Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:That's not how science works (Score 1) 59

by radtea (#47770111) Attached to: Underground Experiment Confirms Fusion Powers the Sun

Nothing has been proven.


Science is the discipline of publicly testing ideas by systematic observation, controlled experiment and Bayesian inference. As such, proof is simply not relevant to what it does, which is produce knowledge. Knowledge--unlike faith--is inherently uncertain.

It'll take a few hundred years for the popular science press to catch up to this. What is being presented here is evidence that the idea p-p fusion powers the sun is correct, so the posterior pluasibility of that idea goes up, although not to 1 (which would be a certainty, and therefore an error: an idea that was immune to additional evidence.)

If neutrinos had not been detected, the plausibility would have gone down, although not to 0 because that would be the same error. Science never disproves anything any more than it proves anything. Proof and certainty are like the philosopher's stone sought by alchemists: a fundamentally mistaken goal.

Philosophers are the alchemists of epistemology, discovering all kinds of cool things while on a hiding to no-where.

Comment: Re:And this is how we get to the more concrete har (Score 1) 421

by radtea (#47770041) Attached to: Limiting the Teaching of the Scientific Process In Ohio

I think you'll find that the utility of falsification is established philosophically, not by observational fiat.

But falsification is at best marginally relevant to science, which is the discipline (not method) of publicly testing ideas by systematic observation, controlled experiment and Bayesian inference.

Falsification simply never comes into it, outside of outlandishly models of science promoted by ignorant philosophers. Promoters of "scientific method" and falsification are almost never scientists, and most scientists will quietly ridicule the ideas if you give them a couple of beer.

Bayesian logic is established by mathematical deduction using an argument from invariance of a kind that originated within mathematical physics (Einstein's arguments for relatively are the most famous of the kind).

Philosophers don't even have the right goal--they are always running after "certainty", which we now know to be a epistemic error. Knowledge is not certain and cannot be certain, because only Bayesian reasoning can produce knowledge, and Bayesian reasoning is not capable of producing a posterior plausibility of 1 or 0 (ie certainty).

Comment: Re:Statistics as standalone field (Score 1) 103

by radtea (#47769923) Attached to: Statistics Losing Ground To CS, Losing Image Among Students

If your view that "everyone is complete shit at statistics", that should include statisticians.

This has been my experience as well. I would go so far as to say that statisticians understand probability less well than most working experimental scientists. They are overly-enamoured of abstract models and rarely dig down to the raw probability distributions underneath, which is what working scientists actually care about.

Comment: Re: Not the PSUs? The actual cables? (Score 1) 123

by TechyImmigrant (#47767131) Attached to: HP Recalls 6 Million Power Cables Over Fire Hazard

"Pakis..." I suppose you must be from Great Britain, probably one of those "old school tie" types who think those savages should still be all under the Queen's boot.

Yes i'm from Great Britain, but what I think I that the colonials should be using 220-240V, not 110-120V. Since P=i^2*r and i is proportional to v, resistive power loss in the cable the cable would be cut to 1/4 of what it is today, greatly reducing the risk of excess heat in skinny power cables.

Comment: Re:What's so American (Score 3, Insightful) 489

And Marxism fails because it view labor as something nobody really wants to do ...

That is the exact opposite of how Marx viewed labour. For Marx, labour was the very essence of self-expression.

Indeed, it was Ayn Rand who viewed labor as something only a very small number of heroic, good-looking, and rich people wanted to do. Her theory was that the rest of humanity needs to be threatened with starvation or they would only steal from their betters.

Comment: Re:Strange software design (Score 1) 192

by TechyImmigrant (#47757395) Attached to: $75K Prosthetic Arm Is Bricked When Paired iPod Is Stolen

Apple doesn't allow access to UDIDs (universal device identifiers) anymore, so unless the software is quite old, or requires a jailbroken device, the prosthesis cannot be paired to the device. (That's one of the reason why you can't access the UDID anymore, because pairing information with a device is stupid; the bigger reason is privacy).

The prosthesis can easily be paired to an AppleID plus an application specific ID. However, all information about this would be stored on the device, backed up to iTunes, and could be restored by just buying a new phone, entering the AppleID and password, and downloading the last backup.

