Or maybe they don't care whether it's a total order or not, because they have things like Elo ratings to approximate that in real time.
It so happens that Carlssen has been absolutely destroying the Elo classification for years now. Fun fact: the gap between Magnus Carlssen and number 2 on the FIDE list (Levon Aronian) is equal to the gap between number 2 and number 20! (Source: http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men )
What a Championship gives you is "the man who beat the man". It's more a honorary title than an objective assessment of your chess capability (though historically there's been reasonable correlation between the two), but people happen to care about that stuff too.
Take the example of France. Broadband internet and digital TV go largely through DSL. And yes, it's pretty damn cheap. When I was there, three years ago, I was paying 30 Euros / month for broadband internet + unlimited phone calls + television with a bazillion channels (did you know that there are two channels broadcasting in frigging Aramaic?)
Now one reason why France has cheap, abundant DSL is because of massive infrastructure built by former government monopolies. But at the beginning, even though they had this infrastructure, internet was still pretty damn expensive. The few telcos that were operating the networks obviously had a very gentle concept of competition.
Then this guy came along, leased an existing network and offered much better service at much lower cost. Everybody had to align.
So it's not just about competition or government - it's both together. Also, there's competition and "competition". Competition only works if you have some outsider willing to move in and break the "gentlemen's agreements". Apparently T-mobile is kind of doing this in America with mobile phone contracts, but broadband internet is still firmly within the grip of the cable oligopoly.
Either maintain your current speed or accelerate slightly just before and during the lane change. Do not slow down, as this will cause vehicles behind you to get closer and possibly cause a collision. After you are in your new lane, turn off your turn signal.
and yes you DO slow down and get behind other cars in the other lane, you do NOT pull the gun it, dart in and hit your brakes dooshbag maneuver.
You know what? I think you've just highlighted an important source of incorrect driving right there.
It was probably the most comfortable house arrest in history.
Yeah, after they very nearly burnt him to death, they generously agreed to keep him fed while locking him up for life. Bleeding hearts that they were.
While history has shown his theory to be correct, it is for the wrong reason. Copernicus was wrong on the parallax shifts and if they had better instrumentation he would have seen the shifts. So in a way both sides were correct at the time. The heliocentric model was correct, although that was never really disputed, but the Church was correct in that it failed the rigors of scientific proof.
"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents."
By its own admission, the Church condemned Galileo for one single reason: he kept telling people that the Earth moves around he Sun.
You know these people who insist that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery - even after you show them the original declarations of secession? Same difference.
Well, no it's not. Read the article you link to. Schmeiser specifically selected the GM plants, then re-planted seeds from these plants over his whole field. There was nothing "beyond his control" about it.
The Percy Schmeiser case: thousands of anti-GMO activists worldwide join forces to defend, supporting and fund an enthusiastic GMO planter!
At that price, the Surface Pro is more or less even with the Wacom stylus-input displays (of similar size, larger ones are substantially more expensive) that don't have a computer attached to them...
Unless the pen input is totally gimped, this seems like it would be a serious competitor to those for everyone except people whose photoshopping is serious enough that the Surface's specs can't handle it. Especially if your demands are at all mobile, it's hard to justify buying the Wacom when you could get the screen and stylus input with the laptop thrown in for free. It's a pity that the Surface can't act as a monitor/input device (optionally, while charging at your desk, for example, it could go from a waste of space to an extra monitor) for more powerful computers.
Apparently the device is good enough for Mike "Penny Arcade" Krahulik:
There already is a known genetic marker for violence. In the US, bearers of this genetic marker commit 70% of all property crimes, 90% of all murders, are 9 times more likely to be imprisoned, and comprise 93% of all prison inmates.
don't like Monsanto's sueing farmers for having their wheat in their fields when the farmers had nothing to do with that happening
Could you cite actual, neutrally-verified cases in which that happened?
Because all the big cases we keep hearing about (Percy Schmeiser, or the recent SCOTUS case) involve farmers who carefully and deliberately selected the Monsanto seeds for re-planting.
Which leads to the puzzling situation in which hordes of anti-GMO folks worldwide rush to defend (and in some cases fund) enthusiastic GMO planters!
If we want to have actual heroes doing the research that will lead to such prizes, why not give reasonable career path to scientists?
THIS. With $33M a year you can fund about 8000 postdocs (NIH payscale), or 3000 professors.
Or you could directly fund your own institute, with positions that are more stable than the dreaded post-doc, but less cushy than the unfireable tenured professorship. Like Louis Pasteur [wikipedia.org] did with his Nobel money, to the enduring benefit of mankind.
