You know that models don't return 1 temperature, right? Looking at a chart like that tells you nothing about how accurate a model is. Models depend on a lot of inputs and, depending on what the inputs are, usually return a range for what they are forecasting. Usually, when talking about a model, there are multiple variations of inputs put in when trying to predict the future (as it's hard to know exactly what will happen). The proper way to validate a model is to take the original model, put in the actual data for the inputs and see if the predicted output matches the actual output. Just looking at a previously published paper tells you nothing unless you know that they correctly predicted the inputs.
THIS is how you test how accurate models actually are. The fact that you think that particular graph means all climate models are terrible (and the fact that you think it's a big deal that they tune models to fit past data, as that is the CORE of modeling in general) tells me all I need to know about how much you know about forecasting models. Which is obviously not much. (Note: my knowledge isn't about the specifics of climate change models, so I don't know exactly how much weight they put on various factors; my knowledge is about forecasting models in general and my specialty was population modeling).
There's a hypothesis, baked into models, which seems to be largely inaccurate if you compare the output of those models to actual reality.
You do realize that that is false, right? Last year, they did a comparison between what the 1990 IPCC models predicted and the actual change up to 2010. If you used actual emissions data and included the other actual climate-forcing data (volcanic eruptions, etc.), the model was very accurate in it's predictions at the 20 year mark. It's hard to judge the models since then, as there has not been as much time, but the models up to that point proved accurate. One can only assume that as our knowledge of climate has increased, our models are more accurate now.
...to your limited human understanding. Seriously, bearing in mind that there are non-fictional species on Earth that can effectively change their reproductive systems within their own lifetimes, that's hardly the most imaginative, alien concept ever to pass through the canon of the Doctor.
Oh, I know this. That's why I accept it now that it's canon. It is just my opinion that it's a needless complication that doesn't provide much benefit. I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong for doing it or anything. I also don't think it necessarily brings down the quality of the show (unless they were to one day hire a terrible actress as the Doctor, but that could just as easily happen with males) It is just something I don't particularly like. Basically, I guess the best way to explain my feelings for it are that if I were in charge of the show, I would have considered the idea and rejected it. Doesn't make me like the show any less, really. It's a fine line, but I overanalyze things, anyway.
Actually, they have recently (I don't know if it was this regeneration or the last one) offered the role to a black actor. He turned them down, but it's not like they ignore black actors when they try to decide on the next Doctor.
One of the few things Neil Gaiman has done that I don't like (it was his script, if I remember correctly, though I don't know if it was his idea to have that in there).
Don't get me wrong, now that it's there, I would accept a female Doctor, but up to that point there had been no indication that time lords ever changed sexes. With sex being a changeable characteristic, labels like "mother" and "father" get confusing and they've previously been used. What do you call a time lord who fathered you while he was male, but is now female? What if your birth mother is still female? Are they both mother? Are they both father? It just seems like it doesn't add all that much to the show except a level of confusion (it's not like there is a shortage of actors to play the part).
Of course, I realize this is all my opinion and, like I said, I would accept a female actor there, now that it has been established as canon. I just think it was a silly idea to establish it as canon.
Polygamy - more than two partners, no matter the sexes
Polygyny - 1 man, multiple women
Polyandry - 1 woman, multiple men
I have no idea if there is a term for multiple men and multiple women that is more specific than polygamy.
I use a ton of applications. I use most of them side-by-side. Amazingly enough, I do it quite often with Windows 8. I used the Desktop, rather than the Start Screen. I don't go into the start screen. I even keep the most common applications that I use on the desktop of my right screen, so it doesn't even take me an extra click when I start up. For me, using Windows 8 is nearly identical to using Windows 7, with the main differences being that I have a taskbar on both my monitors and when I hit the Windows Key and start typing the name of an application I want to use (if it isn't on my taskbar), I have to look in the top left of the screen instead of the bottom left..
THAT'S a valid reason not to buy 720.
