I don't see how you can prove something conclusively in silico,...
It works for climatologists.
Re:Why doesn't television use better compression?
on
Intel Launches Wi-Di
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If you want really good quality (as i do) then you at the high bandwidth end of the spectrum and mpeg2 is no worse that H264 (and even the experts agree on this point). Basically you at the end where you are encoding quite a bit of noise (film grain etc). h264 shines at lower bitrates, but with massive increases in complexity and patents. Hell the spec reads like a bunch of engineers had a stack of patents that they wanted to include in the spec.
I know a lot of fan boys love h264 and believe that HD can fit in 1Gig for a 2 hour movie, but that only works if you are blind. Really the vast majority of content out there is so compressed that there no point in 1080p cus DVD looks better anyway. There is a reason Blue Ray can fit 25Gigs on it. Currently here in Vienna HDTV looks far worse than normal tv due to the horrible artifacts... that may be a combination of using mpeg2 at low bit rates, bad reception or using h264 at even lower bit rates. Either way whats the point of 1080i/p or even 720 when most pixels are mosquito and other types of decoding noise.
Why not just reduce bandwidth via a smaller image and rescale and be honest about what you are getting. HD does not fit in DVD bitrates. DVD does.
If you care about security, you probably won't be using this in the first place. Since i have over 12 overlapping wifi networks at my apartment, I can't imagine that these things will handle interference well. And it had better be better than HDTV which at least here (Vienna, Austria) looks like total crap.
I publish and I have read the papers (My physics department had a climate group). Simulations are not and never will be the same as an experiment. They cannot do anything outside of the assumptions and parameters you put in, where an experiment is not so constrained. I should know, the bulk of my papers are simulation papers, and I have to be careful with what i claim or reviews will reject it outright.
And lets face it, the confidence in these models is way oversold and the vast bulk of the claims of certain calamity is from simulations->climate predictions. And i don't know what papers you have been reading, but the older models do not have a good record so far, and over fitting is easy to match partial data-sets. There is just too many parameters that are just set/guesstimated or otherwise, everything from precipitation models, to ocean circulation models. Its a lot of assumptions, and models that are simply "the best we can do" kinda deals. Nothing wrong with that of course... But that's not a validated experimental result, no matter how much you wave your arms.
I am not disputing that Climatology is science, I am disputing the "scientific" method in this case is overrated and in any true sense cannot be really applied. This is not the only field like this.
As for the data. I *must* provide my data for download as supplementary material, or it doesn't even get reviewed. There is no need for FOIA requests. I don't even get to know who downloads the data. I also work with drug companies, in this case where the data is not allowed to be published neither are the results since they cannot be replicated.
Our current croplands are chosen to match current precipitation patterns
Huge amounts of croplands are based on irrigation, not precipitation. We can also adapt and switch crops and/or change irrigation patterns. As for warnings.... Well earth quakes and financial crisis tends to have short warnings (and how many do you think we will get in the next 100 years), but nothing in climate change is expected to happen overnight... fast for this sort of thing is 10 years. Last i checked we can build quite a lot of irrigation in 1 year...
If you cannot identify "showstopper" blunders in each paper (they both contain whopper errors), then you have no business participating in this discussion.
This is the arrogance thats causing all the problems. "You are not smart enough to understand, we will tell whats true and not true...." Clergy attitude. You are not the Friken pope, we are not all under your rule. If you can't be bothered expalining or backing up your postion with more than "you are an idoit" then you are the one that should not be in the debate.
If you want everyone to change based on what you claim you better be prepared to answer to everyone.
I think these things bring up a different and perhaps more important perspective. The claim is that the paper that was let through was rubbish. In other words the "peer review" didn't work. So if it didn't work, what does that say about their papers that got through peer review? You can't have it both ways...
Peer review is not great. But its the best we got to filter out dross. And there is a lot of dross. Thousands of papers are published each year, many more were submitted. We can't read them all and we don't want to waste a lot of time on noise. So peer reivew does offter a pretty good first filter... or more to the point i don't have better idea.
But its overrated. It does not mean a paper is good, or that its good science. The last paper i reviewed had incorrect math and i rejected on this basis. It was published anyway....
How the hell can do do the "scientific method" on a planets climate! Models are not facts and they are not experiments. We don't have an extra planet to use as a control last time i checked, and we haven't waited a few dozen years to see how well the models actually predict anything.
