Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:The "pause" has been mighty convinient (Score 1) 225

Why do you think climate scientists predict the price of milk or gas? You're confusing disciplines here. (Or, more likely, you listen to the news for your predictions. Here's a hint: only the crazies make the news. The guys doing the real work seldom do.)

Comment Re:That would be... (Score 1) 254

Double-blind experiments are not an integral part of science. Do you think Alain Aspect blindfolded himself when he shot photons through a tube? Did Einstein, Newton, Bohr, Dijkstra, Turing, von Neumann, Darwin, Wallace, Knuth, Dirac, Schrodinger, etc, etc, etc. Yes, double-blind experiments have been developed for doing research on human subjects to avoid influencing the subjects. Is it an integral part of science? It's a part, that's for sure. Integral? Hell no.

Comment Re:Yes, you've increased the precision (Score 1) 89

Although technically what you state is true (closer to perfect leads to further out predictions), there is a catch here. The rate between increases in precision and increases in accuracy is itself non-linear. Non-linear dynamical systems are governed by things called Lyapunov exponents. These define the relationship between the precision of your measurement and the accuracy of your prediction over time. Unfortunately, in the case of Earth's atmospheres the Lyapunov exponents are such that you would need an exponential increase in precision to reach linear increase in accuracy. That's what defines a chaotic system. This gives a limit on how far you can predict in the future, as at some point, you hit Planck lengths for your measurements, and you would need to increase precision in the quantum world, which is considered to be impossible as modeled by Heisenberg's inequality. The exponential nature of the relationship makes this happen sooner than you would like.

I'm not sure where that boundary exactly lies in the case of Earth's atmosphere, but it can very well be that a ten-fold increase in precision leads to a 1.1 increase in accuracy, with another ten fold increase in precision adding just 1.01 (just making the numbers up). This issue of exponentially diminishing returns is well-known in the weather modeling world, so they typically use ensemble models. Instead of running one simulation and trying to increase the precision of that one, they run a few hundred with random perturbances of the initial conditions. This gives a good overview of what the future could bring. I think that's a more principled way to use computational resources than increasing precision of a single model (though, if the payoff in accuracy is good enough for the ensemble, it might be worth it).

Comment Re:Yes (Score 2) 688

Under the "individual rights" interpretation of the second amendment, yes it does. Also tactical nukes, being necessary to the security of a free State, should be available to the citizenry. ICBM's? ditto. Feeling uncomfortable with your neighbour having a small nuke in his backyard, fully available to his 9 year old kid with an attitude? Tough luck. Security of a free State FTW.

Comment Re:Truck Stops, Gas Stations, etc (Score 1) 904

You might want to read up on some 19th century technology where the problem was figured out. Replace horses with driverless trucks, and realize that it's the cargo that matters, not the horse.

But granted, I shifted goalposts from changing batteries to changing whole trucks. Same principle though. Issues around aging and quality are the same for horses as for trucks/batteries though.

Comment Re:..inconvenient, gas-powered jalopy" (Score 1) 904

In a real car(riage), when the horse gets tired, I can get to the horse station and get a fresh horse in a few minutes, and I can continue my trip. These new-fangled "auto"-mobiles need to bring all their fuel along. Less range, noisy, and much more cumbersome. It's just a fad for rich people.

Comment Re:Truck Stops, Gas Stations, etc (Score 1) 904

Or, even simpler, use the age-old technique of "changing horses', or, in this case "changing batteries". At the appropriate station get the batteries replaced by charged ones in a few minutes and off you go again. Would also give a new purpose for gasoline stations and would even allow some local electricity generation to be efficiently used. And besides, why does a driver-less truck need to wait for food?

After any salary raise, you will have less money at the end of the month than you did before.