What's NOT a valid reason is "My friend loaned me his console and COD game, so I bought a 360. That can't happen with the 720." Because that CAN happen with the 720.
Loaning games to friends with another X-Box? Not happening. Loaning X-Box + games to friends who don't have one? Still can happen.
Rather than flexibility of PLATFORM, he probably meant flexibility in DESIGN. You can have a very flexible set of development tools that only work on XBOX and you can have a very rigid set of development tools that work on all platforms.
Sorry, English is not my mother tongue. Care to correctly rephrase my sentence ? I first wrote it with "whether" instead of "if", but I think I would have needed to add "or not" at the end.
Since you seem to want to learn, I believe what you are trying to say is:
"Ask him if he knows what a PHB is." OR "Ask him whether or not he knows what a PHB is."
My guess is that it's like a position I've worked before. You have your IT guy who needs to know all the technical stuff and he, of course, has to have a boss (everyone has to have a supervisor except CEOs and people at very small businesses, that's just life). Now, this boss likely supervises multiple people and the IT guy is only one of them. In these cases, the boss doesn't need to know everything about IT, but he needs to know enough to adequately manage said IT guy.
Alternatively, this could be a situation like one my friend is in. He does web development and everyone else in his office is in sales. He helps out sometimes if they need computer help, but he mostly just does his web development (the main office actually handles most of the IT stuff, they are a satellite office). His boss (again, he has a boss, what a shocker) has to know enough about the tools he uses for web development to accurately judge his performance, have some idea of what is reasonably possible in a reasonable amount of time, and potentially hire my friend's replacement if he leaves. He doesn't have to be an expert, he just has to be familiar (or technically savvy enough to BECOME familiar).
That's just wrong. I have employees who would need to be in on the interview to replace me. They aren't qualified to do my job (you don't actually have to know statistics to be an IT Support Specialist, as an example...management is only a portion of my job), but they would A) need to be able to interact with the person who replaces me and B)need to be there to help confirm answers to any technical questions that get asked. My boss doesn't know enough to judge the answers to some of the questions someone in my position would need to know and he'd prefer to hire someone who knows what they are doing.
A government with a lot of power (although not unlimited) over the organization that has a lot of power (although not unlimited) over the internet has said they want to keep that power and not give it to OTHER governments. One of the reasons a lot of people support that is that, although this government has abused its power before, it has a history of abusing its power LESS than most other governments.
>This puts this 2.5% victory as the 6th smallest out of 14 elections
In other words, it's in the middle of the pack.
That's why I mentioned the rest of the numbers, so you could see why it was relatively small. If we had the numbers (1 2 3 4 5 6 1000 2000 4500 9000 10000 15000 15001 15002), then using your logic (that 6/14 is all that matters) the 6 would not be a relatively small member of that set. The other things (less than 50% of the next largest margin of victory, 32% of the average, 35% of the median) are what put it in context and allow you to see that it is relatively small.
And....Obama won by 7.3% in 2004, Clinton won by 5.6% and 8.5%, GHWB won by 7.7%, Reagan won by 18.2% and 9.7%, and LBJ won by 22.6%. That covers every election since the earliest one you mentioned (Kennedy), to the most recent election. This puts this 2.5% victory as the 6th smallest out of 14 elections since that time and it is less than HALF the margin of victory of the next smallest election. It is also 32% of the average(7.87) and 39% of the median(6.42) since Kennedy. So, it is relatively rather small, even in modern elections. It's not small if you only count "modern" as since GWB, but if you go earlier than that, it is definitely rather small.
But remove the religious foundation and not only will the current generation of fuckers come crashing down, but there will be no place for the next one, either.
The trouble with this idea is that if you remove the religious foundation then the current generation of fuckers will come crashing down, sure, but the next generation will FIND a place. It doesn't have to be religion. It can be anything. The masses are stupid and the corrupt, power-hungry assholes will always find a way to take advantage of them. You assume that getting rid of religion will get rid of the corruption. All it will do is make those who want the power go a different route to get there. The classic example is Stalin.