Don't get me wrong. Its the best we can do, and its valid science... But the "scientific" method is not applicable directly here as in many other scientific fields. But dam don't quote model predictions as facts, they are not. And don't oversell confidence, it will only do even more damage. And for gods sake I am not allowed to publish "predictions/claims/etc" without the data i used to arrive at these claims, why should this be any different.
Thats like asking every NRA member to never own a gun. Its not going to happen. And to be frank, I don't trust the US with nukes anymore that some middle eastern country either. Also the fact is it was hard to make a nuke in the 50s. Its pretty easy these days. Most nations that really want them, probably have them.
Oh and all out nuclear war, would be a massive change to life as we know it... but it will be a long way from wiping out humanity....
Just Google a little. Hell even do a search here. The number of people that think its at least "the end of life as we know it" is pretty staggering, especially considering that their carbon footprints haven't changed a bit. A bit like how God will smite as all unless *others* repent....
Perhaps the oddest thing however is what are "impractical" solutions. Like some claim that some cities will no longer have water and will all die. So build a water pipeline...No you can't they say, its impractically expensive. Odd that a +5000km gas pipeline is somehow completely reasonable. Really we have mega engineering dedicated to *burning* fossil fuels, with the same commitment to the opposite goal, i don't see any massive disasters (Outside what nature will do anyway at least aka an earthquake in LA)... example: +50000km of roads in the us alone, how much earth and concrete did we use and move for that? And most of that was built in the last 50 years.
I am a physicist, and there are so many things wrong with the/. discussion its no wonder the general public has no clue.
First off we could only hope to get a black hole if and only if we live in very particular type of universe with the right number of dimensions folded the right way (aka a possible string theory universe). Classical or lower dimensional explanations need far higher energy and masses than LHC could ever hope for. Many people don't think string theory is correct so in this case we can't even hope to create one.
Secondly if the theory that says we would get a black hole is right, its also the case that it would probably evaporate... very very quickly. 10^-20 seconds quickly.
If by some obscure reason string theory is right with the correct number of dimensions etc but hawking was wrong and black holes don't evaporate, then the kind of time for a proton mass black hole (will all the gravity might of a proton) would be age of the universe type thing. Because at these scales gravity is simply not that important. And as stated before the chances that the black hole has escape velocity is practically unity.
Finally we can see a lot of universe from here... And guess how often a "cosmic ray" or other type of stupidly high energy particles collides with stars, white dwarfs, neutron stars etc over the last 13-5 billion years... We don't see this happening.
More alarmingly, why the frick should i need a judge to decide whats correct. I didn't appoint/vote them to run society. They don't represent anything relevant here.
I have used general calculus (ode, integration, vectors and vector spaces, linear algebra) a lot. For GIS systems, and GPS software even some Tensor math was very useful. Clearly some simulation software a company I was working with needed quite a bit of physics too. Solving simulations equations has come up a lot (some spline curves use that!) so basic linear algebra and matrix math is probably very useful too.
I am asuming you want some job flexibility rather that being stuck doing nothing but business/web logic type code.
NAT does not provide any measure at all of anonymity. In fact if you are not using TOR you don't have any anonymity./. knows your IP, and can probably buy the database of time/ip/address allocations from your ISP. I am on a static IP, you could probably get the phone number on my desk within 30 mins without a warrant.
Also IP6 does provide for "randomized" addresses. So when you travel for example, your laptop would get different addresses( if you want). Or your home network would if thats what you want. But this is still not the same as anonymity.
My router has local DNS configured out of the box. I don't know any that don't. I play ioquake3 a bit. On ip6. Don't know about other games. ip6 will make games easier since it will get rid of the dirty evil hack that is NAT.
The problem is that even the "OMG we are all going to die from Global warming" folk want someone *else* to pay the $15 billion. When push comes to shove, regardless of what people claim to believe about climate change and economic impacts, the overwhelming majority want someone else to fix it, someone else to pay for it, and someone else to inconvenienced by it.
Well if you ask me, monkeys are butt ugly and mice are dam cute. Well mice aren't rats, but close enough and they are experimented on just as much if not a lot more than rats.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how you can prove something conclusively in silico, ...
It works for climatologists.
If you want really good quality (as i do) then you at the high bandwidth end of the spectrum and mpeg2 is no worse that H264 (and even the experts agree on this point). Basically you at the end where you are encoding quite a bit of noise (film grain etc). h264 shines at lower bitrates, but with massive increases in complexity and patents. Hell the spec reads like a bunch of engineers had a stack of patents that they wanted to include in the spec.
