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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Skepticism is a Core Idea of the Scientific Method (Score 1) 545

"A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens."

That is an expected result since at the heart of the scientific method is being skeptical. So those that are more skeptical of unsubstantiated and wild claims of impending Co2 Climate Doomsday Rapture are actually following the scientific method much better than those that merely believe the science just because a scientist makes a claim.

"The results of the survey are especially remarkable as it was plainly not intended to show any such thing: Rather, the researchers and trick-cyclists who carried it out were doing so from the position that the "scientific consensus" (carbon-driven global warming is ongoing and extremely dangerous) is a settled fact, and the priority is now to find some way of getting US voters to believe in the need for urgent, immediate and massive action to reduce CO2 emissions."

Then the people who conducted the study don't actually comprehend the principles of science nor the scientific method but instead where looking for a political outcome as evidenced by their use of the notion of "consensus".

“We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.” – Richard Feynman, Cargo Cult Science

“No theory is carved in stone. Science is merciless when it comes to testing all theories over and over, at any time, in any place. Unlike religion or politics, science is ultimately decided by experiments, done repeatedly in every form. There are no sacred cows. In science, 100 authorities count for nothing. Experiment counts for everything.” – Michio Kaku, a professor of theoretical physics at City College of New York

“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” – Ernest Rutherford

“if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period. – Richard Feynman

As Mother Nature isn't obeying the AGW's supporters claims of CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture by not warming these past twelve years the hypothesis of AGW has been falsified in the objective reality of Nature.

In any event, it's nice to see that even in this study the scientific method tends to prevail over the preconceived confirmation bias of those involved.

Comment Re:What's wrong with GCC? (Score 1) 711

GCC itself.

"The development of a new front-end was started out of a need -- a need for a compiler that allows better diagnostics, better integration with IDEs, a license that is compatible with commercial products, and a nimble compiler that is easy to develop and maintain. All of these were motivations for starting work on a new front-end that could meet these needs."
http://clang.llvm.org/

Comment It's now a free for all for all file fomats! Yeah! (Score 5, Interesting) 215

Interesting that computer "the format of data files" are not copyrightable!

"the Court holds that neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression. Accordingly, they do not enjoy copyright protection."

Very interesting.

Comment As if. How about learning the Scientific Method? (Score -1) 963

Sure the CO2 increases. Sure there is Temperature increase and decrease... and a long term slight linear+cyclic upward trend since the end of the Little Ice Age... no doubt about either of those... the problem that exists is that when you correlate both they don't correlate at all. Nada. Also the temperature trend, linear+cyclic, stays the same before and after the 1950's when CO2 started increasing... exactly the same temperature trend so that is a serious problem for those promulgating CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture aka CAGW.

Also all the climate models haven't been able to predict the temperature standstill for the last 12+ years. Not one. And if you know the scientific method then you'll get the following statement:

if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” - Richard Feynman

What is missing is the actual evidence that the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere is having any significant effect at all. Sure there might be a wee bit of warming from it but so what?

Also "might", "may", "could", and other conditional words are not scientific words with any accuracy at all. Some feeding your brain mind poop from the media and doomsday claims from scientists who haven't yet produced any serious evidence that CO2 is a problem. Also learn that CO2 is an essential life giving nutrient and that we use 900 ppm to 1400 ppm of CO2 in greenhouses to grow plants bigger and faster. Plants for the most part love CO2. Biological fact. In fact a study found that from 1980 to 1999 plants grew by 6% as seen by satellites.

The amazing irony is that the extra CO2 is actually be helping green the planet.

_________

" Effect Of CO2 Emission On Global Mean Temperature

Examination of Figure 3 shows that the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly (GMTA) for 1940 of 0.13 deg C is greater than that for 1880 of –0.22 deg C. Also, the GMTA for 2000 of 0.48 deg C is greater than that for 1940 of 0.13 deg C. This means that the GMTA value, when the oscillating anomaly is at its maximum, increases in every new cycle. Is this global warming caused by human emission of CO2?

The data required to establish the effect of CO2 emission on global mean temperature already exist. The global mean temperature data are available from the Climate Research Unit of the Hadley Centre shown in Figure 3, and the CO2 emission data are available from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre [8]. *For the period from 1880 to 1940, the average emission of CO2 was about 0.8 G-ton, and the increase in the GMTA was 0.13+0.22=0.35 deg C. For the period from 1940 to 2000, the average emission of CO2 was about 4 G-ton, but the increase in GMTA was the same 0.48-0.13=0.35 deg C. This means that an increase in CO2 emission by 4/0.8=5-fold has no effect in the increase in the GMTA. This conclusively proves that the effect of 20th century human emission of CO2 on global mean temperature is nil.*

*Note that the increase in GMTA of 0.35 deg C from 1880 to 1940 (or from 1940 to 2000) in a 60 year period has a warming rate of 0.35/60=0.0058 deg per year, which is the slope of the linear anomaly given by Equation 1. As a result, the linear anomaly is not affected by CO2 emission. Obviously, as the oscillating anomaly is cyclic, it is not related to the 5-fold increase in human emission of CO2.

