The word MODEM (as the article indicates) represents MOdulatorDEModulator. Hence it should be capitalized. This is also try of enCOderDECoder (CODEC). Slightly less related yet as correct LASER and RADAR....
So your ignorance is less harmful. So what? It's still ignorance.
When I use coffee, sure, I feel better. Bad me! But I also get more productive and focused -- a more valued member of society even by your criteria.
I have endured chronic, inscrutable back/neck pain for over ten years and nothing that any of the many doctors or alternate therapies all that time has been able to figure out what's causing it or do anything to stop its recurrence. When it's active, I am *extremely* distracted and unable to focus and think clearly, yet there is no way to prove this to anyone because it doesn't seem to have any physical correlate. And I've done "the right thing" by not resorting to illegal drugs, just using the marginally effective crap they give me. All while having to put up with intense pain that I can't make go away and doesn't have any useful purpose.
What if this neurostim, or even a "bad" drug, relieved that pain, and did thousands of times over what coffee does for me? I'd be a tremendously productive member of society, "but", unfortunately, I would feel better without having "earned" it by your Bronze Age metric. Am I now a bad person that you disapprove of and don't want to associate with?
Because if I am -- and everything you've said suggests so -- then it's not social stability or justice you value. It's the pain of others, allocated only by your whim.
I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but you can't define away a real phenomenon. That only works in philosophy journals. There, anything goes. Heck, prove space is Euclidean if you want, no one will call you on it until the physicists hear about it!
The way neurostim works is that it excites the brain activity that goes on when you take a sufficient dose of cocaine, whatever that happens to be. The phenomenon of "getting used to it" arises because, for whatever reason (such as chemical tolerance), you're not getting the same neurological activity from a given dose.
Not true. Once, I introduced a colony of water molecules onto a table. As is typical, they work in a "spread phase" where increase the area-to-water-stack-height ratio. Once they've detected the edge of the table, they begin "burrow mode" and start propagating a message for other water molecules to replaced the ones that started burrowing.
Yeah, I just about finished Mike's Nature trick. Our charts of atmospheric content will be sure to hide the oxygen. That'll handle the "burning problem", widely discussed in the literature, about how stuff catches on fire on earth even though there's no oxygen.
How should we explain away all the other evidence for oxygen in earth's atmosphere though? Perhaps animal respiration works through nitrogen?
No, that sounds like post hoc curve fitting. It can make any theory you want look correct.
In order to be a valid method, you have to add a few more steps/constraints:
- All parameters must be based on values in general use that were not created just for this model. - Any massaging of the data was done before you know how it would affect the outcome.
OR
- The model continues to stand up against future data.
I would also add:
- You must allow anyone to inspect your assumptions and input, and not make it require a multi-year scavenger hunt and FOIA requests to do so.
I don't have one -- I'm just saying, do the REAL peer review process. That means:
-No using political pull to get a paper rejected merely because you disagree with its conclusion.
-Allowing anyone to inspect the data and methods so as to reproduce your calculations and inferences.
-Seriously considering disconfirmatory data presented by other scientists, and its implications for your preferred hypothesis, rather than regarding it as a "way around" your exclusionary tactics that you have to "redefine out of the peer-reviewed literature".
-No "adjusting" your data to deliberately match the "top dog's" data and then calling your data set independent.
In other words, a process these jerks didn't follow.
It's *not* arbitrary to exclude the tree ring data in question. If you have a data set with high reliability -- the DIRECT, recent temperature measurements -- and another set (the tree ring data) is completely uncorrelated with it, you should conclude that the latter is not a good proxy for temperature. You cannot simply say, "it's good when we like it, it's completely wrong when we don't", as these clowns apparently did.
This isn't some arbitrary judgment I came up with; it's a consequence of the laws of probability that you take the most probable explanation (lowest suprisal) for disconfirmatory data and adjust your probability distribution in that direction. It is formalized in the Principle of minimum discrimination information (Kullback-Leibler divergence minimization), which is equivalent to the maximum entropy method (choose the least-informative probability distribution consistent with the data).
Agreed. Videos are a huge time suck with little information content to justify them. Don't use them to substantiate a point unless you give a VERY detailed summary or transcript. But at that point, why do you need the video?
I'm not demanding perfection. I'm saying that, as a minimal threshold for using a proxy for past data is that it should match our most solid data. When you're allowed to arbitrarily graft new data at arbitrary points to data sets, you can make any data say anything -- that's not what science is supposed to be.
Are there other proxies that meet this minimum threshold I described? Great. Use those. But you don't get to count these tree rings in question as additional, independent confirmation. That would be like saying, "We manipulated data set B to look like data set A, therefore we have two data sets validating the hypothesis." And it's that kind of information cascade that has allowed the CRU to be held as the gold standard that all the other data sets get adjusted to match, destroying the notion of independence of the data sets.
