nuanced field performed by people who put decades of their lives into nothing but answering those questions. After all, no thesis committee or journal editor just rolls over and says "okay, you say that's a proxy, that's good enough for us".
Fortunately the sun's variability is (based on past data) reasonably limited over the kinds of timescales we want to study. So we have an idea how large an effect it could have, even though we can't predict it. (Incidentally, this isn't a "solar flare minimum" this winter. We're supposed to be at peak solar activity.)
That is the million dollar question. Of course neither is particularly helpful for the Californian communities that are going to have to cope with it because they both speak to long term drought.
It's not an issue of "tweaking all the parameters", it's an issue of having to parameterise the model as a simple methodological necessity. You parameterise it to the past data, and express the sensitivity of your model to your parameter degrees of freedom as part of the validation process when you're working towards publication.
I genuinely have never heard anyone say "well, it's getting cooler, but we always called it climate change, so we're right", or anything along that line of reasoning.
That's how you derive models for simple systems, and parameterise models where we already know that a particular function is a good fit - you probably fitted force to strain using Hooke's law as your function to find the force constant of a spring. Unfortunately we already know that climate is a good deal more complicated than Hooke's law; in systems like these there has to be some physical justification to the model that you're using. Otherwise you might be fitting to a large number of points but only forecasting a few, as these authors are, and therefore your model is likely to be overfit and therefore unsound. Or you could just create a good model by dumb luck. Remember epicycles?
No, I didn't mean the President's Climate Action Plan, I meant climate scientists, and how they're reacting to the issue. Which is how scientists tend to react to a crisis. Which is what was required before the quote author would believe it was a crisis.
I assume that going around informing important stakeholders of the problem and campaigning for change, like scientists always do when they believe there's a crisis, doesn't count?
Slashdot Mirror
A 5% false positive rate is far too high for any broad screening application. For example if 5% of all Skype accounts are scam accounts, then when you lump those in with the 5% false positives, you're no more likely than chance to correctly label someone as a scammer.
1) Relabel Windows 7 boxes "Windows 8 Desktop Edition"
2) Raise prices
3) Profit
It's not a fine line at all in many jurisdictions, where any paid promotion must be explicitly disclosed. The agreement quoted here includes a gagging clause that's in direct conflict with that.
It would be fairer to say that there wasn't firm evidence for anything like "ball lightning" until that point. And the stuff that there's evidence for is still a tiny subset of ball lightning's supposed properties, most of which are more likely caused by phosphenes.
Not just law enforcement, but the F-B-fucking-I. What the heck is going on in the US that one guy seemingly recording a movie requires a prompt response from the most important crime-fighting agency in the country?
For those keeping track, all of their highest-ever Cartel fines were against EU companies, in one case jointly with a Korean company. If you read the numbers in the PDF they make everything Google and MS have ever paid with seem like a diner tip.
Saint Gobain (France)
Philips (Netherlands) and LG Electronics (Korea)
Deutsche Bank AG (Germany)
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (Switzerland)
Société Générale (France)
Siemens AG (Germany)
Pilkington (UK)
E.ON (Germany)
GDF Suez (France)
It's almost like the EU's constitution incorporates laws that US's laws place in other documents.
If the reason you think someone's doing something is really, really stupid, maybe it's not actually the reason they're doing it. All the other people in the world are not morons.
So you basically want them to lose money on both the console, and the software.
It's embedded in the first article, on the right hand side, under the picture.
It's in the first-linked article, directly underneath the picture.
Of all the songs to pick, you choose the one that ushered in the era of the "music video"? :/
Yes, nothing's more destructive to democracy than people knowing the outcome of an election.
Yes, exactly. They're explaining why this supposed disproof, isn't.
You didn't read the article either, did you? I mean you genuinely don't actually know what it says.
That's why it's a very technical and nuanced field performed by people who put decades of their lives into nothing but answering those questions. After all, no thesis committee or journal editor just rolls over and says "okay, you say that's a proxy, that's good enough for us".
Fortunately the sun's variability is (based on past data) reasonably limited over the kinds of timescales we want to study. So we have an idea how large an effect it could have, even though we can't predict it. (Incidentally, this isn't a "solar flare minimum" this winter. We're supposed to be at peak solar activity.)
That is the million dollar question. Of course neither is particularly helpful for the Californian communities that are going to have to cope with it because they both speak to long term drought.
It's not an issue of "tweaking all the parameters", it's an issue of having to parameterise the model as a simple methodological necessity. You parameterise it to the past data, and express the sensitivity of your model to your parameter degrees of freedom as part of the validation process when you're working towards publication.
I genuinely have never heard anyone say "well, it's getting cooler, but we always called it climate change, so we're right", or anything along that line of reasoning.
Genuine shame.
I don't think the quoted source said any of those things.
That's how you derive models for simple systems, and parameterise models where we already know that a particular function is a good fit - you probably fitted force to strain using Hooke's law as your function to find the force constant of a spring. Unfortunately we already know that climate is a good deal more complicated than Hooke's law; in systems like these there has to be some physical justification to the model that you're using. Otherwise you might be fitting to a large number of points but only forecasting a few, as these authors are, and therefore your model is likely to be overfit and therefore unsound. Or you could just create a good model by dumb luck. Remember epicycles?
No, I didn't mean the President's Climate Action Plan, I meant climate scientists, and how they're reacting to the issue. Which is how scientists tend to react to a crisis. Which is what was required before the quote author would believe it was a crisis.
I assume that going around informing important stakeholders of the problem and campaigning for change, like scientists always do when they believe there's a crisis, doesn't count?