Either of these would probably do much more for actual science than piling up more money on folks who are likely to have their career behind them.
American blacks average a standard deviation lower in IQ than American whites at about 85.
AKA the IQ of an average Scotsman in the 40s, when evaluated on a modern scale.
Taking ESR seriously about anything scientific is a losing proposition. His antics on climate science are widely known (sees some piece of code that adjusts a timeseries for temperature increases, and immediately concludes that global warming is a hoax), but it's not common knowledge that he's also an HIV denialist.
If you stay on Facebook, you implicitly acknowledge that they do, because you still judge the overall value of their service to be positive despite this added "inconvenience".
What are the 3 common points between Jan Ullrich, David Millar, Bjarne Riis and Richard Virenque?
- All of them wore the Tour de France yellow jersey at some point (Riis and Ullrich won the tour outright, Virenque won the mountains classification several times).
- All of them eventually admitted to doping.
- None of them were ever caught by the so-called "drug tests". They were found out through other evidence (drug transport interception, raid on clinic, etc.)
The simple fact is that the drug tests in the 90s were a joke. They got a bit better in the 2000s, and that's how many of the later crop of dopers were caught (Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, etc.) They're still nowhere near 100%. Extraneous evidence is still a major factor in catching dopers.
Is Lance Armstrong one of the greatest cyclists of all times ? Yes he is - he won 7 Tours while all his competitors were loaded with drugs too!
Did he do it without doping? If you believe that, either you don't follow cycling much or you're 12.
Yeah, when I'm looking for a careful assessment of scientifice evidence, my first source is always uncommondescent.com (actual byline: "serving the intelligent design community").
As for your first link, it quotes one actual climate scientist saying that in the future, snowfalls in parts of England are going to be rare and exciting (the "in a few years" is from the journalist, not the scientist). Apparently you regard this statement as absolutely ridiculous on its face?
Well, global warming is expected to warm global temperatures by 2degC or more by 2100. More so on land (as compared to oceans) and more so in the Northern hemisphere. Now let's compare the average minimum winter temperatures of two cities:
Guess what? Snowfalls are rare and exciting events in Marseille, right now! What do you think will happen in London when daily temperatures increase by two degrees?
As such, it does have some educational purpose: by its success (which would be impossible with an actual million monkeys experiment), it shows that evolution by natural selection (that's what the guy is doing) is very different from, and much more powerful than, simple random search. Simply because it's selective (duh), and more importantly, cumulative: you don't start from scratch at every new phenotype, you keep the good stuff you've found so far.
I wish he had highlighted this bit. That would have made his experiment much more valuable.
I have no problem with this. Also, lulzsec does tickle my anarcho-geek fancy. Information's natural state is to be free - think how much energy gets expended trying to keep things secret.
And yet I notice that you are posting this under a pseudonym.
If he did it the standard way, then he simply took the data and calculated the probability of obtaining the same trend, or a more extreme one, if there was no warming - i.e. if temperatures really did follow a random walk. That's called a p-value. He found that if you only consider the last 14 data points, a completely unbiased process would have a bit more than 5% probability of producing a similar (or more extreme) increase. Ergo, the trend is not significant "at the 95% level" (the professor misspoke a bit here, people would rather say "at the p=0.05 level", but presumably that's what he meant).
Of course, the doubters understood this as "Phil Jones sez warming has stopped OMG!", when what he really said was that the observed data had a bit more than 5% chance of occuring if there was no warming. Tellingly, the more educated "skeptics", who could easily have corrected this misperception, did not.
The hottest year on record globally is 2005. 2009 is a statistical tie with 1998 (and a couple others in the noughties) as second-warmest. 1934 doesn't come close. The last decade is the warmest on record.
All relevant graphs are conveniently located there.
Well if ol' Phil is right and we haven't seen any statistically significant warming for fifteen years....
Then it has crap all to do with the existence of trends that can only be detected over more than 20-30 years, as Phil himself points out in the bit that you blanked out of your mind, right?
and the proposed solution (seizing most of the world's wealth, eliminating most of the current industrial base, etc.)
Hm. OK. Never mind.
We both know the difference between science and arguments to win points in the mass media and influence the electorate, right?
"There has been an uptrend that is not significant" is more properly interpretable as "there has been no warming" than anything else.
Actually, no. "There has been no warming" is a positive statement, one that would need its own significance test. "No significant trend" means "the data over the last 14 years, taken in isolation, cannot provide conclusive evidence for or against warming." Which is quite different.
Now if you look in the previous record, you see that 14 years is simply too short a range to reliably detect significant trends, even when they are really there (as verified by using longer timespans). That's what Jones says in the bits you conveniently left out.
