Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Draft Kings (Score 2) 171

it is generally pretty likely that the implied probabilities determined by a balanced book are pretty good representations of the actual probabilities of the team success.

unless its a local team.. in which case the betting is so lopsided that balancing the action results in such extreme odds that few bettors wish to place any wagers on either side, because they are fans and wont bet against "their favorite team" no matter what the odds. these cases the local bookie gets in touch with a bookie local to the other team and they pool up the action so that the odds they need to offer arent so extreme.

Comment Re:"need"? "benefits"? (Score -1, Troll) 211

you've probably paid closer to $819.67. That's a pretty good deal for 17 years of space station.

Notice how this defender of the space station has decided to measure the benefit that the space station has given us by counting the years that it been up, rather than by counting the benefit the space station has given us.

Amazing how fucking fanboys can rationalize pretty much anything by throwing out meaningless numbers.

Comment Re:But "Hiding the Decline" is okay (Score 2) 737

I've linked to the "Basic" explanation, but there Intermediate and Advanced explanations that go into more detail.

..and nothing about your link refutes what the GP said.

In fact, your link exactly echoes what he said:

Basic: "The "decline" refers to a decline in northern tree-rings..."

What the GP brought up is that these tree rings are trusted as proxies for measuring historic temperature, but for a fact (a fact so strong that it must be 'hidden') modern tree ring growth does not correlate with modern temperature measurements..

This undermines almost all the AGW climate science because all the AGW climate science requires those tree rings to show how much cooler it was in the past.

..and to really fuck over your rationalization:

Advanced: "It actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations. This decline began in the 1960s when tree-ring proxies diverged from the temperature record."

They claim that this decline began in the 1960s, and its just coincidental that the timing correlates to when we started getting good first-hand temperature data of the entire planet via satellites.

Comment Re:Science! (Score 0) 737

You mean, right-wing bald-faced lies about Mann.

You are clearly a denier and should be investigated with RICO.

You wanted the opposition to AGW to be investigated with RICO? Well I want the climate scientists investigated with RICO.

You didnt answer the question. Where do you think this will end?

Comment Re:Free stuff (Score 1) 1291

Money has to keep moving or civilization collapses, and when you guys that turn the screws and get ALL the money keep it, it gets sucked out of the economy and stuck in the Cayman Islands or some such place.

What a bunch of shit. All you armchair economists focus on the currency and because of that you come up with insane conclusions.

The facts are that an average person will always be able to trade a day of their labor for a day of another average persons labor.

See how I took "money" out of it and destroyed your argument?

Economics is not about money. Economics is about the allocation of resources.

You probably measure wealth in money too. Sorry pal. The measure of a mans wealth is the measure of the goods as services the man enjoys, not the enumeration of his money.

Pro-tip: If your argument about economics relies on there being "money" then its a flawed argument. The degree to which it is flawed depends on the degree to which you must depart from what money represents in order to make the argument.

Your argument required the largest possible departure from what money represents. Your argument is therefore flawed to the largest possible extent.

Comment Re:uh no (Score 1) 1291

What do you propose? The death penalty for neck tattoos?

Why are you shits like this?

It is clear what he proposed as an answer to this question, yet you feign ignorance and ask the question anyways. The penalty for a neck tattoo is that you fend for yourself.

The reason that you feigned ignorance is because you dont like where this thought process is leading but dont have a good argument as to why things shouldnt lead there, but you really really really want to have such an argument. So here you are feigning ignorance and blathering on with the most extreme strawman you could muster. Your strawman is that the poster is suggesting DEATH TO NECK TATTOO OWNERS!!!!11!!11!

You are harmful to rational discourse because you arent rational and are intentionally dishonest. Yes I am saying your feigning ignorance was intentional. You are a dishonest fuck. Go fuck yourself.

Comment Re:now it needs to play other computers to impress (Score 1) 95

You quoted everything but the science stuff, and then you declare more ignorant shit that is exactly contrary to the science you refused to quote.

You are just an ignorant fuck that likes to pretend that he knows something, even when you know exactly zero.

It's unlikely we even know all the different types of neurons that exist.

There are 8 types you ignorant fuck.

