Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: not developed by a responsible team? (Score 1, Interesting) 301

by G3ckoG33k (#46714559) Attached to: Theo De Raadt's Small Rant On OpenSSL
De Raadt wrote "OpenSSL is not developed by a responsible team".

On the contrary, I believe it was developed by a responsible team, that unfortunately made an error.

Most everyone have made errors, even if most go unnoticed and are essentially harmless. This one appears different, but I don't think it justifies De Raadt's moronic comment.

Comment: I'm fed up with romanticized natives (Score 1) 180

by G3ckoG33k (#46513867) Attached to: Why Did New Zealand's Moas Go Extinct?
Over the last few centuries there has been a stereotypically romanticized view of the natives in the jungles and grass plains around the world as living in harmony with the nature, until the white man came. That pathetic misconception is perpetuated by their old wise men, typically alcoholics and in turn romanticizing anything from their grandfathers childhood. Good to see some white man high-tech arguments pointing fingers at the scum who'd better invent their own refrigerators before complaining. I'm fed up with romanticized natives.

Comment: Re:Could the universe be much older than estimated (Score 1) 141

by G3ckoG33k (#46253781) Attached to: Oldest Known Star In the Universe Discovered
One other reason I think this sounds "very little" is that heavy elements need a successive series of star formations to be formed. So, 18 laps for the Sun since the dawn of the universe, as Patch86 mentioned, also sounds too few. No, I don't have any better hypothesis. Yet, perhaps we are seeing a logarithmically contracted time scale once we look back in time and that such a phenomenon produce these effects.

Comment: Could the universe be much older than estimated? (Score 1) 141

by G3ckoG33k (#46229555) Attached to: Oldest Known Star In the Universe Discovered
The age of the universe is according to Wikipedia

"In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The best measurement of the age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years ((13.798±0.037)×109 years or (4.354±0.012)×1017 seconds) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.[1][2] The uncertainty of 37 million years has been obtained by the agreement of a number of scientific research projects, such as microwave background radiation measurements by the Planck satellite, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other probes. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang,[2] and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time."

Still, the Sun rotates around the Milky Way center at a rate of every 240 million years; "Sun's Galactic rotation period 240 Myr (negative rotation)" according to Sparks 2007. Well, does that mean that the sun only has rotated around the Milky Way some 60 times (four times every billion years), since Big Bang? That sounds very little. Could the universe be much older than estimated?!

Comment: Re:Not new (Score 1) 185

by G3ckoG33k (#46065349) Attached to: A Thermodynamics Theory of the Origins of Life

Can anyone with more info on this tell me how this earlier paper is different - arxiv.org/abs/0907.0042

I certainly don't pretend to understand the content of the England/Michaelian papers.

But after a quick scan of Michaelian's paper, I think the difference might be that England's paper rigorously quantifies the theory mathematically, while Michaelian's paper does not.

One should check with xarchive.org (and elsewhere) which ip-addresses have visited Michaelians' article.

A few years back some Spanish researchers were caught tapping original data

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09...

"But now evidence has been offered that Dr. Ortiz and his group did access the observing logs. Prompted by questions by Dr. Rabinowitz of Yale, one of Dr. Brown's team members, Dr. Pogge, who maintains the Smarts telescope Web site, decided to investigate the traffic on the site. He found that computers from an unfamiliar address had visited the Web site eight times from July 26 to 28, when the Spanish group was making its announcement. Each time the computers went straight to pages deep within the site that described the Brown group's observations of K40506A. The first three visits happened a few minutes apart early on July 26, a day and a half before the Ortiz group made its announcement. Another cluster of hits came on the morning of the July 28 before the object was observed in Mallorca and Dr. Ortiz made his more complete report to the astronomical union. Dr. Pogge was able to trace the computers through the so-called IPP numbers, which the Internet assigns to each computer on it. Those numbers eventually led him to the Web site of the Andalusian Institute. Dr. Pogge said he gasped out loud when it popped up."

These things happen.

Nonetheless, Jeremy L England's article is plain sloppy research for not finding Michaelian's paper.

Comment: Yes, use the interquartile range instead (Score 1) 312

by G3ckoG33k (#45970105) Attached to: Why Standard Deviation Should Be Retired From Scientific Use

Yes, use the interquartile range instead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interquartile_range

It is like the median a very robust method, not readily influenced by outliers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median

The median is wickedly robust, with a breakdown point at 50%, meaning that you can throw a huge a mount of junk data at it and it still doesn't care.

The arithmetic mean and the standatd deviation are both junk, often worse than the too-often-assumed-normal data thrown at it.

Comment: The Steam Box, a Gabe Newell subsidized bargain! (Score 1) 804

In a similar vein, there is a Gamespot.com comparison of the Steam Box price versus the retail prices of the parts:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/steam-machine-teardown-reveals-1300-price-for-components/1100-6416814/

"The sum of the system's various components--including its processor, motherboard, and hard drive--came out to around $1300. The most expensive component was its Zotac GeForce GTX 780 3GB video card--estimated at more than $500. It's important to note that the 300 Steam Machine units available today for beta testers are prototype systems. Specifications, and thus price, could change before the system launches publicly in 2014. It's also important to remember that several boxes will be available, featuring an array of specifications and price points. We've asked Valve to comment on the $1300 price point, but haven't heard back."

The Steam Box, a Gabe Newell subsidized bargain or will they just minimize profit as can be done to gain traction? Newell vs Jobs, I sense a difference.

(BTW, I still think Apple sucks, even if I have to admit the new Mac Pro design is nice.)

Round Numbers are always false. -- Samuel Johnson

Working...