If that doesn't work, then these guys must have some really strange and stupid software design + implementation.

Any app writer can include their own magic number in the instance on the device and use that for pairing.

Comment: Re:In other news... (Score 4, Insightful) 216

Solar cells on every house is great as long as there is local storage in every house too.

Wind power is great as long as there is good power distribution infrastructure: It's always blowing somewhere.

Nuclear power is great as long as you address operational safety and waste storage, both of which are addressable if you do engineering rather than politics. Part of that is again, good infrastructure so you can build the nukes in good places for nukes.

It's easy to point at any single generation or harvesting technology and identify it's flaws as a sole solution. However there are many technologies and combined together they form a robust and comparatively clean solutions.


Comment: ACT Tests (Score 1) 175

If there was any data to suggest the ACT tests are statistically valid (they test the thing you think they test) or reliable (they would get the same result if you tested again) then the correlation may be a clue to something. However when the underlying test is neither valid nor reliable, the correlation it shows doesn't even show you there is correlation.

Comment: Re:Why focus on the desktop? (Score 1) 723

by TechyImmigrant (#47731061) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: 'I Still Want the Desktop'

Layout tools, Schematic capture, logic simulators, analog and mixed signal simulators, P&R, floorplanning etc, etc.
The all have a GUI that needs to be used.

What's notable is that with all these tools, the specific ones I use in the company I work for making big-ass chips, precisely none of them work on a windows desktop. You either run them locally or remotely on a Linux desktop. As time goes on they tend to drop support for older unixes. I don't know anyone who runs these on anything except Linux these days and windows is just a platform to run X or VNC to get to the desktop of the Linux box running the tools.

Comment: Re:Wait (Score 2) 432

by tbannist (#47729095) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

What I and most of the "deniers" questioned falls into 2 categories.

Actually, no. You're falling for the false-consensus effect. There are a whole lot of different "denier" opinions, but yours is not one of them. You are making false cause with people who actually think that you're a deluded global warming apologist. The people who are correctly labelled as deniers are those who actually deny that global warming is happening. Generally, they deny that the greenhouse effect exists, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or they deny that man is producing significant amounts of CO2.

The people, like you, who claim that the models are overstating future warming and that unchecked global warming won't dangerous are luke-warmers, not deniers.

Most of the models Ive read about show that human activity is only a tiny sliver compared to other factors, especially water vapor from evaporation.

Let me explain a bit here. Water vapor is effectively constantly at saturation in the atmosphere, evaporation and precipitation keep it relatively well balanced. The major factor that determines how much water vapor is in the atmosphere is temperature. So, it's a feedback effect, water vapor amplifies the warming caused by other factors such as CO2 and Milankovitch cycles. Additionally, CO2 gets the lion's share of attention because it's a long lasting gas and we produce a lot of it. It will likely take centuries for CO2 levels to fall back to pre-industrial levels even if we cut emissions to zero right now. Other, more potent gases, tend to have half-lifes that are measured in years instead of decades or centuries and we produce orders of magnitude smallers amounts of them. So while CO2 is a relatively weak greenhouse gas, we produce a lot of it and some of the other gases, like water vapor, amplify it's effect.

Comment: Re:What you're religion does (Score 1) 432

by tbannist (#47728843) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

There's this thing called the internet. Perhaps, you've heard of it? It would be quite easy for all these supposed scientists who supposedly are being censored to form their own website (or journal even) and publish the papers that are supposedly being censored.

Of course, that actually has been attempted a couple of times, but on every occurence that I know of, it turned out the papers were rejected because the paper was fundamentally flawed, not because of the claimed political oppression. It turns out scientific journals want you to use facts, logic, and math. Who knew, right?

It's so much easier to claim that you're being oppressed than to admit you wasted months because you made some basic math errors.

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 1) 432

by tbannist (#47728611) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

You're not in much of a position to be presuming to know what I think.

You've written multiple long-winded posts about how the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist. Are you recanting those statements?

If so, then we should congratulate you and you win this one, if not, then's he right and you lose.

Why did the Roman Empire collapse? What is the Latin for office automation?