I know a lot of fan boys love h264 and believe that HD can fit in 1Gig for a 2 hour movie, but that only works if you are blind. Really the vast majority of content out there is so compressed that there no point in 1080p cus DVD looks better anyway. There is a reason Blue Ray can fit 25Gigs on it. Currently here in Vienna HDTV looks far worse than normal tv due to the horrible artifacts... that may be a combination of using mpeg2 at low bit rates, bad reception or using h264 at even lower bit rates. Either way whats the point of 1080i/p or even 720 when most pixels are mosquito and other types of decoding noise.
Why not just reduce bandwidth via a smaller image and rescale and be honest about what you are getting. HD does not fit in DVD bitrates. DVD does.
Oh and HDTV does include h264.
If you care about security, you probably won't be using this in the first place. Since i have over 12 overlapping wifi networks at my apartment, I can't imagine that these things will handle interference well. And it had better be better than HDTV which at least here (Vienna, Austria) looks like total crap.
I brought a slot car set for my wife for Christmas.
In sunlight i have never seen this. Under street lights that have a 50Hz cycle... well yea you can see it.
I publish and I have read the papers (My physics department had a climate group). Simulations are not and never will be the same as an experiment. They cannot do anything outside of the assumptions and parameters you put in, where an experiment is not so constrained. I should know, the bulk of my papers are simulation papers, and I have to be careful with what i claim or reviews will reject it outright.
And lets face it, the confidence in these models is way oversold and the vast bulk of the claims of certain calamity is from simulations->climate predictions. And i don't know what papers you have been reading, but the older models do not have a good record so far, and over fitting is easy to match partial data-sets. There is just too many parameters that are just set/guesstimated or otherwise, everything from precipitation models, to ocean circulation models. Its a lot of assumptions, and models that are simply "the best we can do" kinda deals. Nothing wrong with that of course... But that's not a validated experimental result, no matter how much you wave your arms.
I am not disputing that Climatology is science, I am disputing the "scientific" method in this case is overrated and in any true sense cannot be really applied. This is not the only field like this.
As for the data. I *must* provide my data for download as supplementary material, or it doesn't even get reviewed. There is no need for FOIA requests. I don't even get to know who downloads the data. I also work with drug companies, in this case where the data is not allowed to be published neither are the results since they cannot be replicated.
A 4 jaw self centering chuck
I put my money on tree hugging hippies that are convinced the solution to all our problems is to live as we did in the stone ages...
Our current croplands are chosen to match current precipitation patterns
Huge amounts of croplands are based on irrigation, not precipitation. We can also adapt and switch crops and/or change irrigation patterns. As for warnings.... Well earth quakes and financial crisis tends to have short warnings (and how many do you think we will get in the next 100 years), but nothing in climate change is expected to happen overnight... fast for this sort of thing is 10 years. Last i checked we can build quite a lot of irrigation in 1 year...
If you cannot identify "showstopper" blunders in each paper (they both contain whopper errors), then you have no business participating in this discussion.
This is the arrogance thats causing all the problems. "You are not smart enough to understand, we will tell whats true and not true...." Clergy attitude. You are not the Friken pope, we are not all under your rule. If you can't be bothered expalining or backing up your postion with more than "you are an idoit" then you are the one that should not be in the debate.
If you want everyone to change based on what you claim you better be prepared to answer to everyone.
I think these things bring up a different and perhaps more important perspective. The claim is that the paper that was let through was rubbish. In other words the "peer review" didn't work. So if it didn't work, what does that say about their papers that got through peer review? You can't have it both ways...
Peer review is not great. But its the best we got to filter out dross. And there is a lot of dross. Thousands of papers are published each year, many more were submitted. We can't read them all and we don't want to waste a lot of time on noise. So peer reivew does offter a pretty good first filter... or more to the point i don't have better idea.
But its overrated. It does not mean a paper is good, or that its good science. The last paper i reviewed had incorrect math and i rejected on this basis. It was published anyway....
How the hell can do do the "scientific method" on a planets climate! Models are not facts and they are not experiments. We don't have an extra planet to use as a control last time i checked, and we haven't waited a few dozen years to see how well the models actually predict anything.
Don't get me wrong. Its the best we can do, and its valid science... But the "scientific" method is not applicable directly here as in many other scientific fields. But dam don't quote model predictions as facts, they are not. And don't oversell confidence, it will only do even more damage. And for gods sake I am not allowed to publish "predictions/claims/etc" without the data i used to arrive at these claims, why should this be any different.