If the record was such that 14 years trend could predictably detect trends, then the absence of a significant trend in the last 14 years would be evidence against GW. Since they can't, it isn't. OK?
Now if the last 14 years' data cannot speak conclusively for or against GW, we need to ask the second best question, namely relative likelihood: given the recent record, even though no hypothesis reaches significance level, which is more likely than the other - warming, or no warming ? The "nearly-significant uptrend" is a coded way of saying that, even over the last 14 years alone, warming is "more likely" than non-warming, in the sense that if there was no warming going on, there would only be about 1 chance in 9 of getting similar or more extreme results.
If we add in prior knowledge, the overall long-term data says that warming is going on. The last 14 years of data, alone, cannot prove it, but they support previous data, rather than contradicting it, as you seem to imply.
tl;dr: "no significant trend over last 14 years" doesn't mean "no warming", it means "14 data points is not enough to establish significance in trends for noisy timeseries" (duh!).
From my perspective, taking a longer range view of technology and society and business, you are encouraging them to keep trying to get 10,000% (whatever, some huge amount way over real production and delivery costs) markup prices for digital copies of stuff. I think that's shortsighted.
Once again, a/.er fails to notice the distiction between production costs and reproduction costs.
Hint: if there is virtually no cost/scarcity in the creation of new desirable books (as opposed to the reproduction of existing ones), then why isn't everybody a best-selling author?
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe they don't care whether it's a total order or not, because they have things like Elo ratings to approximate that in real time.
It so happens that Carlssen has been absolutely destroying the Elo classification for years now. Fun fact: the gap between Magnus Carlssen and number 2 on the FIDE list (Levon Aronian) is equal to the gap between number 2 and number 20! (Source: http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men )
What a Championship gives you is "the man who beat the man". It's more a honorary title than an objective assessment of your chess capability (though historically there's been reasonable correlation between the two), but people happen to care about that stuff too.
Well, it's complicated.
Take the example of France. Broadband internet and digital TV go largely through DSL. And yes, it's pretty damn cheap. When I was there, three years ago, I was paying 30 Euros / month for broadband internet + unlimited phone calls + television with a bazillion channels (did you know that there are two channels broadcasting in frigging Aramaic?)
Now one reason why France has cheap, abundant DSL is because of massive infrastructure built by former government monopolies. But at the beginning, even though they had this infrastructure, internet was still pretty damn expensive. The few telcos that were operating the networks obviously had a very gentle concept of competition.
Then this guy came along, leased an existing network and offered much better service at much lower cost. Everybody had to align.
So it's not just about competition or government - it's both together. Also, there's competition and "competition". Competition only works if you have some outsider willing to move in and break the "gentlemen's agreements". Apparently T-mobile is kind of doing this in America with mobile phone contracts, but broadband internet is still firmly within the grip of the cable oligopoly.
Either maintain your current speed or accelerate slightly just before and during the lane change. Do not slow down, as this will cause vehicles behind you to get closer and possibly cause a collision.
After you are in your new lane, turn off your turn signal.
and yes you DO slow down and get behind other cars in the other lane, you do NOT pull the gun it, dart in and hit your brakes dooshbag maneuver.
You know what? I think you've just highlighted an important source of incorrect driving right there.
Simple fact:
Every tenured professor is expected to train N new PhD's over the course of his career, with N >> 1.
Exponential growth, meet finite resources.
It was probably the most comfortable house arrest in history.
Yeah, after they very nearly burnt him to death, they generously agreed to keep him fed while locking him up for life. Bleeding hearts that they were.
While history has shown his theory to be correct, it is for the wrong reason. Copernicus was wrong on the parallax shifts and if they had better instrumentation he would have seen the shifts. So in a way both sides were correct at the time. The heliocentric model was correct, although that was never really disputed, but the Church was correct in that it failed the rigors of scientific proof.
BS, BS, and more BS.
From the original Papal Condemnation of Galileo:
"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents."
By its own admission, the Church condemned Galileo for one single reason: he kept telling people that the Earth moves around he Sun.
You know these people who insist that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery - even after you show them the original declarations of secession? Same difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser
It's true, and here's a case if it actually happening.
Well, no it's not. Read the article you link to. Schmeiser specifically selected the GM plants, then re-planted seeds from these plants over his whole field. There was nothing "beyond his control" about it.
The Percy Schmeiser case: thousands of anti-GMO activists worldwide join forces to defend, supporting and fund an enthusiastic GMO planter!
At that price, the Surface Pro is more or less even with the Wacom stylus-input displays (of similar size, larger ones are substantially more expensive) that don't have a computer attached to them...
