"Scientists" have been caught inflating/skewing their results to increase funding.
I'm aware of plenty of manufactured "scandals" in which no fake or massaged data was ever revealed. In fact, they generally amount to quotations taken out of context and blown to volcanic proportions. Sorry if I don't find this convincing.
The security level of a piece of code with good security is 95% coder competence and 5% language, i.e. language is irrelevant.
Sure, and memory management, and program correctness, and just about any other achievable program property is 95% coder competence and 5% language by this argument. Except the coders that can guarantee 100% that said property is achieved make up 0.001% of the coder population, which means the vast majority of importance falls on the language to prevent memory leaks, out of bounds errors, and the plethora of other program correctness violations and security vulnerabilities.
Language is important for code performance though, but only in the sense that it can kill it.
A language implementation determines code performance, not a language.
This nonsense about the language being capable of fixing problems with the people using is comes from "management" types that are unable to handle people that are individuals.
No, it comes from other programmers who recognize not only their own limitations, but the limitations of nearly every other human being who can't seem to come to the same realizations. Dunning-Kruger all the way.
But no, if they discover something that might counter current scientific beliefs, they might loose funding or even their jobs...
You don't understand how science works. If they discover something counter to what we currently know, they'll get more funding to explore this new discovery.
Furthermore, scientists have standards of conduct, transparency requirements and ethics reviews, but the interests opposing AGW do not. And yet you're more skeptical of the transparent science than you are of the unsupported claims of vested interests?
Also interesting that this whole (alleged) "conflict of interest" argument that's used against scientists, applies more to the people opposed to AGW, and yet the AGW-deniers somehow think the latter is just fine, while the former calls into question the scientific data and the conclusions it implies.
AGW deniers are no better than the anti-vaccination idiots.
we cannot ascertain the temperatures of past centuries with enough precision to make any such study nor claims
Says the random redditor with no credentials in a scientific field to the thousands of scientists who actually work in this field. Are you for real? I really wonder how you can use a computer that's built on principles discovered using the same scientific method, and then seriously claim that the results of applying that same method to climate are suddenly no longer valid. Your logic is not like Earth logic.
How does a 500 year data set apply to a 4.5 billion year old planet?
Anthropogenic warming isn't dangerous to the planet, it's dangerous to us. The timeline of the planet is irrelevant.
Think about it. Could you predict the sentiments of every human on the planet (over 4 billion) by asking the last 500 people born?
Yes, for an analogous meaning of "predict" as applies to the AGW scenario, ie. not predict precise emotions and behaviour at any given instant, but predict general trends with a certain probability distribution. What do you think psychology is all about? They conduct surveys and studies of small a percentage of the population to find correlations and establish general trends about humanity, like what makes people happy, angry, sad, how they respond to trauma, etc.
Any changes under way are a blip compared to the natural climate ranges that have existed in the past, and not even close to any degrees of change that will require substantial effort to adapt to.
Did 7 billion people have to live with those natural climate changes in the past? Did they have infrastructure investment that would be utterly destroyed given even slight variations in environmental conditions?
Do you seriously think your argument has any relevance for the AGW problems we're currently facing?
No other science matches the confidence achieved in particle physics. Medicine doesn't come close. Why should we use the highest possible standard achievable for AGW when we accept far lower confidence in our highly valued medical fields?
In other words, the change in atmospheric composition is roughly.02%. That's it. It's hard to believe such a small change could make any noticeable difference at all
Hard to believe perhaps, like quantum mechanics is hard to believe. And yet, just like QM, we can reproduce the atmospheric composition in controlled laboratory conditions and check what spectrum of radiation it absorbs and what portion merely passes through. Guess what? Precisely these tests have been done.
Guess what else? The temperature increase predictions in AGW models are based on precisely the amount of additional energy absorbed by that atmopsheric composition. Where exactly did you think these numbers came from?
So in order to argue against AGW, you'll have to put on some big boy pants and either argue our entire understanding of physics is flawed, or that there some other magical energy sink no one has ever seen before that counteracts this basic physics effect. Good luck with that.
A probability wave is an actual physical thing, and not just an abstraction that describes our inability to make precise measurements. It's the very nature of the wave that the events caused by it are unpredictable.
That isn't absolutely certain. For instance, there's always superdeterminism which is something that 't Hooft is currently working on, ie. deriving quantum mechanics from deterministic cellular automota.
Sure there is. There is no model that describes what happens
That isn't justification that such a model does not exist, which is what the original claim was, it's simply justification that we do not currently know of such a model.
Current theory is that we can't do any better than that.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm not aware of any impossibility proof demonstrating that no model can accurately predict reality, there are simply limits on precision, like the contextuality of QM implying the uncertainty principle.
I suggest you read up on the philosophy of mathematics. Math is not what you think it is. I also suggest you read up on the Mathematical Universe hypothesis.
I have zero apples, which one will produce an apple seed to grow a tree.
