Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:It produces performance like C++ (Score 4, Insightful) 217

by ralphbecket (#46655603) Attached to: .NET Native Compilation Preview Released

"After all, the chief advantages of C# isn't really C#, but the .NET libraries."

You can't be serious! C is *substantially* lower-level than C#; you should only use C as a portable assembly language. I've spent decades writing assembly, C, and higher level languages and I'd pick C# over C in an eyeblink for anything that doesn't require access to the bare metal (well, personally I'd pick a functional language, but these days I work in industry...)

Comment: Re: Impossible! (Score 1) 182

by ralphbecket (#45409311) Attached to: Weak Statistical Standards Implicated In Scientific Irreproducibility

Climate models are currently, at best, when treated as an ensemble (if you buy that as legitimate), skirting along the p 0.05 level of significance in the validation period.

Pointing this out is considered trolling -- it probably offends some religious sensibilities.

Tightening the threshold as the article suggests would mean the model results are not "significant" (i.e., not reasonably distinguishable from natural variation -- note that I am not a "denier" and that I do accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas etc. etc.; I am however hugely skeptical of most climate and environmental science that I have investigated).

Comment: Re:the difference (Score 2, Insightful) 473

by ralphbecket (#44945209) Attached to: Popular Science Is Getting Rid of Comments

Let me precis this argument:

(1) The moderation scheme here essentially filters out postings that disagree with the "group-think."

(2) Commenters here are "unusually intelligent" and they define the group-think.

(3) Therefore if you disagree with the group-think, you are probably not "unusually intelligent" (and hence your opinion is probably not worthy of consideration; you belong with the trolls and drunkards).

The problem is step (2), which is a lot of self-serving bollocks. I think the suggestion that Slashdot moderation fosters group-think is on the money.

Comment: Re: Wrong objective. (Score 4, Insightful) 115

by ralphbecket (#44945131) Attached to: Mozilla Plan Seeks To Debug Scientific Code

I have to disagree. Before I go to a heap of effort reproducing your experiment, I want to check that the analysis you ran was the one you described in your paper. After I've convinced myself that you haven't made a mistake here, I may then go and try your experiment on new data, hopefully thereby confirming or invalidating your claims. Indeed, by giving me access to your code you can't then claim that I have misunderstood you if I do obtain an invalidating result.

Comment: Entrenched positions (Score 1, Interesting) 530

by ralphbecket (#44701865) Attached to: How Human Psychology Holds Back Climate Change Action

This is the kind of suggestion that can only appeal to those with an entrenched position.

In reality, there are at least the following explanations:

1. Those who disagree on action find the argument wanting.

2. Those who disagree on action find the evidence wanting.

3. Those who disagree on action find the remedial policy wanting.

4. Those who disagree on action have some psychological problem.

If you are pro-action and adopt position number 4 then you're essentially acknowledging that your argument isn't compelling (which is also when people stoop to nonsense appeals to consensus, appeals to authority, and so forth). To quote Thomas Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."

Old programmers never die, they just branch to a new address.

Working...