typodupeerror

## Comment: That's what they said (Score 1)277277

So they are saying that this sub-group's purchases of new products is indeed predictive of failure.

Yes, that's what they said.

However another explanation of the data is that many products fail early, and thus many of the people who buy products early in the release cycle ("early adopters") will buy many products that will fail. Is the set of "early adopters who adopted products that then failed in the market place" a set that can predict future failure in the marketplace? Well, they didn't show that.

It's easy to predict the past.

## Comment: picking 67% flops puts you in the 75th percentile (Score 1)277277

# of flops chosen (position in set)

Group 1: Between 0% and 25% flops (25th percentile) in the classification set

Group 2: Between 25% and 50% flops (50th percentile) in the classification set

Group 3: Between 50% and 67% flops (75th percentile) in the classification set

Group 4: Over 67% flops in the classification set

Those particular numbers (one in four, two in four, two in three, >2/3) are indicative: the study set consists of people who made only three or four choices. (If it were larger numbers, the cut points wouldn't be such even numbers)

This is not significant.

And, more significantly, that's way too few to tell if membership in a set is predictive.

## Comment: Harbingers? or just early adopters? (Score 5, Insightful)277277

Certainly some early adopters pick products that don't take off, and mathematically some of these will have done it multiple times.
But the article claims that some people are actually predictors-- that their product choices have predictive value for product failure.
Is this actually true? It's easy to select out a set of people who have bought failed products, and then cull out of that set the ones who have not also sometimes bought successful products. But is this group statistically able to make future predictions?
I'm doubtful. Clearly, the way to not select products that don't grab a market niche... is to not be an early adopter. Lots of products fail; if you're an early adoptor, you're likely to be adopting failed products. If you instead wait to see where a product is going before buying-- you never buy products that fail a month after launch.
FWIW, the original article is here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...

## Comment: Re:Can't reply to what you don't say (Score 1)278278

Possibly in some other thread somewhere, but in multiple replies to me in this thread you made no "specific mention" of where you claim to have gotten your data.

OK, I did a search of other threads, and see that in fact in a post responding to somebody else, in a different fork, you did make an attempt to back up your assertions.

First take-away point: you can't expect people to be familiar with something you posted in response to a different person, in a different fork.

Most of your comments were addressed by riverat1, who points out that you misinterpreted what was pretty clearly stated by the IPCC report.

What I deduce from your comments is that no, you didn't read any of the IPCC reports, but you did skim them to quote mine, without bothering to actually try to understand what you were reading.

OK, that's a start. I suggest next you actually read some of these reports. Then you will be able to comment from a position of knowledge, instead of ignorance, and the discussion may at least be somewhat higher level.

riverat1 doesn't address one comment. You wrote:

Refining estimates is, of course, how science works-- but, in fact, they haven't been shrinking. The reference you give is a blog that seems to have cherry picked a dozen estimates over a very short time period-- out of perhaps thousands of climate models run over fifty years by dozens of groups on five contents. The first real estimate-- by "real", I mean "using experimentally measured values of IR absorption, and numerically integrating, instead of approximating"-- is of course Manabe and Weatherald 1967. Their estimate, with no feedback other than the assumption of constant humidity, was 2.25C per doubling. The 1979 National Academy of Sciences estimate was 3 C, plus or minus 1.5 C. Since then, the IPCC has been compiling the results of many models to come up with "best guess" estimates of climate sensitivity. These have been:
1990 IPCC: 1.5 - 4.5 C ( "best guess" of 2.5)
2nd IPCC: "No strong reasons have emerged to change" these estimates
3rd IPCC: 1.5 - 4.5 C.
4th IPCC: 2 - 4.5 C
5th IPCC: 1.5C - 4.5C

(These actual IPCC WG-1 reports give detailed explanation of what they mean by "likely," and citations and figures showing where the estimates come from, as well as discussion of the high and low outliers.)

What is astonishing about climate sensitivity is how little they have changed since the National Academy of Sciences assessment in 1979. Basically, the models have been getting progressively finer scale, with more nodes and more and more of the second and third-order effects incorporated, but the overall result has not changed.

In fact, the original 1967 estimate, 2.25C, is still within the error bars-- it's quite remarkable how Manabe's very simply model (simple by today's standards: a top-of-the-line supercomputer model by 1967 standards) still holds up.

## Comment: Can't reply to what you don't say (Score 1)278278

How about you stop grandstanding and discuss the post where I specifically mentioned where in the IPCC reports I got my info.

I would... except you didn't.

Possibly in some other thread somewhere, but in multiple replies to me in this thread you made no "specific mention" of where you claim to have gotten your data. Not only did you not "specifically mention where," you didn't even say which IPCC report you think you got your information from (in fact, this is the first post you've made that suggests that you know that there even is more than one IPCC report.)

## Comment: One-sided skepticism (Score 1)278278

I have a suggestion: I suggest you try analyzing blogs that attack climate science with just as much skepticism as you are applying to the actual climate science. You're showing one-sided skepticism: skeptical of the science, but completely credulous of the attacks on the science.

That blog post you link is full of misdirection and not-quite-right analysis. The graph by Bloomberg cites that the data graphed comes from the GISS. In fact, it is from a 2005 paper, Hansen, et al. "Climate simulations for 1880-2003 with GISS model E." Clim. Dyn., 29, 2007, pp. 661-696). The Watt's up post, though: what's up with that? He wrote a long and superficially detailed analysis... without linking a single reference. Why no references? It looks like he doesn't want you to check what he did. His motto is, apparently, "trust me... and don't verify".

Why does he not link to the source of all the data he is analyzing? Doesn't that even slightly make you wonder?