While extremely unlikely, given a long enough timeline an apple seed will spontaneously form due to quantum fluctuations. So the zeroth apple will produce that seed.
This is an abuse of the word "nothing", which is a universal negation "not anything". But quantum fluctuations in the quantum vacuum are something, and not nothing. The research might be interesting, but it does nothing for the question the philosopher is asking when he is wondering "Why there is somerthing rather than nothing?"
Or perhaps this philosophical "nothing" is an ill-defined concept, and thus the question is meaningless.
And you're right, they don't know what causes it, why are they so quick to say the vaccines aren't connected?
Is this a serious question? There was one study which suggested a link (Wakefield). This study's data was fabricated, and was later retracted Wakefield's license was revoked. There were then a flurry of studies showing no link between vaccines and autism. You really think that's "quick to say"?
I was just thinking this. The no-fly-list is counterproductive to intelligence work in which an important tool is surreptitiously tracking a person's movements to build a map of their contact network. All the no-fly-list does would do is make it harder to track the movement of terrorists because they would be forced to use less visible means of communication and transport, which means real terrorists probably aren't on the list at all, which completely contradicts the stated purpose of this "security measure". It's asinine.
You cannot have entanglement without interaction, you cannot have interaction between two things that lie outside of each other's light cones.
This is only true if interaction is local, which is not true in QM's configuration space. This is why hidden variables can never be ruled out without also ruling out QM as a whole.
It highlights how it is usually absurd to have a category of people who are journalists, and a category of people who are not, and a set of things which are okay if done by journalists but otherwise are not legal.
Hardly unique though. Owning lockpicks is illegal unless you're a locksmith.
... why, if news stories are any indication, there seems to be such a high percentage of money laundering activity or the like compared to what happens with other forms of currency?
Suppose you created an easy to use and widely available barter system that the government does not yet know how to track. Doesn't it make sense that criminals would be some of the very first ones on the bandwagon? Normal currency has less money laundering as a percentage because everyone uses it, and the ratio of crooks to citizens is thus much lower.
A barter system is just a barter system though. People will use it when it's sufficiently convenient and widely available, just like they do the internet despite its use for criminals.
It seems true net neutrality would be allow anyone to compete as they see fit - if a company is going to 'over charge', then another company should be allowed to come in and 'under charge'.
Another company can. That isn't what net neutrality is about. Net neutrality is about you charging all of your customers the same, regardless of who they are and what they do, it's not about competitors all charging all their customers the same (which would be silly). Consider the racial anti-discrimination bills which forced owners to equally serve visible minorities and caucasians. Sure, another store serving visible minorities could open up next door, but the discriminatory practice shouldn't be allowed to begin with.
Net neutrality isn't a social issue like racism, but it's still the backbones discriminating on the nature and source/destination of traffic when that information doesn't matter to them. They want to be able to identify traffic that consumers consider highly valuable, and then charge the suppliers of that info extra for letting us access it. We've already paid our ISP for that access though, our ISP has paid the backbone, and the supplier has already paid for their access to the backbone. This is just excessive greed where the backbone providers are trying to double-charge for providing the same service.
"A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan. New bombs are being devised. New terrorists are emerging, new groups, actually, a new level of viciousness," Feinstein said. "We need to be prepared. I think we need to do it in a way that respects people's privacy rights."
A critical requirement of preparation is evidence of the effectiveness of your preparation. Where's the evidence that dragnet surveillance is effective?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm aware of plenty of manufactured "scandals" in which no fake or massaged data was ever revealed. In fact, they generally amount to quotations taken out of context and blown to volcanic proportions. Sorry if I don't find this convincing.
Sure, and memory management, and program correctness, and just about any other achievable program property is 95% coder competence and 5% language by this argument. Except the coders that can guarantee 100% that said property is achieved make up 0.001% of the coder population, which means the vast majority of importance falls on the language to prevent memory leaks, out of bounds errors, and the plethora of other program correctness violations and security vulnerabilities.
A language implementation determines code performance, not a language.
No, it comes from other programmers who recognize not only their own limitations, but the limitations of nearly every other human being who can't seem to come to the same realizations. Dunning-Kruger all the way.
You don't understand how science works. If they discover something counter to what we currently know, they'll get more funding to explore this new discovery.
Furthermore, scientists have standards of conduct, transparency requirements and ethics reviews, but the interests opposing AGW do not. And yet you're more skeptical of the transparent science than you are of the unsupported claims of vested interests?
Also interesting that this whole (alleged) "conflict of interest" argument that's used against scientists, applies more to the people opposed to AGW, and yet the AGW-deniers somehow think the latter is just fine, while the former calls into question the scientific data and the conclusions it implies.
AGW deniers are no better than the anti-vaccination idiots.
Says the random redditor with no credentials in a scientific field to the thousands of scientists who actually work in this field. Are you for real? I really wonder how you can use a computer that's built on principles discovered using the same scientific method, and then seriously claim that the results of applying that same method to climate are suddenly no longer valid. Your logic is not like Earth logic.