At best, this data is too unreliable to incorporate. At worst, it's showing that temperatures actually went down. But these scientists are so far off the scientific method that they think it's okay to tweak them to say whatever they want, and call any deviation from what they wanted to see, a "problem" that needs to be corrected.
They do, however, kind of destroy the pretense of usefulness of peer review in this area, because the scientists were taking the positions of:
a) If your theory is so great, why can't you get it in the peer-reviewed literature?
b) We're keeping you out of the peer reviewed literature because you disagree with us.
Um, not how it's supposed to work, sorry.
And the whole tone of it is like peer review is just some formality rather than a way of enhancing our ability to find the truth. They say the equivalent of, "So we challenged these nutbags for proof and they had a clever way of jumping *that* hurdle -- they *provided* proof. What are we supposed to do now?"
The researchers did not use certain tree ring data post 1960 because it was not properly calibrated to instrumental data. There has been much hoo-hah about this "throwing out" of data when really it is the instrumental data that matters, not the proxy data. If temperature is what you are after, thermometers are the gold standard. Therefore the post 1960 results really aren't in question
Right, so the reasonable inference would be "this proxy can't event match the temperatures we know for sure -- it's no good, throw it out entirely". However, the scientists in question are so attached to their preordained conclusions that they don't even consider this. Instead, they throw out the data they don't like, and keep what matches the conclusion they want, instead of (at least *considering*) re-evaluating the conclusion to begin with.
So they act like the proxy's correct precisely when they have less substantiation, and its failure to match the most solid data is just a problem they need to patch up later -- the so called "divergence problem". It should be called the, "Do we ever consider we might be wrong?" problem.
Slashdot Mirror
The top entry as of now says:
Our mission is to make our customer ... say what a so tasty!!
That looks-a more like Itarian.
The word MODEM (as the article indicates) represents MOdulatorDEModulator. Hence it should be capitalized. This is also try of enCOderDECoder (CODEC). Slightly less related yet as correct LASER and RADAR....
Okay, okay, fair point, but ...
People were tying up VOICE channels
Come on, that one you just made up.
My personal favorite is from AT&T which states you need 3mbps to use social networking sites like Facebook.
Have you tried to use Facebook recently? Sounds about right!
So your ignorance is less harmful. So what? It's still ignorance.
When I use coffee, sure, I feel better. Bad me! But I also get more productive and focused -- a more valued member of society even by your criteria.
I have endured chronic, inscrutable back/neck pain for over ten years and nothing that any of the many doctors or alternate therapies all that time has been able to figure out what's causing it or do anything to stop its recurrence. When it's active, I am *extremely* distracted and unable to focus and think clearly, yet there is no way to prove this to anyone because it doesn't seem to have any physical correlate. And I've done "the right thing" by not resorting to illegal drugs, just using the marginally effective crap they give me. All while having to put up with intense pain that I can't make go away and doesn't have any useful purpose.
What if this neurostim, or even a "bad" drug, relieved that pain, and did thousands of times over what coffee does for me? I'd be a tremendously productive member of society, "but", unfortunately, I would feel better without having "earned" it by your Bronze Age metric. Am I now a bad person that you disapprove of and don't want to associate with?
Because if I am -- and everything you've said suggests so -- then it's not social stability or justice you value. It's the pain of others, allocated only by your whim.
You are the very definition of a wannabe tyrant.
Obligatory xkcd.
I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but you can't define away a real phenomenon. That only works in philosophy journals. There, anything goes. Heck, prove space is Euclidean if you want, no one will call you on it until the physicists hear about it!
The way neurostim works is that it excites the brain activity that goes on when you take a sufficient dose of cocaine, whatever that happens to be. The phenomenon of "getting used to it" arises because, for whatever reason (such as chemical tolerance), you're not getting the same neurological activity from a given dose.
Hm, I'm curious: how much would a continuous supply of life-sustaining IV and the electricity to run one of these neurostim things cost, per year?
Why? He's into SMB, not WoW. He specifically requests SMB expertise, and she specifically requests WoW expertise. Why would they be a perfect match?
I mean, other than both being fucked-in-the-head video game sexual fetishists?
And when the correct time comes, they stab your back and run away with your epic drop.
Is that what you call your jizz now?
Are they going to have subquests, like where you have to escort foreign interns to the bathroom, or have to spot missing metric/Imperial conversions?
Normally, you can.
1:15 in this guy's case.
I guess it's less if you don't count the "backstory" ...
I bet somebody once said that about people rebuilding cities on top of active faults.
No, you have that mixed up: someone said that about rebuilding a city below sea level, not an active fault.
Not true. Once, I introduced a colony of water molecules onto a table. As is typical, they work in a "spread phase" where increase the area-to-water-stack-height ratio. Once they've detected the edge of the table, they begin "burrow mode" and start propagating a message for other water molecules to replaced the ones that started burrowing.
Yeah, I just about finished Mike's Nature trick. Our charts of atmospheric content will be sure to hide the oxygen. That'll handle the "burning problem", widely discussed in the literature, about how stuff catches on fire on earth even though there's no oxygen.