Figure 4, with high correlation coefficient of 0.88, shows the important result that the observed GMTA can be modeled by a combination of a linear and sinusoidal pattern given by Equation 3. This single GMTA pattern that was valid in the period from 1880 to 1940 was also valid in the period from 1940 to 2000 after about 5-fold increase in human emission of CO2. As a result, the effect of human emission of CO2 on GMTA is nil.* "
http://pathstoknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/predictions-of-gmt.pdf

Comment Re:An cue the standard reply (Score 3, Informative) 159

As I said: "SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides a display system and process whereby the geometry, rasterization, and frame buffer predominately operate on a floating point format. Vertex information associated with geometric calculations are specified in a floating point format. Attributes associated with pixels and fragments are defined in a floating point format. In particular, all color values exist as floating point format. Furthermore, certain rasterization processes are performed according to a floating point format. Specifically, the scan conversion process is now handled entirely on a floating point basis. Texturing, fog, and antialiasing all operate on floating point numbers. The texture map stores floating point texel values. The resulting data are read from, operated on, written to and stored in the frame buffer using floating point formats, thereby enabling subsequent graphics operations to be performed directly on the frame buffer data without any loss of accuracy.

Many different types of floating point formats exist and can be used to practice the present invention. However, it has been discovered that one floating point format, known as "s10e5," has been found to be particularly optimal when applied to various aspects of graphical computations. As such, it is used extensively throughout the geometric, rasterization and frame buffer processes of the present invention. To optimize the range and precision of the data in the geometry, rasterization, and frame buffer processes, this particular s10e5 floating point format imposes a 16-bit format which provides one sign bit, ten mantissa bits, and five exponent bits. In another embodiment, a 17-bit floating point format designated as "s11e5" is specified to maintain consistency and ease of use with applications that uses 12 bits of mantissa. Other formats may be used in accordance with the present invention depending on the application and the desired range and precision."

Nothing innovative about using floating point arrays for a pixel element frame buffer nor for operating on the pixels with various algorithms. Not patentable.

Comment Every language pales in comparison to no language! (Score -1) 274

G and C#, you've got to be frigging kidding, more of the same crap; faster JavaScript, same old crap. How about something innovative? How about a new paradigm where the language, it's syntax are irrelevant? How about a system without a language? How about a language that is designed to disappear? How about accessing the full power of hardware tossing out the ridiculous language virtual machines?

Having used a plethora of languages over many decades every language sucks the big one big time except for assembly language and the new language I'm developing of course. When developing a new language you pretty much need an attitude like that to get over the morass that everyone - including more likely than not, you, although I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt - throw at language and system developers.

Assembly just sucks because it's so focused on the pesky details but it does so elegantly since it's the real hardware level so it doesn't suck big time. Assembly is the most powerful language after all as it is what is really happening (baring bugs in the processor). Now you might claim that micro-code is the real hardware but who ever programs in THAT today? Oh right the CPU, GPU, ASIC and FPGA guys. Ah whatever that's hardware not a general purpose programming language.

This new language - more than a language, it's a system - has new features that will knock your socks off. Like the core ideas of Lisp, Smalltalk, Erlang, Clojure but without all the horrifying warts that make your mind do crazy mental gymnastics just to solve problems and write awesome and fast compiled safe parallel native code.

If you're like most programmers then you'll love this new language. It's got it all, the homoiconic aspects of Lisp where programs are data and data are programs; it's got the uniform message passing paradigm of Smalltalk but improved so that every operation is a message including all meta operations, thus it also has all the distributed message passing capabilities of Erlang without the cryptic functional goo that lacks even basic notions of objects; it's got Clojure beat hands down which is easy since to know Clojure is to know the nine gates of hell, it thumps Clojure by providing a different paradigm where the user doesn't have to become a cryptozologist digging through the bizarre Clojure primitives just to get on with their work; all in all, it's a huge advance. Oh, and with it's improved Full Block Closures it can do things and meta things that functional languages and Smalltalk never dreamed of.

One of the biggest benefits is that it provides a means of doing multi-core multi-node native threading in a safe parallel programming environment for the bulk of common parallel operations within one program, across multiple programs and even across distributed nodes with many programs running. It can even do so efficiently.