Anthropogenic warming isn't dangerous to the planet, it's dangerous to us. The timeline of the planet is irrelevant.
Yes, for an analogous meaning of "predict" as applies to the AGW scenario, ie. not predict precise emotions and behaviour at any given instant, but predict general trends with a certain probability distribution. What do you think psychology is all about? They conduct surveys and studies of small a percentage of the population to find correlations and establish general trends about humanity, like what makes people happy, angry, sad, how they respond to trauma, etc.
Did 7 billion people have to live with those natural climate changes in the past? Did they have infrastructure investment that would be utterly destroyed given even slight variations in environmental conditions?
Do you seriously think your argument has any relevance for the AGW problems we're currently facing?
No other science matches the confidence achieved in particle physics. Medicine doesn't come close. Why should we use the highest possible standard achievable for AGW when we accept far lower confidence in our highly valued medical fields?
Hard to believe perhaps, like quantum mechanics is hard to believe. And yet, just like QM, we can reproduce the atmospheric composition in controlled laboratory conditions and check what spectrum of radiation it absorbs and what portion merely passes through. Guess what? Precisely these tests have been done.
Guess what else? The temperature increase predictions in AGW models are based on precisely the amount of additional energy absorbed by that atmopsheric composition. Where exactly did you think these numbers came from?
So in order to argue against AGW, you'll have to put on some big boy pants and either argue our entire understanding of physics is flawed, or that there some other magical energy sink no one has ever seen before that counteracts this basic physics effect. Good luck with that.
That isn't absolutely certain. For instance, there's always superdeterminism which is something that 't Hooft is currently working on, ie. deriving quantum mechanics from deterministic cellular automota.
That isn't justification that such a model does not exist, which is what the original claim was, it's simply justification that we do not currently know of such a model.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm not aware of any impossibility proof demonstrating that no model can accurately predict reality, there are simply limits on precision, like the contextuality of QM implying the uncertainty principle.
I suggest you read up on the philosophy of mathematics. Math is not what you think it is. I also suggest you read up on the Mathematical Universe hypothesis.
Good thing you're not a professor in the philosophy of science.
Underlying this is an assumption that reality is not itself mathematical. This assumption isn't justified.
Furthermore, physics can indeed drive mathematics. For instance, see the invention of quantum logic and generalized probability theory.
While extremely unlikely, given a long enough timeline an apple seed will spontaneously form due to quantum fluctuations. So the zeroth apple will produce that seed.
Or perhaps this philosophical "nothing" is an ill-defined concept, and thus the question is meaningless.
Is this a serious question? There was one study which suggested a link (Wakefield). This study's data was fabricated, and was later retracted Wakefield's license was revoked. There were then a flurry of studies showing no link between vaccines and autism. You really think that's "quick to say"?
I was just thinking this. The no-fly-list is counterproductive to intelligence work in which an important tool is surreptitiously tracking a person's movements to build a map of their contact network. All the no-fly-list does would do is make it harder to track the movement of terrorists because they would be forced to use less visible means of communication and transport, which means real terrorists probably aren't on the list at all, which completely contradicts the stated purpose of this "security measure". It's asinine.
His behaviour as CEO reflects on Mozilla.
The first SMTP RFC was published in 1982. The first electronic mail RFCs were published in the 70s. They're way more than 20 years behind the times.
Because it is broken. Very broken. You just don't see it until an exploit takes your personal information, and then it's too late.
This is only true if interaction is local, which is not true in QM's configuration space. This is why hidden variables can never be ruled out without also ruling out QM as a whole.
Hardly unique though. Owning lockpicks is illegal unless you're a locksmith.
Suppose you created an easy to use and widely available barter system that the government does not yet know how to track. Doesn't it make sense that criminals would be some of the very first ones on the bandwagon? Normal currency has less money laundering as a percentage because everyone uses it, and the ratio of crooks to citizens is thus much lower.
A barter system is just a barter system though. People will use it when it's sufficiently convenient and widely available, just like they do the internet despite its use for criminals.
Another company can. That isn't what net neutrality is about. Net neutrality is about you charging all of your customers the same, regardless of who they are and what they do, it's not about competitors all charging all their customers the same (which would be silly). Consider the racial anti-discrimination bills which forced owners to equally serve visible minorities and caucasians. Sure, another store serving visible minorities could open up next door, but the discriminatory practice shouldn't be allowed to begin with.
Net neutrality isn't a social issue like racism, but it's still the backbones discriminating on the nature and source/destination of traffic when that information doesn't matter to them. They want to be able to identify traffic that consumers consider highly valuable, and then charge the suppliers of that info extra for letting us access it. We've already paid our ISP for that access though, our ISP has paid the backbone, and the supplier has already paid for their access to the backbone. This is just excessive greed where the backbone providers are trying to double-charge for providing the same service.
A critical requirement of preparation is evidence of the effectiveness of your preparation. Where's the evidence that dragnet surveillance is effective?