Unless the pen input is totally gimped, this seems like it would be a serious competitor to those for everyone except people whose photoshopping is serious enough that the Surface's specs can't handle it. Especially if your demands are at all mobile, it's hard to justify buying the Wacom when you could get the screen and stylus input with the laptop thrown in for free. It's a pity that the Surface can't act as a monitor/input device (optionally, while charging at your desk, for example, it could go from a waste of space to an extra monitor) for more powerful computers.
Apparently the device is good enough for Mike "Penny Arcade" Krahulik:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2013/02/22/the-ms-surface-pro
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2013/06/28/windows-8.1
There already is a known genetic marker for violence. In the US, bearers of this genetic marker commit 70% of all property crimes, 90% of all murders, are 9 times more likely to be imprisoned, and comprise 93% of all prison inmates.
This marker is known as "Y chromosome".
Think of that.
don't like Monsanto's sueing farmers for having their wheat in their fields when the farmers had nothing to do with that happening
Could you cite actual, neutrally-verified cases in which that happened?
Because all the big cases we keep hearing about (Percy Schmeiser, or the recent SCOTUS case) involve farmers who carefully and deliberately selected the Monsanto seeds for re-planting.
Which leads to the puzzling situation in which hordes of anti-GMO folks worldwide rush to defend (and in some cases fund) enthusiastic GMO planters!
If we want to have actual heroes doing the research that will lead to such prizes, why not give reasonable career path to scientists?
THIS. With $33M a year you can fund about 8000 postdocs (NIH payscale), or 3000 professors.
Or you could directly fund your own institute, with positions that are more stable than the dreaded post-doc, but less cushy than the unfireable tenured professorship. Like Louis Pasteur [wikipedia.org] did with his Nobel money, to the enduring benefit of mankind.
Either of these would probably do much more for actual science than piling up more money on folks who are likely to have their career behind them.
American blacks average a standard
deviation lower in IQ than American whites at about 85.
AKA the IQ of an average Scotsman in the 40s, when evaluated on a modern scale.
Taking ESR seriously about anything scientific is a losing proposition. His antics on climate science are widely known (sees some piece of code that adjusts a timeseries for temperature increases, and immediately concludes that global warming is a hoax), but it's not common knowledge that he's also an HIV denialist.
How does Facebook deserve this money?
If you stay on Facebook, you implicitly acknowledge that they do, because you still judge the overall value of their service to be positive despite this added "inconvenience".
What are the 3 common points between Jan Ullrich, David Millar, Bjarne Riis and Richard Virenque?
- All of them wore the Tour de France yellow jersey at some point (Riis and Ullrich won the tour outright, Virenque won the mountains classification several times).
- All of them eventually admitted to doping.
- None of them were ever caught by the so-called "drug tests". They were found out through other evidence (drug transport interception, raid on clinic, etc.)
The simple fact is that the drug tests in the 90s were a joke. They got a bit better in the 2000s, and that's how many of the later crop of dopers were caught (Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, etc.) They're still nowhere near 100%. Extraneous evidence is still a major factor in catching dopers.
Is Lance Armstrong one of the greatest cyclists of all times ? Yes he is - he won 7 Tours while all his competitors were loaded with drugs too!
Did he do it without doping? If you believe that, either you don't follow cycling much or you're 12.
they're DRM for seeds. Except the DRM can infect other plants.
And then these plants don't reproduce, and at the next generation the problem solves itself.
Terminator seeds are only a "problem" for people who don't grok natural selection.
Your idea sounds good. Any ideas on what you're going to do about the massive unemployment, starvation, and misery that will result from your changes?
Petrol in the UK costs about GBP 1.5 per litre. That's roughly $9 per gallon.
Mass starvation has somehow failed to occur.
Yeah, when I'm looking for a careful assessment of scientifice evidence, my first source is always uncommondescent.com (actual byline: "serving the intelligent design community").
As for your first link, it quotes one actual climate scientist saying that in the future, snowfalls in parts of England are going to be rare and exciting (the "in a few years" is from the journalist, not the scientist). Apparently you regard this statement as absolutely ridiculous on its face?
Well, global warming is expected to warm global temperatures by 2degC or more by 2100. More so on land (as compared to oceans) and more so in the Northern hemisphere. Now let's compare the average minimum winter temperatures of two cities:
London, UK: 2.7 (Dec), 2.3 (Jan) 2.1 (Feb).
Marseille, France: 4.1 (Dec), 3.0 (Jan), 3.9 (Feb).
Guess what? Snowfalls are rare and exciting events in Marseille, right now! What do you think will happen in London when daily temperatures increase by two degrees?