This is a country where the vast majority of people consider themselves religious.
Yes, and as the article illustrates, we need to change that.
The article illustrates no such thing. The article illustrates that we have an idiot on the house committee on science, space, and technology. We need to stop THAT. I couldn't care less if someone in that position is religious, as long as they aren't idiots that ignore science (the two aren't mutually exclusive...it's only the fundamentalist Christians and the atheists that don't think things through that believe that).
That's what I mean by "seeing" -- observing, according to some reference frame, FTL travel. The point of the warp drive is that within its own reference frame it is not traveling faster than light. But relative to some reference frame it must be (even if they aren't literally watching it with a telescope). And going FTL according to any reference frame violates relativity.
But what you're saying is that appearances are all that matters. Which is not the case. You're assuming, again, that the distance traveled is the same, when it's not.
I can make it look like I break the laws of physics by "magic" using misdirection and tricks, but that doesn't mean that they are broken. And that's all this is, a misdirection. If I'm traveling using a warp drive and warping space, then you THINK I'm traveling from point A to point C using path A-B-C (which is X light years long) when in reality, I've warped space in such a manner that I'm traveling using path A-C or A-D-C or A-Q-C (which is Y light years long). It does not appear to ANYONE that I've traveled faster than light, as long as they understand what's going on. You're basically saying that by observing understanding technology that they don't understand, someone can break physics.
If you are standing on one side of a wall that is 2 light-years long (1 light-year in either direction) and I am standing on the other, but there is a camera transmitting a view of me to you. You are sure that there are no doors in the wall (for whatever reason, you feel you know this is a fact). You then watch me walk beside the wall towards one end, leave the view of the camera, and then you see me walking towards you on your side of the wall, you've "observed" me going faster than light. In reality, I just used the door that you didn't know about, but you don't understand that that is possible. Did we just break physics? No. We just used technology you didn't understand to change the distance I had to travel to get from point A (my side of the wall) to point B (your side of the wall).
I do see a lot of common non-geeks complaining about Facebook-- about the privacy issues, the ads, seemingly arbitrary changes to the UI/UX. It's not as though non-geeks are all completely stupid and unconcerned about anything.
But they have short memories. They complain about privacy issues when Facebook makes a mistake, like changing everyone's privacy settings, that gets publicized. Then most of them forget about the issue and stop complaining. They complain about the ads occasionally, then continue on with their day. They complain about the changes to the UI/UX for a little while and then one of two things TENDS to happen: Facebook changes the UI again, as they realize their original change was a bad one OR most users realize they actually like the new way better, once they are used to it.
How many complaints have you seen recently? I'm betting less than you did a few months ago and the ones you are seeing are likely about A)Timeline, because they have recently been switched over or B)a select few who still complain about FB changing their displayed email. Non-geeks complain for a little while and then stop.
The failures will start coming in increasing intervals,
Why do you think this? If anything, the trend is that each '#1' social networking site is lasting longer. Friendster was only there (in the US) for around 2 years. MySpace lasted what, 3 years at the top? Facebook is on its 8th year and has been top for around 4. It will likely last a few more years as the #1 site, just from inertia alone. As these sites learn more and more what users want/don't want, they will continue to last a while.
Social networking sites are not like 'normal' tech. If you come out with a better social networking site, you will attract an initial group of people. Those people then have to convince their friends to move to your site from another site. People are on Facebook because people are on Facebook. Facebook would likely have to do something truly unpopular at about the same time another social networking site started getting its initial base at users in order to go away. Once that happens, people will move to the new site. Then, once that site has enough of a base, the pattern will repeat. If anything, I'd guess social networks will become MORE stable as years go on.
Slashdot Mirror
You know that models don't return 1 temperature, right? Looking at a chart like that tells you nothing about how accurate a model is. Models depend on a lot of inputs and, depending on what the inputs are, usually return a range for what they are forecasting. Usually, when talking about a model, there are multiple variations of inputs put in when trying to predict the future (as it's hard to know exactly what will happen). The proper way to validate a model is to take the original model, put in the actual data for the inputs and see if the predicted output matches the actual output. Just looking at a previously published paper tells you nothing unless you know that they correctly predicted the inputs.