How should we explain away all the other evidence for oxygen in earth's atmosphere though? Perhaps animal respiration works through nitrogen?
No, that sounds like post hoc curve fitting. It can make any theory you want look correct.
In order to be a valid method, you have to add a few more steps/constraints:
- All parameters must be based on values in general use that were not created just for this model.
- Any massaging of the data was done before you know how it would affect the outcome.
OR
- The model continues to stand up against future data.
I would also add:
- You must allow anyone to inspect your assumptions and input, and not make it require a multi-year scavenger hunt and FOIA requests to do so.
*blinks*
You're saying a man tried to pass as a woman while keeping a bushy beard?
Did he not know that that only works in carnivals?
I don't have one -- I'm just saying, do the REAL peer review process. That means:
-No using political pull to get a paper rejected merely because you disagree with its conclusion.
-Allowing anyone to inspect the data and methods so as to reproduce your calculations and inferences.
-Seriously considering disconfirmatory data presented by other scientists, and its implications for your preferred hypothesis, rather than regarding it as a "way around" your exclusionary tactics that you have to "redefine out of the peer-reviewed literature".
-No "adjusting" your data to deliberately match the "top dog's" data and then calling your data set independent.
In other words, a process these jerks didn't follow.
It's *not* arbitrary to exclude the tree ring data in question. If you have a data set with high reliability -- the DIRECT, recent temperature measurements -- and another set (the tree ring data) is completely uncorrelated with it, you should conclude that the latter is not a good proxy for temperature. You cannot simply say, "it's good when we like it, it's completely wrong when we don't", as these clowns apparently did.
This isn't some arbitrary judgment I came up with; it's a consequence of the laws of probability that you take the most probable explanation (lowest suprisal) for disconfirmatory data and adjust your probability distribution in that direction. It is formalized in the Principle of minimum discrimination information (Kullback-Leibler divergence minimization), which is equivalent to the maximum entropy method (choose the least-informative probability distribution consistent with the data).
Agreed. Videos are a huge time suck with little information content to justify them. Don't use them to substantiate a point unless you give a VERY detailed summary or transcript. But at that point, why do you need the video?
I'm not demanding perfection. I'm saying that, as a minimal threshold for using a proxy for past data is that it should match our most solid data. When you're allowed to arbitrarily graft new data at arbitrary points to data sets, you can make any data say anything -- that's not what science is supposed to be.
Are there other proxies that meet this minimum threshold I described? Great. Use those. But you don't get to count these tree rings in question as additional, independent confirmation. That would be like saying, "We manipulated data set B to look like data set A, therefore we have two data sets validating the hypothesis." And it's that kind of information cascade that has allowed the CRU to be held as the gold standard that all the other data sets get adjusted to match, destroying the notion of independence of the data sets.
At best, this data is too unreliable to incorporate. At worst, it's showing that temperatures actually went down. But these scientists are so far off the scientific method that they think it's okay to tweak them to say whatever they want, and call any deviation from what they wanted to see, a "problem" that needs to be corrected.
They do, however, kind of destroy the pretense of usefulness of peer review in this area, because the scientists were taking the positions of:
a) If your theory is so great, why can't you get it in the peer-reviewed literature?
b) We're keeping you out of the peer reviewed literature because you disagree with us.
Um, not how it's supposed to work, sorry.
And the whole tone of it is like peer review is just some formality rather than a way of enhancing our ability to find the truth. They say the equivalent of, "So we challenged these nutbags for proof and they had a clever way of jumping *that* hurdle -- they *provided* proof. What are we supposed to do now?"
The researchers did not use certain tree ring data post 1960 because it was not properly calibrated to instrumental data. There has been much hoo-hah about this "throwing out" of data when really it is the instrumental data that matters, not the proxy data. If temperature is what you are after, thermometers are the gold standard. Therefore the post 1960 results really aren't in question
Right, so the reasonable inference would be "this proxy can't event match the temperatures we know for sure -- it's no good, throw it out entirely". However, the scientists in question are so attached to their preordained conclusions that they don't even consider this. Instead, they throw out the data they don't like, and keep what matches the conclusion they want, instead of (at least *considering*) re-evaluating the conclusion to begin with.
So they act like the proxy's correct precisely when they have less substantiation, and its failure to match the most solid data is just a problem they need to patch up later -- the so called "divergence problem". It should be called the, "Do we ever consider we might be wrong?" problem.
Well, the asshole truckers that carry small rocks without covering up the load think they're accomplishing something by having a notice:
"Stay back 200 ft -- Not responsible for damaged windshields"
Yet they know damn well that they'll be at fault for such damage. Go fig.
I'm guessing it's just an attempt to deceive people into thinking they don't have rights that they really do ... which should probably be illegal.
"Do, we didn't illegally disclose your data; we open-sourced it!"