The livelihood of scientists is entirely dependent upon...
.... nothing. Almost all prominent climate scientists have tenure or nearly-equivalent job security.
But thanks for the fact-free FUD, dear Mr. AC who supposedly "works in science".
You, and a bunch of other /.ers, are in urgent need of reading this.
There's a reason why uber-smart people have decided that they really needed this "dark matter" stuff.
Actually, although the guy doesn't mention it, this looks a lot like an expanded version of Richard Dawkins' "WEASEL" experiment.
As such, it does have some educational purpose: by its success (which would be impossible with an actual million monkeys experiment), it shows that evolution by natural selection (that's what the guy is doing) is very different from, and much more powerful than, simple random search. Simply because it's selective (duh), and more importantly, cumulative: you don't start from scratch at every new phenotype, you keep the good stuff you've found so far.
I wish he had highlighted this bit. That would have made his experiment much more valuable.
I have no problem with this. Also, lulzsec does tickle my anarcho-geek fancy. Information's natural state is to be free - think how much energy gets expended trying to keep things secret.
And yet I notice that you are posting this under a pseudonym.
If he did it the standard way, then he simply took the data and calculated the probability of obtaining the same trend, or a more extreme one, if there was no warming - i.e. if temperatures really did follow a random walk. That's called a p-value. He found that if you only consider the last 14 data points, a completely unbiased process would have a bit more than 5% probability of producing a similar (or more extreme) increase. Ergo, the trend is not significant "at the 95% level" (the professor misspoke a bit here, people would rather say "at the p=0.05 level", but presumably that's what he meant).
Of course, the doubters understood this as "Phil Jones sez warming has stopped OMG!", when what he really said was that the observed data had a bit more than 5% chance of occuring if there was no warming. Tellingly, the more educated "skeptics", who could easily have corrected this misperception, did not.
The inhabitants of EU are less than the 5% of the population.
But much more than 5% of the global spending power.
Remember when 1998 was supposed to be the hottest ever? Then that was debunked and it was 1934.
1934 is (almost) the hottest year on record in the (contiguous) USA .
The hottest year on record globally is 2005. 2009 is a statistical tie with 1998 (and a couple others in the noughties) as second-warmest. 1934 doesn't come close. The last decade is the warmest on record.
All relevant graphs are conveniently located there.
Well if ol' Phil is right and we haven't seen any statistically significant warming for fifteen years....
Then it has crap all to do with the existence of trends that can only be detected over more than 20-30 years, as Phil himself points out in the bit that you blanked out of your mind, right?
and the proposed solution (seizing most of the world's wealth, eliminating most of the current industrial base, etc.)
Hm. OK. Never mind.
We both know the difference between science and arguments to win points in the mass media and influence the electorate, right?
Apparently not.
"There has been an uptrend that is not significant" is more properly interpretable as "there has been no warming" than anything else.
Actually, no. "There has been no warming" is a positive statement, one that would need its own significance test. "No significant trend" means "the data over the last 14 years, taken in isolation, cannot provide conclusive evidence for or against warming." Which is quite different.
Now if you look in the previous record, you see that 14 years is simply too short a range to reliably detect significant trends, even when they are really there (as verified by using longer timespans). That's what Jones says in the bits you conveniently left out.
If the record was such that 14 years trend could predictably detect trends, then the absence of a significant trend in the last 14 years would be evidence against GW. Since they can't, it isn't. OK?
Now if the last 14 years' data cannot speak conclusively for or against GW, we need to ask the second best question, namely relative likelihood: given the recent record, even though no hypothesis reaches significance level, which is more likely than the other - warming, or no warming ? The "nearly-significant uptrend" is a coded way of saying that, even over the last 14 years alone, warming is "more likely" than non-warming, in the sense that if there was no warming going on, there would only be about 1 chance in 9 of getting similar or more extreme results.
If we add in prior knowledge, the overall long-term data says that warming is going on. The last 14 years of data, alone, cannot prove it, but they support previous data, rather than contradicting it, as you seem to imply.
tl;dr: "no significant trend over last 14 years" doesn't mean "no warming", it means "14 data points is not enough to establish significance in trends for noisy timeseries" (duh!).
From my perspective, taking a longer range view of technology and society and business, you are encouraging them to keep trying to get 10,000% (whatever, some huge amount way over real production and delivery costs) markup prices for digital copies of stuff. I think that's shortsighted.
Once again, a /.er fails to notice the distiction between production costs and reproduction costs.
Hint: if there is virtually no cost/scarcity in the creation of new desirable books (as opposed to the reproduction of existing ones), then why isn't everybody a best-selling author?