THIS is how you test how accurate models actually are. The fact that you think that particular graph means all climate models are terrible (and the fact that you think it's a big deal that they tune models to fit past data, as that is the CORE of modeling in general) tells me all I need to know about how much you know about forecasting models. Which is obviously not much. (Note: my knowledge isn't about the specifics of climate change models, so I don't know exactly how much weight they put on various factors; my knowledge is about forecasting models in general and my specialty was population modeling).
There's a hypothesis, baked into models, which seems to be largely inaccurate if you compare the output of those models to actual reality.
You do realize that that is false, right? Last year, they did a comparison between what the 1990 IPCC models predicted and the actual change up to 2010. If you used actual emissions data and included the other actual climate-forcing data (volcanic eruptions, etc.), the model was very accurate in it's predictions at the 20 year mark. It's hard to judge the models since then, as there has not been as much time, but the models up to that point proved accurate. One can only assume that as our knowledge of climate has increased, our models are more accurate now.
...to your limited human understanding. Seriously, bearing in mind that there are non-fictional species on Earth that can effectively change their reproductive systems within their own lifetimes, that's hardly the most imaginative, alien concept ever to pass through the canon of the Doctor.
Oh, I know this. That's why I accept it now that it's canon. It is just my opinion that it's a needless complication that doesn't provide much benefit. I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong for doing it or anything. I also don't think it necessarily brings down the quality of the show (unless they were to one day hire a terrible actress as the Doctor, but that could just as easily happen with males) It is just something I don't particularly like. Basically, I guess the best way to explain my feelings for it are that if I were in charge of the show, I would have considered the idea and rejected it. Doesn't make me like the show any less, really. It's a fine line, but I overanalyze things, anyway.
Actually, they have recently (I don't know if it was this regeneration or the last one) offered the role to a black actor. He turned them down, but it's not like they ignore black actors when they try to decide on the next Doctor.
One of the few things Neil Gaiman has done that I don't like (it was his script, if I remember correctly, though I don't know if it was his idea to have that in there).
Don't get me wrong, now that it's there, I would accept a female Doctor, but up to that point there had been no indication that time lords ever changed sexes. With sex being a changeable characteristic, labels like "mother" and "father" get confusing and they've previously been used. What do you call a time lord who fathered you while he was male, but is now female? What if your birth mother is still female? Are they both mother? Are they both father? It just seems like it doesn't add all that much to the show except a level of confusion (it's not like there is a shortage of actors to play the part).
Of course, I realize this is all my opinion and, like I said, I would accept a female actor there, now that it has been established as canon. I just think it was a silly idea to establish it as canon.
Polyandry is still polygamy.
Polygamy - more than two partners, no matter the sexes
Polygyny - 1 man, multiple women
Polyandry - 1 woman, multiple men
I have no idea if there is a term for multiple men and multiple women that is more specific than polygamy.
JFK was assassinated in 1963. Star Wars came out in 1977. I'm thinking that you are not remembering things correctly here.
Shutting down and rebooting take all of 1 extra click, using the quickest ways to shut down (without creating your own shortcut) on both OSes.
I use a ton of applications. I use most of them side-by-side. Amazingly enough, I do it quite often with Windows 8. I used the Desktop, rather than the Start Screen. I don't go into the start screen. I even keep the most common applications that I use on the desktop of my right screen, so it doesn't even take me an extra click when I start up. For me, using Windows 8 is nearly identical to using Windows 7, with the main differences being that I have a taskbar on both my monitors and when I hit the Windows Key and start typing the name of an application I want to use (if it isn't on my taskbar), I have to look in the top left of the screen instead of the bottom left..
THAT'S a valid reason not to buy 720. What's NOT a valid reason is "My friend loaned me his console and COD game, so I bought a 360. That can't happen with the 720." Because that CAN happen with the 720. Loaning games to friends with another X-Box? Not happening. Loaning X-Box + games to friends who don't have one? Still can happen.