Comment Re:now it needs to play other computers to impress (Score 1) 95

Thats not to say there are analogous mechanisms, in fact there *must* be one (how else to explain the elasticity of inputs).

The neurons in a brain to a large extent use some form of hebbian learning. We know this for a fact because Hebb's Rule is proven to be a good predictor of neuron activations.

Comment Re:now it needs to play other computers to impress (Score 1) 95

Why are you so certain that a neural network matches a human brain?

Maybe because a neural network, for a fact, matches the human brain.

This is well understood. What isnt well understood is the learning mechanism, but we do know for certain that it is to a large degree a timing-dependent hebbian learning process. To be quite specific, Hebb's Rule is a good predictor of neuron activation in brains. People did fucking science.

At least become casually acquainted with the subject before acting like a know-it-all. Clearly you don't know shit. What possesses people like you to act like you fucking know something when you know for certain that you don't is beyond me. Come on guy... you know you are wholly ignorant on the subject, so why are you acting like some fucking knowledgeable person about it? You do know that its wrong to do that, right? Its not just wrong, its dishonest. That makes you a dishonest fuck.

Comment Re:Gotta love neural networks! (Score 1) 95

Neural networks are anything but resource-efficient.

Compared to how a tradition chess engine searches the game tree, neural networks are extremely resource efficient.

The top engines use an algorithm called PVS() (Principle Variation Search), which is just a variant of AlphaBeta() that includes a null-window aspiration search. They do some advanced stuff such as pruning and extensions, but in the end the core of it is still AlphaBeta(). These engines still have to search through literally billions of positions on each move in order to beat the top humans.

Searching through and evaluating billions of positions vs pushing values through a neural network. One of these is inefficient, yes. You've picked the wrong one.

Comment Re:Upscaling is BS (Score 1) 117

Are you basically saying to make pixels by averaging the color of the adjacent ones?

No, he isn't.

If its surprising to you that its possible to do better prediction of the missing information between the pixels of images than various kinds of interpolations (such as bilinear (aka "averaging" for 2x), bicubic, etc..), then its because you are wholly ignorant on the subject. Amazing that you jumped in to discuss a subject that you are wholly ignorant on.

If it were purely random data then your from-ignorance consideration of the subject would have some weight, but it isn't arbitrary data. Nobody spends their time looking at images of random data. The images we capture with photographic equipment have high degrees of coherence between neighboring scales (because thats the way the universe is,) and that necessarily includes the scales just above the Nyquist frequency.

Nobody is suggesting red dwarfs "enhance!" is possible, but a bit of upscaling can be done a lot better than simple interpolations.

Comment Re:TFA: "For the first time in recorded history... (Score 2) 292

Except ships at sea. And the Cat 4 storms probably sank them before they could get the word out.

Ships at see tried really hard not to be close enough to any storm to get any sort of grasp of the wind speed within. The captain didnt say "That storm on the horizon doesn't look that bad from here. Lets sail towards it." That sort of captain gets thrown overboard.

Even today our largest military ships sail directly away from major storms.

Comment Re:Blamestorming (Score 1) 292

Last night I had a conversation with someone about kitchen knives, and then just this afternoon I had ANOTHER conversation with a different person about kitchen knives. Two conversations on kitchen knives within 24 hours! That has never happened before. Sure climate change is to blame for it.

There was a report in 1850 about a man who had a conversation about kitchen knives. Clearly we have detailed records of kitchen knife conversations going back hundreds of years!

Comment Re:Editors suck at their jobs (Score -1, Troll) 292

Bad assumption. There is storm data (and damn good data) going back to the 1850s.

Could be 2% of the storms. Could be 50% of the storms. Could be 98% of the storms.

Ok, now use your mighty math powers to compare storm frequency and intensity in 1850 with 2010.

You know what sailors did when there was a storm on the horizon in 1850? They sailed in the opposite fucking direction and sometimes outran the storm, and if they couldnt outrun the storm and it actually was a hurricane they fucking died right there in the ocean.

You know what sailors do today when there is a storm on the horizon in 2015? They still sail the opposite fucking direction.

No you ignorant twat, there really isnt fucking records. Scientists admit it. Why wont you?

Be careful when a loop exits to the same place from side and bottom.