Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:They'll never find the island it landed on. (Score 2) 142

Time periods? Polar Bears? Smoke Monsters?

I disagree. The plane is hidden on a deserted volcanic island that's part of the Lesser Sunda Islands in Indonesia.

The planes occupants (including Mik Kanrokitoff) are currently aboard a flying saucer. Most will reappear in due course suffering from amnesia.

Comment Re:Fuel (Score 1) 353

For example, how well would an automotive engine deal with being upside down for a while?

I'm not completely sure about this but from something I (mis)heard, wasn't that already a factor in the Battle of Britain with the Spitfire (carbs) vs the 109 (fuel injectors)? ie the Spitfire couldn't fly inverted for very long while the 109 could?

But yeah, an automotive engine might exacerbate that problem even further.

Comment Re:Predictions were made in the 1970s then? (Score 1) 560

Put differently, rather than creating a model from all of the old data (which, as you said, is trivial and not really that impressive), you put yourself in the shoes of a 1970s scientist and try to use the data from only up to that point to create a model that will work for the next 40 years. You then get to fast forward 40 years and see how you did. If you didn't get it right, you go back and try again.

Yeah. Creating a projection of the future involves both the model itself and a bunch of assumptions about the future state of the input variables. A projection will then have a range of certainty based on running it with different sets of likely inputs.

eg a future climate projection has to make a bunch of assumptions around variable things like big volcanic eruptions, the amounts of greenhouse gasses entering the atmosphere, what the sun actually output, what the southern oscillation index is going to do (ie swings between el ninos and la ninas which is a big factor) etc etc.

And to test the usefulness of an old model you keep it around and run it again in the future using actual data instead of assumed data to test whether discrepancies between it and reality are down to the model or the input assumptions or both. And then using these comparisons and new research on the physical processes to fine tune newer models.

Comment Re:But we weren't there so SEE... (Score 2) 120

So you're saying that readers of this writing should take account of the time and the cultural context of the writer(s) and not take it literally.

As a somewhat naive (of these kinds of arguments) observer, it seems to me that you are actually agreeing with those you are apparently disagreeing with.

Comment Re:It starts to be amusing in a sad kind of way. (Score 1) 222

This site is probably the reason I didn't finish my university degree in 2000.

No kidding - I don't thnk anyone else has posted anywhere near as much as you have.

I have spent ages here, and took part in some very intelligent discussions.

Yeah, but you also post a hell of a lot of crap too.

Comment Re:Great summary, guys. (Score 1) 390

The only surprise was the 82% in 2002... those IE 6-only sites back then didn't seem to designed with any open standards in mind.

I don't find that surprising at all. From the release of IE4 until sometime after 2002, IE was one of the best and most standards compliant browsers (Only Opera springs to mind as better). Back then being able to drop support for Netscape 4.x was a huge relief. Netscape 4s complete and utter suckiness along with the very long time it took to fix that handed everything to IE.

But as Mozilla 1.x's many bugs got fixed and as Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox crept towards 1.0 things slowly changed. By 2003-2004 IE 6 was completely outclassed, and it was Microsoft's turn to suffocate progress.

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Working...