Rather than flexibility of PLATFORM, he probably meant flexibility in DESIGN. You can have a very flexible set of development tools that only work on XBOX and you can have a very rigid set of development tools that work on all platforms.
And if said X is you and you're running a daycare, your opinion wouldn't be as calm and neutral.
But that doesn't make his opinion wrong. Generally, the calm and neutral opinion is the correct one in situations like this.
Ask him if he knows what is a PHB
If he corrects your English, hire him.
Sorry, English is not my mother tongue. Care to correctly rephrase my sentence ? I first wrote it with "whether" instead of "if", but I think I would have needed to add "or not" at the end.
Since you seem to want to learn, I believe what you are trying to say is:
"Ask him if he knows what a PHB is." OR "Ask him whether or not he knows what a PHB is."
My guess is that it's like a position I've worked before. You have your IT guy who needs to know all the technical stuff and he, of course, has to have a boss (everyone has to have a supervisor except CEOs and people at very small businesses, that's just life). Now, this boss likely supervises multiple people and the IT guy is only one of them. In these cases, the boss doesn't need to know everything about IT, but he needs to know enough to adequately manage said IT guy.
Alternatively, this could be a situation like one my friend is in. He does web development and everyone else in his office is in sales. He helps out sometimes if they need computer help, but he mostly just does his web development (the main office actually handles most of the IT stuff, they are a satellite office). His boss (again, he has a boss, what a shocker) has to know enough about the tools he uses for web development to accurately judge his performance, have some idea of what is reasonably possible in a reasonable amount of time, and potentially hire my friend's replacement if he leaves. He doesn't have to be an expert, he just has to be familiar (or technically savvy enough to BECOME familiar).
That's just wrong. I have employees who would need to be in on the interview to replace me. They aren't qualified to do my job (you don't actually have to know statistics to be an IT Support Specialist, as an example...management is only a portion of my job), but they would A) need to be able to interact with the person who replaces me and B)need to be there to help confirm answers to any technical questions that get asked. My boss doesn't know enough to judge the answers to some of the questions someone in my position would need to know and he'd prefer to hire someone who knows what they are doing.
A government with a lot of power (although not unlimited) over the organization that has a lot of power (although not unlimited) over the internet has said they want to keep that power and not give it to OTHER governments. One of the reasons a lot of people support that is that, although this government has abused its power before, it has a history of abusing its power LESS than most other governments.
That wouldn't stop just because the UN had control.
>This puts this 2.5% victory as the 6th smallest out of 14 elections
In other words, it's in the middle of the pack.
That's why I mentioned the rest of the numbers, so you could see why it was relatively small. If we had the numbers (1 2 3 4 5 6 1000 2000 4500 9000 10000 15000 15001 15002), then using your logic (that 6/14 is all that matters) the 6 would not be a relatively small member of that set. The other things (less than 50% of the next largest margin of victory, 32% of the average, 35% of the median) are what put it in context and allow you to see that it is relatively small.
And....Obama won by 7.3% in 2004, Clinton won by 5.6% and 8.5%, GHWB won by 7.7%, Reagan won by 18.2% and 9.7%, and LBJ won by 22.6%. That covers every election since the earliest one you mentioned (Kennedy), to the most recent election. This puts this 2.5% victory as the 6th smallest out of 14 elections since that time and it is less than HALF the margin of victory of the next smallest election. It is also 32% of the average(7.87) and 39% of the median(6.42) since Kennedy. So, it is relatively rather small, even in modern elections. It's not small if you only count "modern" as since GWB, but if you go earlier than that, it is definitely rather small.
Why am I so sure? Because it's happened before.
But remove the religious foundation and not only will the current generation of fuckers come crashing down, but there will be no place for the next one, either.