Then, he says it's "convenient" that the graphed data stops at 2005. Well, it's not terribly suspicious: since the paper referenced was published in 2005, it would be surprising if the data didn't stop in 2005). He then shows a graph that purportedly shows "the widening divergence between models and reality" that purportedly starts in 2005. No link to the actual source of that data, though it's easy enough to find. He prints that graph-- the largest graph in the criticism-- without mentioning that it's not even graphing the same thing as the article he's criticizing.

He leaves off any explanation of where the data comes from probably because the data points graphed are not surface temperature-- this is the temperature in the mid-troposphere: 8–15km in altitude (and, to boot, only in the tropics, not the global average under discussion.)

The graph Watts Up put in without explanation is charting something completely different than the subject being discussed! Now, you can argue (and Christy does) that tropical mid-troposphere temperate is something important to understand and model... but that's a change of subject from what the article being critiqued discusses.

Why doesn't he say that?

The answer is obvious: this is misdirection. He's not trying to spread understanding. He's trying to spread confusion.

Start reading the Watts Up with the same skepticism you are applying to the actual science. Check his references. Look for misdirection and changes of subject. There's a dozen places right in that post you link that you can find things that you ought to find suspicious.

No, you haven't.

Your posts show no knowledge of anything except the denier arguments. If you had read the actual work that the denier blogs are attacking, you'd be able to comment with some actual understanding, instead of the comments you are posting with weasel-wording of "I am quoting from memory, I may be wrong." What a great weasel wording! You already told me that you think you might be wrong!

As usual, your side doesn't debate anything, only appeals to authority.

I linked to the source that you stated you were getting your facts from. You were the one appealing to authority: I just posting the link.

## Comment: Source (Score 1)278278

Besides, it has been shown to be wrong.

You seen to think that by just saying that you will make it true.

As for linking to the IPCC... well that was more than useless.

Since you said you were quoting numbers from the IPCC, I would suggest that linking to the IPCC reports would be relevant. Since you now say it is "more than useless" to link to the source that you claimed to have based your post on, I'd say that your post is "more than useless."

I haven't seen anything to make me think you have actually read any of the IPCC reports-- I suspect your poorly-remembered data is something you poorly-remembered from some political blog somewhere. Have you actually read anything from the IPCC, the work you claim to be quoting?

## Comment: Re:i'm going with 98% of the scientific community (Score 2)278278

The numbers above are from the IPCC (albeit from memory, correct some of they are wrong).

Correct in the last part: some of them are wrong.

The actual IPCC documents are here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...

An interesting graphic comparing various sources of climate change is here: http://www.bloomberg.com/graph...

## Comment: Re:Chicken Little (Score 5, Insightful)278278

It's hard to trust anyone who's work is disseminated by the government or media today.

That's an assertion that's hard to challenge in the libertarian atmosphere of slashdot.

Research and reports are spun mercilessly for the gain of whoever needs it.

Indeed, it's always wise to track down the actual original data, and actually look at the data and see what we know, and how well we know it, rather than to trust the media interpretations.

It may not be scientist's fault but when you hear something like "the sky is falling" and then hear it refuted over and over, one starts to take things with a grain of salt.

The media does like to run doom and destruction stories-- they are more of a story than talking about things like "slow increase in temperature over a time scale of decades."

Take, for example, Global Cooling back in the 1970's.

OK, let's take it for an example. There was never a scientific consensus about global cooling in the 1970s. The American Meteorological Society did a review, trying to look for the origin of that. http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... They summarize: "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.

That was refuted with Global Warming in the 2000's

It was not really "refuted" per se, since it was never a scientific consensus in the first place.

and now it's simply Global Climate Change which seems to be a catch-all.

"Global Climate Change" was the term coined by the (first) Bush administration.

I don't deny GCC but I certainly want to see the data.

Excellent! That's the difference between deniers and skeptics: deniers will make any possible excuse to avoid looking at data. As it turns out, there are literally terabytes of data.

I will suggest starting with the Working Group 1 report, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, which summarizes what is known and how we know it. I'm most familiar with the 4th report (www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html), from 2007, but you might want to go directly to the more recent update, the 5th: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/...

From there, dive into the data from whichever source you prefer-- I'd suggest possibly the Berkeley Earth data, which does an interesting job of comparing alternative hypotheses against the temperature data: http://berkeleyearth.org/summa...

What's the old adage that Regan grabbed from the Russian's; "Trust but Verify" I think was it.

Excellent. Much better than the denier's motto: "Never trust, never verify, never look at the facts."

## Comment: The problem is broken updates (Score 1, Informative)289289

Yeah, I'm rather sympathetic with Samsung here. The actual problem is with idiotic updates that break all the stuff you've finally got fixed from the last time an update broke it.

An update should fix the stuff that's broken, not break the stuff that's fixed.

## Comment: Recognition won't pay the bills (Score 2)368368

Your model is basically saying that since the artists already did the work, "they're not losing any money or time" if somebody else gives away their music for free.

Yes, you can say that. After all, why should you ever pay any artist? They already did the work, so they aren't losing any money, right? People are merely using their work for free without paying.

Here's the problem: "recognition" doesn't pay bills. It's nice, it's flattering, it's great for the ego, and the net result is you starve. Apple's business model is that artists should be happy that Apple had decided to give their music away for free in order to promote Apple's new business, and they seem surprised that artists actually would prefer to be paid.

Here's a tip for you, for future reference in case it ever happens to you: when you're being told "you work for free, and maybe sometime later I'll pay you", no matter how good it sounds, the deal is always going to be to the advantage of the corporation getting the free work, and not necessarily for you.

Well, Apple backed down, at least a little. Good for them. Horray for Taylor Swift.

"Poor man... he was like an employee to me." -- The police commisioner on "Sledge Hammer" laments the death of his bodyguard

Working...