Every aspect of the language and it's system is written in itself including all of the execution engine which provides not only homoiconic aspects but also Mobius Loop aspects when the language and it's system evolve via generational rewriting to the next level - which is really where the message passing meta operations on all parts of the language/system come into play and shine. You can't have a language/system that evolves itself if it can't rewrite all of it's parts and just about all languages fail at that.

Oh, it's not a virtual machine since it actually uses the full power of the computer hardware it's running on with it's intimate direct native code connection to the CPU and GPU and other hardware it's running on. Virtual Machines suck big time, in part because their machinery is hidden in inaccessible primitives providing a locked in frozen in time binary; in part because byte codes are pathetic primitives. This new language provides the interactive feel of Dynamic Languages with Full Interactive Development Environments (e.g. Smalltalk like Integrated Development Environment but without the VM). Naturally it's a fully dynamic language.

The long term end goal for this language is for it to disappear utterly leaving only the system aspect being what the users interact with as a fully evolved object networked messaging system is a much more powerful means of programming than using a set of ASCII (or UNICODE) characters in a linear stream as we do now. In the future text based programming (even with a full IDE like Smalltalk's which can't be beat today) will become obsolete and this language and it's system aim to accomplish that.

Facing reality it must also connect with the horrifying existing computing operating system ecosystem (Window, Unix, *BSD, Mac, iOS, bla bla bla) so parts of the libraries deal with connecting with system calls and DLLs and shared libraries. Shivers.

So you see this language/system is the best in the world for the kinds of complex systems level programming and applications programming that I'm engaged in building - and that many of you are engaged in making but end up stuck working with C, C++, C#, Python, Ruby, Perl, Sh or Bash, or G, or Java, or JavaScript, or other goo languages.

Now maybe you're not interested in any or all of the above which is fine, you don't have to use this - not named here - in development and evolving language/system. Not all languages are for all people.

Constructive comments are always welcome. What do you need to have in your programs that you want to create?

Comment What Stops The Messages Passes Through Receiver? (Score -1) 262

If the messages pass right through everything what's stopping them at the receiver? You'd have to detect them somehow and if your receiver is a massive amount of pure water that's not going to be easy to move about. So how practical is this really? Until the receivers are tiny is this really practical? Until the transmitters are tiny is this really practical? What about line of sight? The bigger the distance the more accurate your three dimensional aiming has to be (assuming neutrinos move in a straight beam like lasers do). So if you're on Mars and someone else is on Earth while you can see where each other are you have an easier time aiming the beams at each other but when you go behind the sun Sol then you're having to rely upon calculated positions, actually you have to do that anyway to compensate for the relativistic effect of the beams traveling from Earth to Mars and back again not to mention the constantly varying orbital positions and velocities of both planets. Likely this is a very difficult problem to solve, although it seems tractable. How narrow is the beam at the receiving end? Can you spit out a wide beam (like the bat signal) rather than a laser pin point? That way you don't need to be as accurate?

Comment Re:An agenda (Score 0, Troll) 420

Well if you're a scientist you're getting the facts wrong or presenting them wrong. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is not "~9%", it's distortions like yours that make this a difficult conversation to have. In fact the CO2 concentration of the Earth's Atmosphere is 393 parts per million!!!! That's 0.0393% not ~9%.

"The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere is approximately 392 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of 2011[1] and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009. [1][2] The concentration with respect to pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm has increased roughly exponentially with a growth rate of 2.2% per year in the last decades[2] Carbon dioxide is essential to photosynthesis in plants and other photoautotrophs, and is also a prominent greenhouse gas."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

January 2012 it was 0.393% as reported here: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt.

The rise in CO2 since the 1950's has not increased temperature as shown by the Girma Analysis (posted in other comments on this thread). CO2 does not do what is claimed by alarmists in the real actual atmosphere, no where close as the failed and now falsified IPCC climate models verses actual temperatures proves conclusively.

Comment Re:Showing Warming is NOT Showing Causation of CO2 (Score 1) 420

Clearly you do no understand the scientific method.

Ones does NOT need to provide why the temperature is rising as the Null Hypothesis rules in science and the Null Hypothesis in this case is that the warming is Natural and/or unknown.

When falsifying the claims of a hypothesis all that is needed is to refute the claim, one does not have to provide an alternative explanation. In this case the central claim of CAGW is that "CO2 Drives Temperature", clearly as the Girma Analysis which compares those two sets of observational data to each other the central equation "CO2 Drives Temperature" is falsified by the observational data from Nature.

Please see this more extensive comment on Falsification of AGW on this same article thread: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2705663&cid=39231567, it goes into the Null Hypothesis and CAGW in depth.

Slashdot Top Deals

If the aborigine drafted an IQ test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it. -- Stanley Garn

Working...