Thats like asking every NRA member to never own a gun. Its not going to happen. And to be frank, I don't trust the US with nukes anymore that some middle eastern country either. Also the fact is it was hard to make a nuke in the 50s. Its pretty easy these days. Most nations that really want them, probably have them.
Oh and all out nuclear war, would be a massive change to life as we know it... but it will be a long way from wiping out humanity....
Just Google a little. Hell even do a search here. The number of people that think its at least "the end of life as we know it" is pretty staggering, especially considering that their carbon footprints haven't changed a bit. A bit like how God will smite as all unless *others* repent....
Perhaps the oddest thing however is what are "impractical" solutions. Like some claim that some cities will no longer have water and will all die. So build a water pipeline...No you can't they say, its impractically expensive. Odd that a +5000km gas pipeline is somehow completely reasonable. Really we have mega engineering dedicated to *burning* fossil fuels, with the same commitment to the opposite goal, i don't see any massive disasters (Outside what nature will do anyway at least aka an earthquake in LA)... example: +50000km of roads in the us alone, how much earth and concrete did we use and move for that? And most of that was built in the last 50 years.
A large chuck of the LHC funding is from the US.
I am a physicist, and there are so many things wrong with the /. discussion its no wonder the general public has no clue.
First off we could only hope to get a black hole if and only if we live in very particular type of universe with the right number of dimensions folded the right way (aka a possible string theory universe). Classical or lower dimensional explanations need far higher energy and masses than LHC could ever hope for. Many people don't think string theory is correct so in this case we can't even hope to create one.
Secondly if the theory that says we would get a black hole is right, its also the case that it would probably evaporate... very very quickly. 10^-20 seconds quickly.
If by some obscure reason string theory is right with the correct number of dimensions etc but hawking was wrong and black holes don't evaporate, then the kind of time for a proton mass black hole (will all the gravity might of a proton) would be age of the universe type thing. Because at these scales gravity is simply not that important. And as stated before the chances that the black hole has escape velocity is practically unity.
Finally we can see a lot of universe from here... And guess how often a "cosmic ray" or other type of stupidly high energy particles collides with stars, white dwarfs, neutron stars etc over the last 13-5 billion years... We don't see this happening.
More alarmingly, why the frick should i need a judge to decide whats correct. I didn't appoint/vote them to run society. They don't represent anything relevant here.
I have used general calculus (ode, integration, vectors and vector spaces, linear algebra) a lot. For GIS systems, and GPS software even some Tensor math was very useful. Clearly some simulation software a company I was working with needed quite a bit of physics too. Solving simulations equations has come up a lot (some spline curves use that!) so basic linear algebra and matrix math is probably very useful too.
I am asuming you want some job flexibility rather that being stuck doing nothing but business/web logic type code.
Think about what this technology does. It allows unsolicited connectivity into your network without audit.
IPv6 does not permitthis in any way or form. Unless you configure it that way of course. Just like IPv4.
NAT and ipsec......now thats a nightmare...
NAT does not provide any measure at all of anonymity. In fact if you are not using TOR you don't have any anonymity. /. knows your IP, and can probably buy the database of time/ip/address allocations from your ISP. I am on a static IP, you could probably get the phone number on my desk within 30 mins without a warrant.
Also IP6 does provide for "randomized" addresses. So when you travel for example, your laptop would get different addresses( if you want). Or your home network would if thats what you want. But this is still not the same as anonymity.
My router has local DNS configured out of the box. I don't know any that don't. I play ioquake3 a bit. On ip6. Don't know about other games. ip6 will make games easier since it will get rid of the dirty evil hack that is NAT.
I wouldn't worry about the fish. We would have eating or otherwise killed em all before acidification gets em.
The problem is that even the "OMG we are all going to die from Global warming" folk want someone *else* to pay the $15 billion. When push comes to shove, regardless of what people claim to believe about climate change and economic impacts, the overwhelming majority want someone else to fix it, someone else to pay for it, and someone else to inconvenienced by it.
Well if you ask me, monkeys are butt ugly and mice are dam cute. Well mice aren't rats, but close enough and they are experimented on just as much if not a lot more than rats.
The last DVD i rented didn't play on my 3 computers or the DVD player properly. Guess where i got a copy that played just fine on all of them.
Why rent/buy something that doesn't work.
I get my money back when something goes wrong at a cinema.