The trouble with this idea is that if you remove the religious foundation then the current generation of fuckers will come crashing down, sure, but the next generation will FIND a place. It doesn't have to be religion. It can be anything. The masses are stupid and the corrupt, power-hungry assholes will always find a way to take advantage of them. You assume that getting rid of religion will get rid of the corruption. All it will do is make those who want the power go a different route to get there. The classic example is Stalin.
This is a country where the vast majority of people consider themselves religious.
Yes, and as the article illustrates, we need to change that.
The article illustrates no such thing. The article illustrates that we have an idiot on the house committee on science, space, and technology. We need to stop THAT. I couldn't care less if someone in that position is religious, as long as they aren't idiots that ignore science (the two aren't mutually exclusive...it's only the fundamentalist Christians and the atheists that don't think things through that believe that).
Your response would be more appropriate if the law was still as it was in 1787. As it is, things have changed a bit since then.
That's what I mean by "seeing" -- observing, according to some reference frame, FTL travel. The point of the warp drive is that within its own reference frame it is not traveling faster than light. But relative to some reference frame it must be (even if they aren't literally watching it with a telescope). And going FTL according to any reference frame violates relativity.
But what you're saying is that appearances are all that matters. Which is not the case. You're assuming, again, that the distance traveled is the same, when it's not.
I can make it look like I break the laws of physics by "magic" using misdirection and tricks, but that doesn't mean that they are broken. And that's all this is, a misdirection. If I'm traveling using a warp drive and warping space, then you THINK I'm traveling from point A to point C using path A-B-C (which is X light years long) when in reality, I've warped space in such a manner that I'm traveling using path A-C or A-D-C or A-Q-C (which is Y light years long). It does not appear to ANYONE that I've traveled faster than light, as long as they understand what's going on. You're basically saying that by observing understanding technology that they don't understand, someone can break physics.
If you are standing on one side of a wall that is 2 light-years long (1 light-year in either direction) and I am standing on the other, but there is a camera transmitting a view of me to you. You are sure that there are no doors in the wall (for whatever reason, you feel you know this is a fact). You then watch me walk beside the wall towards one end, leave the view of the camera, and then you see me walking towards you on your side of the wall, you've "observed" me going faster than light. In reality, I just used the door that you didn't know about, but you don't understand that that is possible. Did we just break physics? No. We just used technology you didn't understand to change the distance I had to travel to get from point A (my side of the wall) to point B (your side of the wall).
I do see a lot of common non-geeks complaining about Facebook-- about the privacy issues, the ads, seemingly arbitrary changes to the UI/UX. It's not as though non-geeks are all completely stupid and unconcerned about anything.
But they have short memories. They complain about privacy issues when Facebook makes a mistake, like changing everyone's privacy settings, that gets publicized. Then most of them forget about the issue and stop complaining. They complain about the ads occasionally, then continue on with their day. They complain about the changes to the UI/UX for a little while and then one of two things TENDS to happen: Facebook changes the UI again, as they realize their original change was a bad one OR most users realize they actually like the new way better, once they are used to it.
How many complaints have you seen recently? I'm betting less than you did a few months ago and the ones you are seeing are likely about A)Timeline, because they have recently been switched over or B)a select few who still complain about FB changing their displayed email. Non-geeks complain for a little while and then stop.
The failures will start coming in increasing intervals,
Why do you think this? If anything, the trend is that each '#1' social networking site is lasting longer. Friendster was only there (in the US) for around 2 years. MySpace lasted what, 3 years at the top? Facebook is on its 8th year and has been top for around 4. It will likely last a few more years as the #1 site, just from inertia alone. As these sites learn more and more what users want/don't want, they will continue to last a while.
Social networking sites are not like 'normal' tech. If you come out with a better social networking site, you will attract an initial group of people. Those people then have to convince their friends to move to your site from another site. People are on Facebook because people are on Facebook. Facebook would likely have to do something truly unpopular at about the same time another social networking site started getting its initial base at users in order to go away. Once that happens, people will move to the new site. Then, once that site has enough of a base, the pattern will repeat. If anything, I'd guess social networks will become MORE stable as years go on.